HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-06-1997 - 8h 1
1
ORANGECOUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 6, 1997
Action Agenda
Item# 8-
SUBJECT: University Manor Phase III-Preliminary Plan
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes_x—No
BUDGET AMENDMENT Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Resolution of Approval . Mary Willis
Concept Plan(sketch) Extension 2583
Comments from Recreation and Parks.-Director TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Recommendations from Traffic Impact Study Hillsborough 732-8181
DEH Approval of Well Site Durham 688-7331
Fiscal Impact Analyses Mebane 227-2031
7/30/97 Planning Board Minutes(draft) Chapel Hill 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for University Manor Subdivision Phase III.
BACKGROUND: CONCEPT PLAN
On May 20, 1996 the Planning Board approved a four-phase
revised/consolidated Concept Plan for 595 acres in the Stoney Creek Basin, in
the vicinity of NC 10, New Hope Church Road and University Station Road.
The Concept Plan, known as University Manor, replaced six previously-
approved Concept Plans. The previous Concept Plans were consolidated
because a single developer, Sanford Bailey,was interested in the entire area.
The consolidated Concept Plan included a total of 281 residential lots, a 30-
acre park site to be dedicated to Orange County, and 167 acres of open space.
The total area encompassed by the Concept Plan, including the park site, is
595 acres. The overall density of development is one dwelling unit per 2.12
acres.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
Phase I (99 acres, 47 lots) received Preliminary Plan approval on December
19, 1995. Phase I is generally bounded by NC 10, New Hope Church Road
and Stoney Creek. A Final Plat has been recorded for 9 lots in Phase I. A
2 '
Final Plat for the remainder of Phase I is expected to be submitted by mid-
September,pending completion of road improvements.
Phase II received Preliminary Plan approval on November 19, 1996. Phase II
contains 118 acres and is located south of Rigsbee Road, west of University
Station Road and the Southern Railroad. It included 61 residential lots, and
two open space lots totaling 7.9 acres. A Final Plat application has not been
submitted.
Phase III contains 185 acres is generally located northwest of Rigsbee Road,
south of NC 10, and east of Stoney Creek. It includes all of lot 47 of Tax Map
26, in Eno Township. Seventy-two residential lots are proposed. Two open
space lots totaling 67 acres are to be owned by the homeowners association.
About 34 acres of the open space is proposed to be subject to a conservation
easement dedicated to Orange County. Three community well sites are
located in the remaining portion of the open space.
The zoning district is R-1 Rural Residential and Lower Eno Protected
Watershed.. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential.
Discussion of concerns related to the proposed subdivision is provided in the
attached report by the Planning Staff dated August 20, 1997 and entitled
"Impacts and Issues- University Manor Subdivision Phase III".
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Board considered the Preliminary Plan for University Manor
Phase III on July 30, 1997 and recommended approval. The vote was
unanimous.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for
University Manor Phase III per the attached Resolution of Approval.
3
IMPACTS AND ISSUES
UNIVERSITY MANOR SUBDIVISION, PHASE III
Prepared by Orange County Planning Department
August 20, 1997
STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN
The property is located within the Lower Intensity Development Area of the Stoney Creek Basin Small
Area Plan. The lower intensity development area is described in the Plan as an area which"best typifies
the area's remaining rural character and is proposed to have the lowest average development densities in
the future."
A Stoney Creek Basin (SCB) Overlay District applies to the Plan area. Permitted density is the same as
that allowed in the underlying zoning district, which is R-1 for all phases of University Manor. Within
the SCB Overlay District, some variations of the flexible development regulations apply. The
variations, specified in Article 6.30.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, involve the calculation of open space,the
number and location of bonus units; and the use of the village option. Whether or not the subdivider
builds a conventional subdivision or a flexible development remains optional. Since the University
Manor Concept Plan was approved before adoption of flexible development regulations, compliance
with Article 6.30 is not required.
The open space proposed for all phases of University Manor totals 197 acres, or 33.1% of the project
area. By comparison, Flexible Development regulations as applied in the SCB lower intensity
development area, would require 33% open space, but area used for active recreation would not be
included in the calculations. If the park site,which is to be dedicated to Orange County, were eliminated
from the project area calculation,then the open space area would encompass 30%of the project area.
WATERSHED PROTECTION
Phase III is located in the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. An impervious surface limit of 36% is
applicable. Stream buffers are required along Stoney Creek and along a tributary flowing along the
eastern property line,as shown on the Preliminary Plan.
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
The Preliminary Plan indicates easements affecting lots 2,3,16, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 53 and 55. The
Resolution of Approval requires that the drainage easements be 30 feet in width. Additional drainage
easements may be required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
Individual on-site septic systems are proposed. Environmental Health has indicated that each of the
proposed lots contains soils suitable for septic disposal.
4
WATER SUPPLY
A community water system is being developed. Four wells have been drilled. The first well was put
into service on April 14, 1997. Three additional well sites are shown in Phase III. The status of the
community well system is included as an attachment in this agenda packet. All of the wells are located
within common open space area to be owned by the homeowners association. The number of well
which will actually be needed to served the development will not exceed the number approved with the
Preliminary Plans. However, depending on the yield of each new well, use of all of the designated well
sites may not be necessary.
Community wells are regulated by the Public Water Supply Section of the NC Division of
Environmental Health (DEH), which administers the NC "Rules Governing Public Water Systems".
These rules include regulations pertaining to both surface water and groundwater withdrawals, and apply
to all public water systems (e.g. Town of Hillsborough and OWASA), and to all community water
systems with 15 or more connections.
1. Procedural Requirements
Community wells must be operated by a private operator certified by the North Carolina Water
Treatment Facility Certification Board. Below are State and local procedural requirements.
a) Prior to Preliminary Plan Approval
• Well sites must be approved by DEH, and a utility plan for the proposed storage and
distribution system must be prepared. Documentation from DEH indicating approval
of the well sites is attached. The Utility Plan has been provided to the Board of
Commissioners as an enclosure with this agenda packet.
b) Prior to Final Plan Approval
• The well must be drilled. Environmental Health inspects and approves the well
construction.
