Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-04-1996 - 9b
11 1 ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:November 4. 1996 Action Agenda Item#-9-b SUBJECT: University Manor Phase II-Preliminary Plan Action By: November 15, 1996 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes_x_No BUDGET AMENDMENT Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Resolution of Approval Mary Willis Vicinity Map Extension 2583 Application TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Concept Plan Hillsborough-732-8181 Agency Comments Durham -688-7331 Summary of Traffic Impact Study Mebane -227-2031 Fiscal Impact Analysis Chapel Hill-967-9251 Preliminary Plan 9/7/96 Draft Planning Board Minutes PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for University Manor Phase II. BACKGROUND: 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 to be preserved through conservation easements. The total area encompassed by the Concept Plan is 595 acres. 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. The applicant is preparing to submit the Final Plat. Grading for roads and installation 2 of a community water system is underway. A Final Plat submittal is expected in October. Phase II contains 118 acres and is located south of Rigsbee Road west of University Station Road and the Southern Railroad. It encompasses lots 13 and 13C,and a portion of lot 12 of Tax Map 3, Chapel Hill Township. Sixty-one residential lots are proposed. Two open space lots,each containing a site for a community well, are proposed to be owned by the homeowners association. The zoning district is R-1 Rural Residential and Lower Eno Protected Watershed. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential. Wastewater Disposal Individual on-site septic systems are proposed. Environmental Health has indicated that each of the proposed lots contain soils suitable for septic disposal. Water Supply A community water system is proposed. The Preliminary Plan shows the location of two well easements. Both of the wells are located within common open space area to be owned by the homeowners association. 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. Community wells must be operated by a private operator certified by the North Carolina Water Treatment Facility Certification Board. Below is a summary of State and local procedural requirements related to community wells. 1. Prior to Preliminary Plan_Approval Well sites are approved by DEH,and a utility plan for the proposed storage and distribution system must be prepared. (Utility Plan enclosed.) 2. Prior to Final Plan Ap=val The well must be drilled. Environmental Health inspects and approves the well construction. 3 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. DEH must approve the engineering plans for the water distribution and storage system. The attached Resolution of Approval requires that the system be constructed prior to Final Plat approval. 3. 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. Issues and Concerns A major concern which has been expressed regarding the use of community wells is the provision of water in the event of well failure. 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 wells in the common open space, in the event of any future well failure. This requirement was included in the Resolution of Approval for Phase I. • Another option would be for individual wells to be drilled on the individual lots. Environmental Health has indicated that based on the size and configuration of the lots, it appears that individual wells could be drilled on most lots in locations which would meet separation requirements. • 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. Common Open Space Approximately 7.9 acres within Phase II is designated as open space to be owned by the homeowner's association. The open space area is contained in two separate areas, as shown on the Preliminary Plan, each of which contains a community well site. The area included in Phase II does not contain any of the wetland or floodplain areas associated with Stoney Creek. 4 Drainage Easements The Preliminary Plan indicates easements affecting lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 32. 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. Road Access Beverstone Drive, which is proposed to intersect with the south side of Rigsbee Road about 400 feet west of University Station Road,provides the main access through Phases II and III, and will eventually connect with NC 10. 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. 