• After the wells are drilled, the water must be tested. DEH criteria relating to water
quality and quantity must be met. Requirements pertaining to water quality include
disinfection, bacteriological testing and chemical analysis. With respect to water
quantity,the combined yield of the well to be included in the system during a 12-hour
period must equal at least 400 gallons per connection. The two wells must produce at
least 18,800 gallons in 12 hours for the proposed subdivision.
• If the well passes water quality and quantity tests, DEH must approve the
engineering plans for the water distribution and storage system.
• As required in the attached Resolution of Approval, the water system must be
constructed prior to Final Plat approval.
5
C) Documents Recorded With Final Plat
Easements for the area within 100 feet of each well and for access to the storage and
distribution system must be granted to the private utility company.
2. Alternatives in the Event of Community Well Failure
A major concern which was expressed during the approval process for Phases I and II was the
provision of water in the event of a community well failure in the future. There are several
means by which that situation could be addressed.
• The Resolution of Approval requires that the private utility would be granted the right to drill
replacement community wells in the common open space, in the event of a failure. This
requirement was included in the Resolutions of Approval for Phases I and II, and is included
in the attached Resolution proposed for Phase III. Because changes in rock strata affect
water supply, a replacement well located only a short distance from the failing well may
provide an adequate safe yield
• Another option would be for individual wells to be drilled on the individual lots. Placement
of a well and septic system in compliance with setback and separation requirements is
generally possible on lots one acre or more in size, but depends in part on the specific
location of the residence.
• In the unlikely event that replacement community wells or individual wells were not found to
be adequate, public water lines could be extended in accordance with the Water and Sewer
Policy, which permits such extensions to serve emergency situations.
ROAD ACCESS
Beverstone Drive intersects with the south side of Rigsbee Road about 400 feet west of University
Station Road in Phase II and provides the main access through Phases II and III. With Phase III,
connection to NC 10 will be provided. The portion of Beverstone Drive in Phase II also intersects with
the western end of Rigsbee Road,providing an additional means of access into the development.
Rigsbee Road is an existing State-maintained gravel road about .4 mile in length which begins at the
west side of University Station Road and dead-ends at the northeast boundary of Phase II just south of
Phase III. According to the current priority list, the paving of Rigsbee Road by the NC Department of
Transportation(NCDOT)is anticipated during fiscal year 1998-99.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
A Traffic Impact Study may be required for Preliminary Plans which include 80 or more lots. A Traffic
Impact Study for the entire development was required with the submittal of Phase II. Summary
recommendations of the study are attached.
The traffic impact study recommendations include left turn lanes in the following locations: NC 10, at
University Station Road, Beverstone Drive,New Hope Church Road and Old NC 86, and on New Hope
f
6
Church Road, at NC 10 and Chilmark Circle (Phase I). The Planning Staff(Transportation Planner)
recommended that left turn lanes also be provided on University Station Road at Rigsbee Road, and on
New Hope Church Road at Westcott Court(Phase I).
Phase I northbound New Hope Church Road at Chilmark Circle
northbound New Hope Church Road at Westcott Court
Phase II northbound University Station Road at Rigsbee Road
Phase III northbound New Hope Church Road at NC 10
eastbound NC 10 at University Station Road
westbound NC 10 at University Station Road
eastbound NC 10 at Beverstone Drive
Phase IV eastbound NC 10 at new subdivision roads.
The Phase III turn lanes listed above are included in the attached Resolution of Approval. Construction
of all of the turn lanes is required prior to the construction of the improvements for Phase III in order to
facilitate better traffic movement during.construction.
It was also recommended by the Orange County Transportation Planner that provision be made for
pedestrian and bicycle access on the main collector (Beverstone Drive) through Phases II and III. This
recommendation is included in the attached Resolution of Approval, as a requirement that such access be
incorporated into the design of Beverstone Drive.
OPEN SPACE
Phase I included 23.3 acres of open space, including 8.7 acres in the floodplain of Stoney Creek. A
conservation easement was dedicated to Orange County for the portion of the open space in the
floodplain. All of the open space is owned by the Homeowners Association.
Phase II included 7.9 acres of open space. The open space area is contained in two separate areas each
of which contains a community well site. Phase II did not contain any of the wetland or floodplain areas
associated with Stoney Creek.
Phase III contains 67.0 acres of open space.
• 33.6 acres of the open space are located in the northwest corner of Phase III and includes area on
both sides of Stoney Creek. A conservation easement to Orange County is proposed for the portion
of the open space on the west side of Stoney Creek. The conservation easement includes area in the
floodplain as well as additional area bounded by the floodplain, NC 10 and the eastern boundary of
the Phase I conservation easement.
• The remaining 33.4 acres are located along the Duke Power easement, the eastern boundary of
Phase II, and in the vicinity of the Craig Manor ruins. Three potential community well sites are
located in the open space area.
. 7
PARKLAND DEDICATION
The Recreation and Parks Master Plan calls for a community park in the vicinity of the project area. The
Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) indicated general support for the potential dedication of
parkland in the area provided that it contain at least 25 "high and dry" acres.
Dedication of a 30-acre park site on the north side of NC 10 at New Hope Church Road was included in
the consolidated Concept Plan approved by the Planning Board on May 20, 1996. The proposed park
site is bounded on the north by the Southern Railroad and on the south by NC 10. The depth of the lot
ranges from 200 to 800 feet. The Southern Railroad track is located about 100 feet from the boundary
of the site, within a 200-foot right-of-way. A subdivision road which provides access to eight lots
between the railroad and Stoney Creek forms the eastern boundary of the park site, and could be used for
access. To the east of the subdivision road is floodplain and wetland area associated with Stoney Creek.
The attached letter from the Recreation and Parks Director indicates that the site could be developed
with all amenities suggested for the University Station Area Community Park in the Master Recreation
and Parks Plan.
Dedication of the park site more that satisfies all dedication or payment-in-lieu requirements for the
entire area included in the Concept Plan, as indicated in the tables below
MINIMUM PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIRED FOR UNIVERSITY MANOR
Minimum Dedication
Land Type Acres Percent of area No. lots Required
(based on
% area) per lot No.
acres
Floodplain, and 96 16.2 46 1/20 ac 2.3
Slopes> 15%
Other 499 83.8 235 1/57 ac 4.1
TOTAL 595 100 281 6.4
MINIMUM PAYMENT=IMMU OF DEDICATION
No. Lots Payment per Lot Total Payment
281 $422 $118, 582
COMBINATION DEDICATION/PAYMENT
6.4 acres X$10,000 credit per acre= $64,000
Credit for dedication of minimum required area is less than payment-in-lieu requirement. and
payment of the difference ($54,582) would be required.
30 acres X$10,000 credit per acre=$300,000
Credit for dedication of 30-acre site exceeds the payment-in-lieu requirement and no additional
payment is required.
8
Twelve acres of the park site will be dedicated with the Final Plat for Phase II, and will satisfy
dedication or payment-in-lieu requirements for both Phase I and Phase II. Of the remaining 18 acres a
pro-rated minimum of eight acres is proposed to be dedicated with the Final Plat for Phase III. The
remaining 12 acres.-would be dedicated with Phase IV. The Recreation and Parks Advisory County
(RPAC) recommended acceptance of the offer to dedicate the park site on a pro-rated basis. (See
attached memorandum from Bob Jones, Recreation and Parks Director.).
One of the Commissioners Goals for the 98-98 fiscal year is revise the Master Recreation and Parks
Plans to create a joint capital facilities plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough.
A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 1998. The park site to be dedicated with University
Manor will be included in the inventory of existing parkland.
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Two fiscal impact analyses are included in the attachments. The first analysis is for Phase III alone, and
indicated a positive net fiscal impact on County Government of $99,852 in the anticipated year of
buildout(2002). The second analysis is cumulative for Phases I through III, and indicated a positive net
fiscal impact of $265,107 in the year 2002. In addition, school impact fees, to be collected upon the
development of each lot in Phase III will total $54,000 ($210,750 for entire development).
9
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date October 6. 1997
Name of Subdivision University Manor Phase III
Owner/Applicant Sanford Bailey
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the University Manor Phase III Preliminary Plan, dated
July 11, 1997 and containing 72 residential lots, subject to the fulfillment of requirements specified herein.
All roads 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
Beverstone Drive, Thorborough Drive, Witterham Court, West Witterham Drive, East Witterham Drive,
Whitechapel Court, Tiverton Woods Court, Thorton Green Court and Tetteridge Court, as shown on the
Preliminary Plan. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of these roads 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 any phase of University Manor Phase III can be recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal and Water Supply
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.
3. Final documents granting easement rights for the operation and maintenance of the community
water system by a private utility company shall be submitted to and approved by the County
Attorney.
4. Construction plans for the community water system shall be approved by the NC Division of
Environmental Health and the Public Water and Sewer Branch of the NC Division of
Environmental Health.
10
5. The community water system shall be constructed and the final construction approved by the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Health.
B. Roads and Access
1. Thorborough Drive, Witterham Court, West Witterham Drive, East Witterham Drive,
Whitechapel Court, Tiverton Woods Court, Thorton Green Court and Tetteridge Court shall be
constructed to local roadway 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.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement shall be submitted to secure construction of Thorborough
Drive, Witterham Court, West Witterham Drive, East Witterham Drive, Whitechapel Court,
Tiverton Woods Court, Thorton Green Court and Tetteridge 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. Beverstone Drive shall be constructed to collector roadway standards of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation,within a 50-foot right-of-way, and shall include provision for
pedestrian and bicycle access. The construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement shall be submitted to secure construction of Beverstone
Drive to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Beverstone Drive
shall also include provision for pedestrian and bicycle access. 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.
3. The intersection of NC 10 and Beverstone Drive shall be designed to accommodate a left turn
lane on westbound NC 10 to the satisfaction of the NCDOT, and construction of the turn lane
shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT prior to construction of subdivision roads.
11
4. The intersection of University Station Road and NC 10 shall be designed to accommodate left
turn lanes on westbound and eastbound NC 10 to the satisfaction of the NCDOT, and
construction of the turn lanes shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
5. The intersection of New Hope Church Road and NC 10 shall be designed to accommodate left
turn lanes on westbound NC 10 and northbound New Hope Church Road to the satisfaction of
the NCDOT, and construction of the turn lanes shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
6. At all intersections,the adjoining roads must have at least 75 feet of 90-degree tangent length
before a curve.
7. At all intersections,right-of-way must be dedicated for standard 10' x 70' sight triangles.
8. At all intersections, road design shall include a 50' taper as required by NCDOT.
9. The waterline for the community water system must be located on the edge of the road right-of-
way or in a separate easement outside of the road right-of-way.
10. 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.
11. All lots shall access onto the new subdivision roads. This restriction shall be stated in a
document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff
and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
12. 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.
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.
OR
The applicant shall secure landscape requirement installation and preservation through a letter of
credit or escrow agreement. An estimate of the cost for required preservation,plantings and
their installation must be provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110%of the estimate
and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina.
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.
12 .
3. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Beverstone Drive and NC 10. 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. Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and described
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 may not exceed 36%of the area within the subdivision. These provisions
shall be specified in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be
prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
2. Stormwater detention/retention sites/undisturbed areas for infiltration shown on the approved
Stormwater Management Plan shall be labeled on the Final Plat. Use restrictions or other
conditions shall be specified in a document describing developmentxestrictions and requirements
to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the�Final Plat.