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. The priority list will be re-evaluated by NCDOT in the Spring of 1997. The number of new lots approved on a road is one factor considered in the re-evaluation,and could result in the road being paved sooner. Access to all lots would be provided by new public subdivision roads. Comments from NCDOT are attached. Most of the comments relate to road alignment and design, and must be addressed by the applicant in order to receive approval of road design or construction by NCDOT(which is required prior to recording a Final Plat). Where applicable,recommendations are incorporated in the attached Resolution of Approval. Traffic Impact Study A Traffic Impact Study may be required for Preliminary Plans which include 80 or more lots. A Traffic Impact Study was not required for Phase I,which contains 45 lots,and was approved before the consolidation of the previous Concept Plans. Summary recommendations of a study performed by Paul D Cribbins, P.E. for the entire development area included in the consolidated Concept Plan are attached. The traffic impact study recommendations include left turn lanes on NC 10, at University Station Road,Beverstone Drive,New Hope Church Road and Old NC 86, and on New Hope Church Road, at NC 10 and Chilmark Circle(Phase I). The Orange County 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). Construction of left turn lanes on University Station Road at Rigsbee Road is included in the attached Resolution of Approval. The remaining improvements will be recommended with the Preliminary Plans for Phases III and IV. Also recommended was that some provision be made for pedestrian and 5 bicycle access on the main collector(Beverstone Drive)through Phases II and III. This recommendation has been incorporated in the attached Resolution of Approval, as a requirement that such access be incorporated into the design of Beverstone Drive. A copy of the study was also sent to NCDOT,but no comments were received. Parkland Dedication On July 11, 1995, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC)received an informational report from the Planning Staff concerning seven individual Concept Plans which had been approved in the vicinity of NC 10,New Hope Church Road and University Station Road. The Recreation and Parks Master Plan calls for a district park in the vicinity of the project area. 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. Dedication of the park site more than satisfies all dedication or payment-in-lieu requirements for the entire area included in the Concept Plan, as indicated in the tables below 1TNILI1Vi PARKLAND►DTDICATIQN REQUIRED Minimum Land Type Acres Percent of area No. lots Dedication (based on Required % 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. 6.4 MIll�r'lI PA'YPMIENT-IN L1EU(IT DEDICATION No.Lots Payment per Lot Total Payment 281 $422 $118, 582 COMBINATION3EDICATIONfPAYMENT 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. 6 Approximately 11.5 acres of the park site is proposed to be dedicated prior to approval of the Final Plat for Phase II. This initial dedication satisfies dedication or payment- in-lieu requirements for both Phase I and Phase II. The remaining 18.5 acres will be dedicated proportionally with Phases III and IV. A copy of the Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan have been forwarded to the Recreation and Parks Director. Several RPAC members as well as the Recreation and Parks Director are planning to walk the property and report to RPAC at its meeting on October 1. Additional comments and recommendations resulting from the RPAC meeting will be presented to the Planning Board at its October 2 meeting. Comments from County Attorney Comments from the County Attorney are attached. The issues mentioned are addressed on the Preliminary Plan(which has been revised) and/or in the attached Resolution of Approval. Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board considered the Preliminary Plan on October 2, 1996, and recommended approval by a 7-3 vote. Concerns expressed by some of the Planning Board members included use and design of a community well system, and the cumulative impacts of developing the entire area encompassed by the Concept Plan on traffic, schools and groundwater. (See attached minutes.) A traffic study for the entire Concept Plan area was submitted as part of the subdivision application for Phase II. Improvements applicable to Phase II recommended in the Study, as well as those recommended by the Orange County Transportation Planner, are included in the attached Resolution of Approval. The fiscal impact analysis performed for Phase 1 indicates a positive net fiscal impact of $43,640 in the estimated year of completion (1998). The fiscal impact analysis performed for Phase 11 indicates a positive net fiscal impact of $68,231 in the estimated year of completion (1998). School impact fees ($750 per residence))for Phases 1 and II, based on the 108 lots included in the Preliminary Plans, will total $81,000 upon buildout. The Water Resources Committee is developing information regarding groundwater quantity and quality in Orange County. An early step in this process, a pilot project being undertaken with the U.S. Geological Survey, will produce generalized basin-by- basin rates of groundwater recharge. Future steps will result in more focused information. However, the ability to ultimately predict groundwater yield on a site- by-site basis is not expected. The two wells drilled for Phase 1(47 lots)produced yields of 58 gallons per minute (gpm) and 18 gpm, at a depth of 500 feet and 540 feet respectively. The minimum well 7 yield required by the Division of Environmental Health is.56 gpm, or 25.2 gpm for a 47-lot development. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Resolution of Approval for the University Manor Phase II Preliminary Plan. 8 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date November 4. 1996 Name of Subdivision University Manor Phase II Owner/Applicant Sanford Bailey The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the University Manor Phase II Preliminary Plan, dated September 18, 1996 and containing 61 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, Sherbon Drive, Bardon Hill Court, Abercorn Springs Court, Talford Court and Amble Side Court as shown on the Preliminary Plan. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Beverstone Drive, Sherbon Drive, Bardon Hill Court,Abercorn Springs Court,Talford Court and Amble Side 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 any phase of University Manor Phase II 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. 9 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. Bardon Hill Court,Abercorn Springs Court,Talford Court and Amble Side 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 Bardon Hill Court,Abercorn Springs Court, Talford Court and Amble Side 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 and Sherbon Drive shall be constructed to collector 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 Beverstone Drive and Sherbon 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 Rigsbee Road and University Station Road shall be designed to accommodate a left turn lane on northbound University Station Road to the satisfaction of the NCDOT,and construction of the turn lane shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. 4. At all intersections,the adjoining roads must have at least 75 feet of 90-degree tangent length before a curve. 10 5. At all intersections, right-of-way must be dedicated for standard 10' x 70' sight triangles. 6. At all intersections, road design shall include a 50' taper as required by NCDOT. 7 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 3. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along Beverstone Drive and Sherbon Drive. The buffer shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standards of Section IV-B-g-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. 11 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 development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. Provide 30-foot drainage easements on lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 32, as shown on the Preliminary Plan. Additional drainage easements may be required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. E. Parkland/Open Space 1. Final documents, including plat,conveying 11.5 acres of the 30-acre park site on the north side of NC 10 at New Hope Church Road, as shown on the Park Dedication inset on the Preliminary Plan, shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney, and shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat for Phase II. 2. The entirety of the open space within Phase II to be shown on the Final Plat(s) 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. 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. An encroachment easement for the existing shed located partially on lot 35 shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney, and shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. A driveway easement across easternmost open space lot for access to existing residence on property owned by Josette Johnson Mack shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney,and shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. Well and waterline easements dedicated to private utility company. b. Drainage easements on lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17,21, 22,23, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 32, 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. Encroachment easement for existing shed on lot 35. 12 d Driveway easement across easternmost open space lot for access to existing residence on property owned by Josette Johnson Mack. 5. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way of Beverstone Drive, Sherbon Drive, Bardon Hill Court, Abercorn Springs Court, Talford Court and Amble Side 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. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that Beverstone Drive, Sherbon Drive, Bardon Hill Court,Abercom Springs Court,Talford Court and Amble Side Court have been constructed to State standards or that construction plans have been approved. 5, A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board I, ,accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval,and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. APPLICATION FAR PRELIMINARY PLAN .