3. Provide 30-foot drainage easements on lots 2,3, 16, 37, 38,39,40,42, 53 and 55, as shown on
the Preliminary Plan. Additional drainage easements may bearequired following review and
approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
4. Stream buffers as required by Article 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinan&shall be provided adjacent to
the floodplain along Stoney Creek and its tributaries, as shown on the Preliminary Plan.
Development restrictions within the buffers shall be specified in a document describing
development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat.
E. Parkland/Open Space
1. Final documents, including plat, conveying a minimum of 8 acres of the 30-acre park site on the
north side of NC 10 at New Hope Church Road, as shown on the Parkland Dedication inset of
the Preliminary Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney, and shall be
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat for Phase III.
2. The entirety of the open space within Phase III shall be owned by the homeowners association
for recreation/open space use by residents of the subdivision. The deed shall be submitted to and
approved by the County Attorney.
3. The right to drill replacement wells and construct water lines within the common open space
shall be granted to the utility company, in the event of failure of the initial well system.
4. Final documents granting a conservation easement to Orange County for the permanent
protection of the floodplain on the west side of Stoney Creek shall be submitted to and approved
by the County Attorney. This requirement is not agreement on the part of Orange County to
accept a conservation easement grant to it. The form and substance of any conservation
easement grant to Orange County must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
13
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. Structures located on lots 7,8,10 and 11, as shown on the preliminary plan, shall be removed or
demolished.
3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat:
a. Well and waterline easements dedicated to private utility company.
b. Drainage easements on lots 2, 3, 16, 37, 38, 39, 40,42, 53 and 55, as shown on the
Preliminary Plan, as well as other locations which may be required following review and
approval of the Erosion Control Plan.
C. Duke Power transmission line easement.
4. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way of NC 10,
Beverstone Drive, Thorborough Drive, Witterham Court, West Witterham Drive, East Witterham
Drive, Whitechapel Court, Tiverton Woods Court,Thorton Green Court and Tetteridge Court
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
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 Department of Environmental Health shall certify that each lot contains a suitable area for
septic disposal.
4. Prior to construction of Beverstone Drive, Thorborough Drive, Witterham Court, West
Witterham Drive,East Witterham Drive, Whitechapel Court, Tiverton Woods Court, Thorton
Green Court and Tetteridge Court,the North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify
that the left turn lane as required in condition B3 above has been constructed to State standards.
5. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Beverstone Drive,
Thorborough Drive, Witterham Court, West Witterham Drive,East Witterham Drive,
14
Whitechapel Court,Tiverton Woods Court, Thorton Green Court and Tetteridge Court have been
constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been approved.
6. 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.
15
E9ENE
Col
6170
PAC
0
ti
I
It i
I Ra
OIL
uj
U.S.T,Q A 70 E.
T
tam
OA.
RALYAW
Ab.
A
VA
16
C a+
cd e
96. a
Cj QJ Y O A
> C�
. M
O
I'44
1
tl.
+ w
3•, r
w
17
ne-
4
:.
IVis i - li/ �.N.,•,
LUa
W
a
Q `
Nor+„to
CL
e `
,
01
�I 1W3+SA NoXIN
.d 8gr's Ise 616 -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 18
Raleigh Regbnal OMce A&
L �Al
IQQ=
icwnw IL`IL � MEHNR.
JorKdhw DIVISION OF ENVIRONMZNTAL HRALTH
July 11, 1997
W.Sanford Bailey
Coatsworth Dawns Utififow Inc.
Post Office Boot 99412
Raleigh,North Carobs 27624
RE: btvestigrstion of Throe Well Sites
University Manor Phase Three
Well Sites 5,6,std 7
Orange County
Dear bk.Dn'lsy:
This letter will cw&m=my investigo tan of three well sites to serve the rdrreaoed public
water ayate�.
WA An 415,46.awl P,as located on the revised Pit Provided by Bate.Niixoa.and
Kermedy,I=,dated May 6, 1996, and are!lusher described as follows:
Wei!site*5 is located at Latitude 36 00133.34"North and Longitude 079°02'56.19"
Weer. The ails bead=is west of Lot 057 and east of property boundary owned by Reid It
Barbee,adjaoettt to Bw4wgone Drive and Whita Chapel Court.
Weft site 06 is located at Latitude 36 001'29.07'North end Lostude 079'02'59.40"
West. The site location is north of Lot 62A,wear of Deverstone Drive,and south of Lot 057.
Wolf site N7 is bated at Latitude 36'01'29.78"North acrd Loo uW*079°03'08.29"
West. The site location a south of Lot#71 in Wkterham Court,and north of Lot 419 and
Property boundary owned by Wallace and Eleanor Draugbn.
The Division of Eavii am ,w W Health approves the well sites as nxp*W by Section.0203
oftbe T"rtte 13A.Noah Carolina Administrative Code,
Subebaplw I8C iitbe fonowing coed cons am observed:
1. At the tune of plan and Rwafimion submittal the system owner must
provide proof of owmaabip or control of the well site for the area witlsiu s
100-foot reran of the well but
3800 So of!0".S1uft 101. FAX 919-571-47 18
Ra1Np1►,Nodh Cvobwo 77609 An Equal OpPOOU IV AfrorOfle Action Ernplever
VCiW 914b71-4700 50'15 teevelO 110'x.posvconscxnet pvper
19
Mr. Sanford Bailey
Page 2
July 11, 1997
2. The vnI site shaD not be subject to flooding and must be graded and
sloped,if needed, so that the surface water is dimled away from the well
head.
3. The minimum hoc z=W separation betweam the well and potential sources of
pollution sha11 be a:follows:
L 100 feet from any aaratary sewage disposal system, sewer,or a
seww pipe unless the sewer is constructed of water mnam natenala-
and joints,in which use the sewer pipe shall be at least 50 feet
f ximn the well;
b. 200 fm from a subswface sanitary sewage treaunot and disposal
system designed for 3000 or more SallOons of wastewater a day
flows,unless it is determined that the wdl water source utilize:a
confined aquifer;
C. 500 feet ftm a septet disposal site;
d. 100 fees 6rom buikIIIgt,mobile homes,Permanent structIAV&
animal houses or lots,or cultivated areas to which chemicals are
Apples:
C. 100 fbet from wfux water;
f. 100 feat from a chemical or petroleum fuel underground storage
tank with secondary containment;
g. S00 feet 5nom a cherdcal or petroleum fuel underground storage tank
without secarAm cosh;
h. 500 fat Berm the boundary of a ground watt coMa-ninatioo area;
i. S00 feat from a sanitary leadfill or--- non-hazardous
solid waste disposal site;
1000 he fim alo rdous waste disposal site or in any location
which conflicts with the North Carolina Hazardous Waste
Mamagemeat Rules cited ss 1SA NCAC 13A;
k 300 fiat 5rom a cemetery or WW ground;and
L 100 filet fibm my other potential sources of pollution.
Failure to eoahpiy with the listed condition:may resuh in revocation of this well site
approval.
20
1Rf.Sanford B�.
Page 3
July 11, 1997
Acceptance of the Well as a source of puMc water mq*re(lhd =satisfictory'new Well"
bee
Pnor to digmg contact dw Groundwater Section at tbhs Regional Ofte and the County
Health Departnnent coocernig the necessity of the issuance of a well construction permit. Upon
receipt of this leuer and a well Boa permit ffom the appropriate sgenciM you may
proceed with&Sng opara km
After compleft well construction,conduct s 24-hour well yield test folowing the
mpire wo of the Nonh Carolina Wd milatien and Standuds Copies of the
we$construction rec=d,water analysis,2"m well yield test,and three(3)copies of
documents and a debts outlined m the"Guide for Obtaining Approval of Public Water Supply
Systenns"must be wbmitted to the Plan Review Brag.Public water Supply Sectim Division of
Environmental Heahh in Raldgh for review and approval.
We do not allow connecting the well to the water di;trAmum system until the Division of
Environmental Health has reviewed and approved the plsns`and specifications for the well, The
plans and specifications mm be prepared and sealed by an engineer licensed to practice in the
State of North Carolina. Consavction must also be approved by a licensed engineer.
If any additional infoemstion or assistance is needed from this Office,pleas do not
hesitate to cal us at(919).5714700.
Sbtcerely,
Bo=Phelps `
Brhviroameaeal Technician III
Public water Supply Section
BP:ncp
cc: Mid ad L.Douglas
L C.Lin
Orange County Heath Depa Vw*
TOTAL P.04
21
BASS, NIXON & KENNEDY, INC., CONSULTING ENGINEERS
7416 CHAPEL HILL ROAD, RALEIGH, NC 27607
919/851-4422 ■ FAX 919/851-8968
UNIVERSITY MANOR - STATUS OF COMMUNITY WELL SYSTEM
Well #1 - Drilled March 1996. Yield = 16 gpm.
There is currently no set schedule for putting this well
into service. Well #2 is adequate to serve Phase I.
The water system for Phase I will be connected to the
distribution system for the next phase of University
Manor. Well #1 will be put into service at such time as
the next phase is developed.
Well #2 - Drilled March_1996. Yield = 58 gpm.
Well #2 including 10,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank put
into service ory-April 14, 1997.
Well #3 - Drilled November 1996. Yield = 60 gpm.
No testing done at this point. Will be put into service
with construction of Phase II.
Well #4 - Drilled November 1996. Yield = 30 gpm.
No testing done at this point. Will be put into service
with construction of Phase II.
22
Memorandum
Date: 05/7/96
To: Mary Willis
CC: GRecCalip
ll
From: Sl
Subject: Traffic Impact Analysis for University Manor, March 12, 1996, Orange County, NC
This memo is to inform you that I have reviewed the above mentioned Traffic Impact Analysis and
have the following comments:
a) that the methods used and the findings presented on page 5 are reasonable,
b) that the conclusion and recommendations for mitigation on pages 5&6 will be adequate to
address traffic conditions at the entrances mentioned and I also recommend that left turn lanes
be constructed at entrances A&D also,
c) that the left turn lanes for each entrance be completed before each Phase begins construction,
d) that lots 9 through 14 in Phase IV be accessed by an internal street and not on Old NC 10, and
e) that some provision(multi-use path or additional lane width on the main collector street through
Phases II &III) be made for pedestrian and bicycle access from each Phase to the proposed
Park Area.
Please call me at ext 2595 if you have any questions about these comments.
_ 23
N c Orange County Recreation and Parks Department
-
q P.O.Box 8181 -300 W.Tryon Sueet - Hillsborough.NC 27278
�`trp.�� �'�a ear•`'•
TELfPFiONE9
AREA CODE 919
TO: Mary Willis, Orange County Planning Department 73ZA181
967.9w l
6MMI
FROM: Bob Jones, Director (910)447.2061
NIGHT:644-3010
DATE: November 13 , 1996 FAX 644,1042
RE: University Manor Phase II - Advisory Council Review
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Council reviewed the
preliminary plan for University Manor Phase II at the October
1 meeting. The Council recommended acceptance of the 30 acre
park site following a lengthy discussion as to the types of
amenities that could be developed in the park.
To address concerns that the Board of County Commissioners
raised at the November 4 meeting, RPAC again discussed the
park site at the November 12 meeting.
Recommendations and Comments:
- The 30 acre site includes more acreage than the minimum
dedication requirement and has relative high ground with
good drainage.
- The open fields will locate 2 soccer fields, 2 softball
fields and a multi-purpose field requiring grading with
little tree or stump removal.
- The old house location will be the main receiving area
for park patrons and will be the site for a nature
interpretive center and park office. The old dairy barn
may be renovated for this purpose.