-)PROVAL 13 MAJOR SUBDIVISION 6/93 ORANGE COUNTY DATE: PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IINK ONLY) SUBDIVISION NAME: University Manor II• LOCATION: Rigsbee Rd. @University Station Road OWNER/DEVELOPER: Sanford W. Bailey ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 1859 TELEPHONE NO,; 919-556-2146 Wake FAYGCr N r. 27588-1859 AGENT/CONTACT: Bass, Nixon S Kpn�m dw-�. InC. TELEPHONE NO.: 919-851-4422 a Harry Mitchell iP A. SUMMARY INFORMATIO Orange County Tax Mao N1'3-13, 7-3-13C, 7-3-12 Township Chapel Hi 1 l Zoning Distrietts): R-1 Total Number of Acres: _ 2 Total Number of Lots: _Average Lot Size•. 54,809 Minimum Lot Size: 40,000 SF Number/Type of Structures: (existing) None (oroposod)+S4U&1e fermi 1 y reai denies Lineal Fast in Streets: 120 LF Acres in Open Space: 16 Ac- Water Supply: N/A Public (specify) Yes Community N/ Individual Wastewater Disposal: NSA_Public (spscity) NIA Community Individual School Oietrict: Orainap rmmzlr Fin District: Eno Rura General Land Uses in Area: acant n/U dev 1 creed _ Critical Areas: Nonp stream/dreinageways Nnnp flood prone areas _Lawar. Enn watershed (speeitYl Nnnp historic sites other (explain) Is the property to be subdivided currently under *farm use value taxation'? Yes_No_ If 'yes'. Please contact the Orange County Tax•Offico. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under 'farm use value taxation'. 8. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet 0'•200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty test (1' 201 and must contain the fo0owingInformation: X subdivision name X 0M. zoning of tract and adjacent• X R name &address of ownerts) properties r .... name &address of subdivider X AM. building setback lines by notation X (if other than owner) or typical lot layout X name of surveyor, engineer. X location and width of existing and c landscape wchitoct or architect, proposed easements (drainage. X address. registration 0 and seal utilities, roads, ate.) MW Fn&ninary Plan X X— existing. Proposed and adjoining �:2_ •9410.north arrow rights-of-way including dimensions y u X data Kneluding revision dates) and street names and state road w � ? township. tax map-block-lot numbers. Lineal feat of road J G X references centerlines and approximate Parent Parcel Identification I acreage of now street rights-cf- y p — _ : dead book and page I of property way y" to be subdivided ' X 'r "r� existing and proposed utilities, X ^' " bound described with bearings including CL c� boundary g g NPs. tiles, hydrants, EC L. X and distances valves, manholes ..� total acreage of the tract and existing and proposed curbs. Y v acreage of lots, including and gutters and culvens, including U 10 excluding area within rights-of- sizes and grades V in X way N/A »`^ location and width of allays, ' control corner sidewalks, bike lanes, transit systems, and bus slope (Please Complete reverse side) l '� OroDOCad :OC linos w,th — �enc,Onc �yj10' scg; CrJSS•ssct,ona end X lot & block numbers intersects 7etatic including phasing lines design anu width of travalway and 14 topography at ton foot (10) shoulders �— intervals X horizontal alignment and general a �_ - water bodies, streams, floodway curve data (public roadsl a) and ftoodplains centerline radius on all proposed j NIA `'''"''' stream buffers street: location and size of parcels X permanent features such as y v buildings, cernetenes, historic � •� dedicateQ for public use. iv recreational use or reserved in landmarks �J X common• with purpose noted adjoining tot layout names of X impervious surface data (if located adjoining Property rty owners. If y W in water supply watershed) subdivided• subdivision plat name. Plat book & Page number, and vicinity map showing general g E 4 location of subdivision with streets perimeter lot numbers. °•'�>� location and size of lots of C m and roads identified by State road _� — U number and name restricted development potential Y X landscaping and buffer and notation on plat regarding 07 (a requirements same r — :J in x_ s• township• corporate and extra- stormwaur 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 madced in pencil). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon. 4. Where a private road is'proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section N-13-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations$. 5. Auxifiery documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Saetion Vl of.this Ordinance which assure completion end/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include. but not be limited to. a private road maintenance nra:+nent, and articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association. These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements are beirig.met. a. Fee - $350.00 plus $5.00 per lot 0 fee for prc(iminary and final plat). 7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots or more the following information shall be submittad with the application: a. Number of years to buildout. b. Number of houses to be built during each year to buildout. C. Average price of houses including lots for each year to buildout. I, the applicant, hereby certify that the fore mple going epolication is cote d se L It N"- _.I I ,L,h% - ' �iV r APPLICANT'S S NATURE OW 'S SIGNATURE L�e"s I�r �� • GATE �— OATE FEES: Amoun Oats Paid 0 /( ` 6 Receipt +I 15 r L� -y H . , � b' �Sxy�T• ',.'� N N A W w 7., UNIV• STA T7pN PtD N * n eb eb g = eD N ep = eb ma =2 0. A M -ft- ay s wr n um w w� N 0 b 0 r• w, Q. t A � G. C �t f � - iExcerpt from Traffic Impact Study performed for University Manor Subdivision SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 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 so 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 - V, %, 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 (V and %) 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, will experience longer delays for westbound turning movements with Levels of Service = D and C during the A.M. 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 = A, but the heavier vestbound right turns would operate at LOS = B. 3. The signalized intersection at Intersection Z (NC 86/Nev 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. S. The possibility of improving efficiency at the Old NC 10/Nev Hope Church Road intersection (Int. %) 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. 16 17 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 V, 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 V 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 KPH 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 B and Intersection V 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 E be moved as far west along Old NC 10 as the master plan will allow. 17 18 _ Ts - f F. -;/ l� ► fit! 1 f UNIVERSITY MANOR Ouna[Cantu.HOWM CAWL&► ��� s , " ;•` FIGURE 2 <' "F, JERRY TURNER �.; & ASSOCIATES SITE PLAN `"— "'""' r 044 A 19 A r s UNIVERSITY B STATION ROADO'�.=— A � ( 1712 ) —�► A A )t A O A LEGEND - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OO - INTERSECTION 00 - AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 00 - 7M PEAK HOUR VOLUMES A A At O B x B A A A A' r z �.. O .. Cy NFk' y (/ Cy 0 INT. �Q i2 RO'QQ 0 Y FIGURE 8 A LEVELS OF SERVICE AND A �,RECOMMENDED LANE CONFIGURATIONS ,.9. 20 ' UV STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT Jk DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRm JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY P . O. Boy: 766 Graham, North Carolina 27253-0766 8 August 1996 ORANGE COUNTY Ms . Mary Willis Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-8181 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan Review: UNIVERSITY MANOR, PHASE II Located off Riggsbee Road (SR 1721) Dear Ms . Willis: This office has completed its review of the subject ' s proposed preliminary plans for compliance with current Department of Transportation minimum subdivision construction standards . This office respectfully request you to make the owner/developer aware of our following comments: 1 . Prior to any construction of any new access or alteration of any existing access within the right of way, the developer/owner is required to secure a permit with this office. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to obtain a permit. 2 . Prior to any construction, this office should receive, review and approve two (2) complete site layouts . The site layouts will include horizontal and vertical alignment information, a typical section, drainage facilities , vicinity map, and the number of lots with the proposed driveway location. 3 . The owner/developer should adhere to attached requirements and the remarks noted in red on the submitted plans . If you have any questions, feel free to call me or Mr. Michael Venable at (910) 570-6833. Sincerely, _ T. J. Dyer DISTRICT ENGINEER Attachments cc: J. W. Watkins , P.E. , Division Engineer Bass , Nixon, & Kennedy, Inc. TJD/MSV/GSH/gsh SPA60808 .GH1 21 RED LINE CONTENTS FOR UNIVERSITY MANOR, PHASE II (Located off SR 1721 , Riggsbee Road) 1 . Turn lane shown on Riggsbee Road does not have enough detail to verify the standard design. Therefore, please show the proper detail, so that our office can check the design. 2 . At all intersections , the adjoining roads must have at least 75 ' of 90 degree tangent length before a curve. 3. Beverstone Drive and Sherbon Drive must be built to state 'collector' roadway standards . Minimum centerline radii are to be 310 ' . Therefore, several of the curves shown will need to be redesigned to •meet the standard. The other roads may be designed to ' local ' roadway standards . 4. The 50 ' right-of-way shown does meet state standards; however, 60 ' of right-of-way is needed at the intersections . See figure 4A & 4B. 5. Much of the roadway design cannot be reviewed at this time due to the omission of the horizontal and vertical curve data. This data must be included so: that it can be reviewed for a final approval of the plans . 