- The 2 large silos will remain on the site and will be
coordinated into the scenic theme of the park.
- Age specific playground areas will be located near the
main receiving area.
- Picnic areas will be located throughout the park.
- A large picnic shelter that will benefit meetings and
arge group outings will be constructed near the receiving
and parking area.
- The main entrance to the parking area will come off of
the proposed cul-de-sac road coming off of Highway #10 .
- Walking trails with occasional fitness stations will go
through-out the park and will also be used for
maintenance vehicles.
- Since the site is located near wetlands and open space
and is a good wildlife corridor, a boardwalk with
observation overlooks will facilitate nature interpretive
programs .
24
- Buffers: The park site is bounded on the north by the
railroad and undeveloped wooded property beyond. On the
south side of Highway #10 is proposed open space and
wetland area. The active athletic fields will be lighted
and any light pollution will not interfere with proposed
residential lots . Fencing and grass berms will provide a
buffer along the railroad and the right of way of Highway
#10 .
- Master Park Plan: This 30 acre park site will facilitate
all amenities that were suggested in the adopted Master
Park Plan for the University Station Area Community Park.
The site even includes a 2-3 acre pond that may be used
for fishing or irrigation.
- Concerns addressed:
- The 30 acre park site is not proposed to be
dedicated- in its entirety but will be phased in.
The Advisory Council understands the costs related
to the developers and recommends the acceptance of
the 12 acres to be dedicated with Phase II and
anticipates the remaining acreage dedication.
- Sewage: Recommendations were made to identify perk
sites. RPAC was informed that there were several
perk sites located on the property.
- Water: Well sites will be located on that site for
drinking water, sewer systems , and irrigation.
Please call if you have questions .
25
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing traffic projections and capacity analyses indicate
that the proposed University Manor development will generate
approximately 3,400 new trips daily with the heaviest concentration
during the -P.M. peak hour. The presence of six entrances allowing
access -to the project will tend to disperse site traffic to the
surrounding roadway network in a reasonable manner. Several specific
findings were identified in the study.
1. The site is located in a relatively rural area which is
served by a network of low-volume, two lane roadways.
Within the surrounding study area, four intersections - W,
X, Y, and Z - will be lightly impacted by new site traffic.
2. As indicated in Figure 8 the two existing unsignalized
intersections nearest the site (W and X) will operate with
or without the site at full buildout in 1998 at very
acceptable levels of Service = A or B for all critical
movements. The other unsignalized intersections (Y), which
is located nearer Hillsboro where Old NC 10 meets NC 86,
i will experience longer delays for westbound turning
movements with Levels of Service - D and C during the A.M.
I and P.M. periods if single approach lanes are available if
single approach lanes are available. If separate left turn
lanes were added at this location, westbound left turn
traffic would operate at LOS = D, but the heavier westbound
right turns would operate at LOS - B.
3. The signalized intersection at Intersection Z (NC 86/New
Hope Church Road) will operate at LOS = B during both peak
hours without the site in 1998 and at LOS - C during the
A.M. peak hour with the site.
4. Although the six entrances to the project will only need to
accommodate light turning volumes, the two heaviest
entrances (B and C) were also tested for capacity
acceptability. All critical movements at both entrances
would operate at LOS - A and B.
5. The possibility of improving efficiency at the Old NC 10/New
Hope Church Road intersection (Int. X) by adding separate
left turn lanes on the approaches was explored. Although it
did not improve level of service, separate lanes should be
considered for safety reasons. Also, the possibility of
improving the intersection by redesigning it to allow
eastbound Old NC 10 to become the minor approach with stop
sign control also did not significantly improve intersection
efficiency.
I6
+ I
26
6. Accident data for the eight-year period ending in December
1995 indicate the presence of only two accidents at
Intersection X and twelve accidents at Intersection W.
Especially near Intersection W, where there is a nearby
vertical sight distance restriction, lower speed limits may
be needed.
As a result of these findings the following geometric and
operational improvements within and around the site are recommended:
1. All site entrances should be designed with a single ingress
and single egress lane and without any median divider.
2. Old US 10 should be widened sufficiently to accommodate
separate left turn lanes into the site at Entrance C, E, and
F. These improvements would remove left turning vehicles
from the high-speed, through lanes and reduce the potential
for rear-end collisions. Length and taper of the
deceleration lanes should meet NC DOT standards.
3. For the same reasons, separate left turn lanes along Old NC
10 at Intersections W and X should be installed if NC DOT
warrants are met.: -
4. Along New Hope Church Road,. Entrance B and Intersection X
are recommended for separate left turn lanes as shown in
Figure 8.
5. Although not seriously impacted by site traffic,
Intersections Y and Z should be reviewed as candidates for
separate left turn lanes when future traffic meets warrants.
As level of service deteriorates at the signal at
Intersection Z, addition of needed turn lanes will improve
intersection efficiency.
6. Consideration for clearly posting 35 MPH speed limits along
the site on New Hope Church Road and along Old NC 10 is
strongly recommended. Vertical sight distance along Old NC
10 between Entrance S and Intersection W is restricted and
horizontal alignment along New Hope Church Road is less
than ideal. Reduced speed limits through these areas would
also assist turning vehicles at the site entrances and
nearby intersections.
7. Good spacing between entrances and intersections has been
provided in the site plans for University Manor. To
mitigate the vertical site distance problem between
Entrances B and Intersection W, it is recommended that
Entrance 8 be moved as far west along Old NC 10 as the
master plan will allow.
17
27
A
A
a UNIVERSITY
W —
O e STATION ROAD
g � ( 1712 )
A
A
A
)t
O
A I--
A
f O
LEGEND
1 - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
OO - INTERSECTION
00 - AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
I 00 - PM PEAK HOUR VOLU
ME S
i A
A �a
a
m
x e A =�
A
A
o ^ �o
� Q o
Z �
o �
J .. N
0 INT. CyViQC y4P
a 0 LOS a C O H E
e T s �? 1�23Rpgp
QY FIGURE 8
LEVELS OF SERVICE AND
a RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATIONS
28
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR UNIVERSITY MANOR SUBDIVISION
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
Prepared by
The Orange County Planning Department
July, 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
University Manor is located in Chapel Hill and Eno Townships. The total area to be
developed contains 595 acres. A total of 261 lots were proposed in the Concept Plan. The
lots are accessed by new public roads which will connect with NC 10, New Hope Church
Road and University Station Road. The current zoning is R-1 Rural Residential. Lots will be
served by individual septic systems and a community well system.
Phase 1, approved in December, 1995, contained 47 lots. Phase II, approved in
November, 1996, contained 61 lots. Phase III contains a total of 123 lots, 72 of which are
included in this Preliminary Plan. A separate Preliminary Plan will be submitted at a later
date for the remaining portion of Phase III. Phase IV, located on the north side of NC 10
between NC 10 and the Southern Railroad will include up to 50 lots.
Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the
average sales price to be $300,000, 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.
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 29
Bureau of Economic&Business Research-University of Florida
Modified 4/15197-Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT.
TOWNSHIP: Chapel Hill
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
I3egt�ttt� fr
Year 200
Ending 2
Ind
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
p
ins/ --
Children/House ENTER"1"BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33
NoEkl
�tM
OR
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes (;) by Year
. T 30`Q` _
2001 31 300,000 43.06%
44:44
ry2}003. 0 0.00%
2005 0.00%
s 0.
2007 0 0 0.00%
jj
2009 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:
OrangeCo y 64°6
Middle School 17%
19
Chapel H �- 96
AS F.
SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS 30-
YEAR 20W 2001 200 2003 2
HOUSING UNITS 9 40 720 72 7Z
POPULATION 224 99 170 178 178
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 8 1 15 15
Ago
Middle 2 4
High School 3 5
TOTAL 13 24
COUNTY EMPLOYEES ,� 0.53 0.95, OAS
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.76 1.37 1.
TAX BASE($1000) 12068 22518 230&'>
COUNTY BUDGET(i)
Revenues 115846 216624 222
Expenditures - 60427 114275 117`t3Z
;x.
BALANCE 1 55419 102349 1
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($) .,
Revenues 76097 143909 17
Expenditures 1 76097 1 143909 .
BALANCE 0
0
COMBINED BUDGETS($)
Revenues 191943 360533
Expenditures 136524 258184 4639
r
BALANCE 55419 102349 10490
YEAR 2006 2008 2009W.,
HOUSING UNITS 72 ' "' 72 7Z''
x
POPULATION 178 178 17
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary _ 15 15 15
Middle T y= 4
4 4
High School _ 5 5
TOTAL 24 24 2
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.95 a 0.95 a'
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 1.37 _ 1.37 1.37
TAX BASE(:1000) 24250 25478 26?t(14!
COUNTY BUDGET(s)
Revenues �,
233280 245090 2512%
Expenditures 1 � 123062 1 129292 132524!
BALANCE ;= 107 110218 1 115798 418693
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($)
Revenues 15111, 154974 1 162819 166890
Expenditures 1511190 154974 15" 162819 16M90
BALANCE 0 ; 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS($)
Revenues 378785 388254 39MV 407910 418107
Expenditures 271254:. 278036 28458?"= 292111 299414
BALANCE 107530• 110218 112874 ; 115798 118693
' Ft4ls►SE III
31
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
`4Y
OrdwCountv; ;_ } Element ryeSchQO " 649
Middle School 17%
CFfapet Hllt a - °„ HighrSbhooll, 1
YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SCHOOL CHILDREN
z V-
Elementary 4 8 1 15 1S"
Middle 2 40. 4 4
W
High School 3 w 5 S
fi k r
TOTAL 13 24 24''
YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 15 15 1
Middle 4 + 4 °
High School 5 5
TOTAL
.. 24 24
SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS t1522Middle URRENT ENROLLMENT-ALL SCHOOLS
E&nenta 2822
Middle 1240
145
ITOTAL 6370 TOTAL 5519
YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
PROJECTED ENROLLMENTw�
Elementary _a 2830 2837 2837
Middle 1242 1r 1244 1244
u
High School 460 - > 1462 1462
l
TOTAL 5532 5543 5543
. ,
YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2837 2 so, 2837 2837
Middle 1244
12444 1244 1244
High School 1462 14j 1462 1462
TOTAL 5543 '. ? 5543 5543'
crumu 1cttt v G
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 32
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:
University,Mom Phasevt_3.
TOWNSHIP: Eno/Chapel Hill
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Ending Year 2002
250
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
PeanatR
2.47
Children/House: ENTER"1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33
tVV00114
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year -Homes (S) by Year
1998 30 300,000 15.87%
1
�. E0011 1 20.11%:
2000 43 300,000 22.75%
�• .
2002 32 300,000 16.93%
20 WW"'
..
o A 0.00%
2004 0 0 0.00%
20A ..:. r _ Owl°
__ ..
2006 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:
Oranges . -' 64
_.
Middle School 17%
Chapel 19%
cumutmil 1e.
33
SECTION 6.- SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR 19978 1998 1999M 2000- 2001
HOUSING UNITS 1i 45 834 126 157'"
POPULATION 111 ZOI 311 38
SCHOOL CHILDREN x
Elementary 10 `C 27 33
Middle 3 7
High School 3 5 8 1
-
TOTAL ' e
5 � 42 _
COUNTY EMPLOYEES W 0.59 441,
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES » 0.86 2.40 ". 3.
TAX BASE($1000) x W 13613 38887 49159
COUNTY BUDGET
Revenues =� 130623 374870 47466$1
Expenditures k 67981 199982 255413
BALANCE 62643 174888 2't8255h`_
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($)
Revenues 85609 1 251840 3164F '
q,.