6. Water line must be located on right-of-way line or on a separate easement outside the right-of-way line. 7 . Right-of-way must be dedicated for standard 10 ' x 70 ' sight triangles at all intersections. 8 . No dead ends are permitted. A turn around must be provided. f 22 MINIMUM I FIRST 100' STATION PAST 'rAFEF, I i ' 50'TAPER(REQUIRED Pok LESS THAN 26") � I SIGHT TRIANGLE - - - 70 - - 30'R I �' �- - 70' - - - T MINIMUM10� RECOMMENDED ROAD CONNECTION F l 4A R�k1 nr:,h 1e55 -'r 'r\ i 23 (MI N I M IrlPl RAW i SrAr,ox � P^ST ritPEK I 50' TA PER (RE©gtfeD iron R LE55 TMAM 2b t IJ 1 1 � I SiGHr TRIANGLE ( ! I RIW (o x �0 30'R o- 1 \ ►o RECOAMENDED ROAD CONNECTIDN 7,5 4 Memorandum 24 Date: 05/7/96 To: Mary Willis CC: Ge Bell From: Slfde McCali P Subject Traffic Impact Analysis for University Manor, March 12, 1996, Orange County, NC This memo is to inform you that 1 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 &111) 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. ORANGE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 8181 25 HILLSBOROUGH NORTH CAROLINA 27278 9-1-1 Communications Emergency Medical Services 24 Hour Warning Point Fire Marshal 7324161 - 933-2600 Hazardous Materials Fax Machine - 6443030 - 968-2050 967-9026 MEMORANDUM TO: MARY WIL10 FROM: MIKE TAPP g.- RE: UNIVERSITY MANOR.PHASE;H , w = - A. DATE: AUGUST 2199 We have reviewed thiMans Or_�'Univerdty Manor,.P II and find them acceptable. Please send us a fmatp*upon app oval for distribvtio to 911,EMS~and fire. departments. If you have further questibm please contact me at weens'on 343& Loafed at 1914 New Hope Church Road • Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 LAVE/OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE 26 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 119 E TRYON STREET P.O.DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH.NORTH CAROLINA 27270 919-732-2196 FROM THE DESK OF FAX 919.732.7997 JANET B.DUITON September 10, 1996 Mary Willis Orange County Planning Dept. Hillsborough, NC 27278 RE: University Manor Phase II a Dear Mary: I have reviewed the preliminary subdivision plan submitted with your August 2, 1996 request for agency review. University Manor Phase If includes 61 lots to be served by public roads. Please note that the final plat will need to specify that the roads are public. No road maintenance agreements will be necessary. An amendment will need to be done to the restrictive covenants adding Phase II. The owners will also need to deed the open space and/or common area to the homeowners association and the homeowners association will need to execute easements to the utility company that will be building, operating, and maintaining the well,just as was done in Phase I. There is an existing shed encroaching on Lot 35. Have any provisisons been made for its removal? Fm*, I have some concerns regarding the adjacent lot presently owned by Josette Johnson Mack and deaignated as tax lot 7.1.12. The tax map that I have indicates that this lot extends all the way along Soudwn Raik ay up to Rigsbee Road. It appears to be this way on the proposed preliminary plan. 0 that is the case, a portion of Beaverstone Drive is located on this tract, as is an existing pond to be drained. Please inquire as to the ownership of this portion of the property. 9 it is owned by Josette Johnson Mack, an easement will need to be obtained for Beaverstone Drive and she may need to sign off on the final plat dedicating that as a public drive. It will be necessary to determine whether or not she has agreed to drain the existing pond which appears to be located on her property. Just to the southwest of the existing pond to be drained,there is a notation of a relocated driveway but the arrow doesn't point to anything on the map. Could you please clarify the existing location of that driveway and whether or not it has already been relocated? It may be necessary for additional documentation to be prepared depending on what is actually happening with the existing driveway. I just cant tell by looking at the preliminary plan. Page Two 27 University Manor II Please give me a call if you have any questions and let me know once you have clarified some of these issues. Sincerely Yours, Janet B. Dutton I 28 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR UNIVERSITY MANOR SUBDIVISION, PHASE II r RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH Prepared by The Orange County Planning Department September, 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTION University Manor Phase II is a proposed 61-lot subdivision located in Chapel Hill Township. The lots are accessed by several new public roads which will extend from the west side of University Station Road, and will eventually connect with NC 10. Phase 1, approved by the Board of Commissioners in 1995, contains 45 lots, and is located on the west side of New Hope Church Road and south of NC 10. The current zoning is RI - Rural Residential. The average lot size is approximately 1.26 acres. Lots will be served by individual septic systems and community wells. Project build-out is estimated at two years. Housing units will be constructed, beginning in 1997, with completion of the project scheduled for 1998. Units will consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be$275,000, 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. 