Expenditures 85609 X61 251840 , 1 ;
BALANCEw 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS(S) °
Revenues
' 216232 626710 �9 •�=
Expenditures x 153589ffi 451822 57705
BALANCE 62643 174888 21925
YEAR
2003 2005 20W
HOUSING UNITS 188 189 189°
POPULATION 467 467 467''
SCHOOL CHILDREN
zk
Elementary: 40 40 40''
Middle %
11 11 11
High School 12 12 12'
TOTAL w 62 62
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 2.49 2.49 - 2A9
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 3.61 3.61 3.61
TAX BASE($1000) 61487 64600 66219
COUNTY BUDGET(:r ,
Revenues 594773 624883 640506
Expenditures a 323038 , ., 339392 347876
BALANCE _ 271735 285482 292628
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($)
Revenues 3 406806 41,69M 427401 438086
Expenditures 396861 406806 41 sow 427401 438086
BALANCE 0 ow 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS(i)
Revenues 9771w, 1001579 102MISh 1052284 1078591
Expenditures 71204& 729844 74809W 766792 785962
BALANCE 266107"' 271735 2785281, 285492 292629
WMV�0.'�"tV e
SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS 34
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange Coin=• "".' Y.ES: � : EI�neI1t od�� - 64°i&
Middle School 17%
Chapel HtWCa ._
YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 10 27 33,
Middle 3 "
7 9
f
High School - _' 3 8 1Q'!
TOTAL ..., 15 : , 42 5Z
YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SCHOOL CHILDREN m
Elementary 40 40 40
,
Middle
High School 1 12 � 12 12
TOTAL
62 62 6 =
SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT-ALL SCHOOLS
>; -. , . _ x _, >. `k 2822,
Middle 1522 Middle 1240
Hlgi!E1 " Y 1457
w
TOTAL 6370 TOTAL 5519
YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary ,. -, 2832 2849 2855
Middle :� 1243 1247 124 '
High School . 1460 1465 1467
z
TOTAL 5534 5561 5571`
YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2862 Z n 2862 2862'
Middle f25W 1251 1251 1251
High School 1400 1469 1469 1469
TOTAL 5581 5590 5581 5581
35
d. Ordinance Review Committee
Cameron reported that the ordinance amendments discussed by the
Committee will be presented at public hearing August 25 and will be
reviewed later in the meeting.
e. Shaping Orange County's Future
Allison reported that a meeting was held July 24 and six citizen committees
have been formed to collect and study specific issues of the initial goals for
Shaping Orange County's Future. The six committees are:
Economic Development
Education
Environment and Resource Protection
Land Use and Growth Management
Social Advancement and Community Health/Safety
Transportation,Infrastructure,and Services
He continued that the individual committees also met in July. A list of
speakers has been prepared for each of the committees and Allison asked
that the list of committee members and speakers be provided to the
Planning Board. Planning Staff working with Shaping Orange County's
Future will be asked to provide that information to all Planning Board
members. Allison noted that he is serving on the Transportation,
Infrastructure,and Services committee.
AGENDA ITEM#8: SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS
a. Preliminary Plans
(1) University Manor Phase III
(Chapel Hill Township-72 Lots)
Presentation by Emily Cameron. A copy of the abstract information is an
attachment to these minutes on pages
Using a map,Cameron indicated the location of the total project for
University Manor and reviewed the acreage and number of lots for each
phase.
Barrows asked the numbe r of lots to be served by the three community
wells. Harry Mitchell,engineer for the project,responded that 72 lots
will be served by the three community wells in this phase.
Selkirk asked about the drainage areas. Cameron responded that they are
only swales,natural low areas where the actual drainage would go. They
are areas that are normally dry.
Allison asked if there were any areas where the intent is to have individual
wells. Cameron responded,and the engineer agreed,that the entire project
is to be served by the community system.
z
36
Strayhorn asked about pedestrian and bicycle access. Mr.Mitchell
responded that there will be typical NCDOT subdivision roads with twenty
feet of pavement and ditches on each side. There will be no sidewalks.
Hoecke commented that,in answer to a question from Allison regarding
individual wells,that was listed as a fall-back plan in case of problems with
the community wells or alternative sites for community wells.
Searles asked when the need for the fall-back plan for individual wells
would be determined. Cameron responded that if there were problems with
the proposed community wells,alternative community wells will be drilled.
If there are problems with the alternates,then individual wells can be
drilled.
Searles asked if a site analysis had been done and the number of suitable
sites for individual wells. Mr.Mitchell responded that,with the size of the
lots,individual wells could have been proposed. However,the advantage
for the homeowner is to have a community system since it is regulated by
the State and monitored on a regular basis.Cameron noted that a
community system would also allow the lot owner more flexibility in the
location of the house.
Allison expressed concern if,at some point,the fall-back plan for
individual wells had to be pursued,it would affect house locations and cost.
Cameron responded that given the lot sizes,the"last resort"should still be a
workable option.
Barrows asked about the traffic impact study and the levels of service A,B,
C,and D. Cameron responded that these are standard road classifications
referring to the carrying capacity. She noted that Transportation Planner,
Slade McCalip could better clarify that information later in the meeting.
Price asked about the changes from the Concept Plan. Cameron responded
that the changes in the roads and cul-de-sacs are the kinds of changes
expected between Concept and Preliminary,when septic system locations
have been determined.
Selkirk asked if a study had been done to determine if the area designated
for wells 5,6,and 7 is a good place to drill those wells. Mr.Mitchell
responded that sufficient information to establish the best locations. The
choice is based on experience from other sites. Given the amount of open
space that is available,he expressed confidence that good well sites can be
found. Selkirk asked the depth of such wells and the response was 400 to
500 feet deep.
MOTION: Allison moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded
by Walters.
VOTE: Unanimous.