29 RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD Bureau of Economic& Business Research-University of Florida Modified 5/13/96-Orange County,NC Planning Department SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: :.;. . PR# ET € Patsy 1 TOWNSHIP. Chapel Hill CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: beg Y : ...... . g::Year.: 1998 1 . , . 2:';50° CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: :. Children/House: ENTER"1"BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.33 ........: 1,OIJ;OE HOME SALES DATA: Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units .:;..: Year Homes (S) by Year 3 ...................... ......... .............:... . . . 1998 31 275,000 50.82% <:»»;:: 2000 0 0 0.00% X. :::<. 2002 0 0 0.00% .............................::::.::.............................. .....:.....:::..:::::::::::::::::::.::.;;::::::;:.:;::e_.;::::-..--: ::�::::: ::.::::::::::::..:::.::.: X. 2004 0 ...........0............................................................:.0.00% 2006 0 0 0.00% SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER"1"IN( )BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE. School District: School Attendance: ::::...........:.::......:..:::::::...........:.. ::.....:..:.:. ...: .:...:....:::..:::....::.::..: .:. ...:..:::.:......;:.;:.;:::.,:.; O Middle School 17% xxxxxx SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS 30 SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: School District: School Attendance: ..... ..... ... .::...�.. ..::...... Eleme ..... x4 ?o :.:: Middle School 17% :::::::::....::>::::>>::>::: : ». :::<:>:::>.>:.::.:<.::>.:::. ................. .. ..... YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 6:.' 13 ' :: 13 :: .:. Mi ddl e 3 :>.. flighh Sc o0 1 TOTAL ................................... YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 13 ..> is<< > €<??>' Middle 3 ;> High School ool 20 X ....................... .....................::::::.......... ,TOTAL SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT-ALL SCHOOLS Middle 1522 Middle 1267 � ` `` Y `' " '? ''< x:::ir:;;` :::: ' 'ii '' ` �#.. .......... ...:.Std.::::.;:.;:.>::>.....»::;;:.;:.>:::;:;<:>:::....::;::>.: TOTAL 5970 TOTAL 5617 YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT MENT Elementary n� Y 2 881 2881 ;>«`>� >>> '> ...........:... Mi ddle 1270 1270 High School `':` 4 ................. 1486 :::: :.<:<::....... $$:.. TOTAL >'.' 5637 ?<> > ;" ::::.::::.::................. .......;: >: 5637 YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 .................................... PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary e en ':.'�< ':�� 288 '< �Y 1 ... I... 288 Mi ddle 7 .€` 12 0 .......::: ::.::........::.::,.:.:::.::........: .... 1270 5:. Hi School 1 1486 1486 AL X. 563 ....... TOT ............:. ... ..... ................. 5637 '':> SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS 31 YEAR 1 1998 19 2000, 2110I HOUSING UNITS 3 61 61:< 61 6j POPULATION ?4 151 151 SCHOOL CHILDREN .: Elementary :>:.;>:15 : 133 13 13:.: Middle 2:.>' 3 3 :: 3 3 Fligh School TOTAL 10.< 20 20 : COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.80 . SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 1.08 1.08 lYi TAX BASE $1000 ( ) 69 17841 ..::::...:.............. COUNTY BUDGET($) Revenues 9:::. 154411 [`.>`1::; 1€€: 162228 n ' es .. 86180 Expenditures �:>;; '•:: 90543 9�8g6; BALANCE ` $..... ... 68231 .....::::.:.: 71686 '�3rt7$ SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET S Revenues es 90122 Expenditures lure s 122 BALANCE 0 COMBINED BUDGETS S Revenues S .:..:....».......»:::.. .....» ....:....:::...».:.......».....:...». ................>......:.....<........:. 2 6408 1 9 1 . 25235 0> E ndtur es 5 CE 71686 ER 2003 2005 HOUS ING UNITS POPULATIO N » 15 151 1 SCHOOL CH ILDREN Elementary M&ddle Hi School » .;; >;>.;;>; :. TOTAL COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.80: 0.80 SCHOOL EM PLOYEES 1.08< 1.08 T AX BASE($1000) 19213 2018 > COUNTY BUDGET Revenue s 1 7470 2 183546 .139; : :E Expenditures 97504 102441 fls B ALANCE � 77 18 81106 SCHOOL DIST RIOT BUDG ET Revenues ......... ` > 9 7 052 101965 «>>>«.>: ` .......sE ndi lures 970 01965 BALANCE COMBINED BUDG ET S S <»;><:<>:: ; .. >Revenues 27 784 28551 : . . :>:..... ......Expenditures : 94556 04406 »:;::>Y :BALANCE ; 77 198 81106; . ? .;. "' 32 RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD Bureau of Economic&Business Research -University of Florida Modified 5/13/96-Orange County, NC Planning Department SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: ;::::.;:.;:.::........ :.;::::.::.::.::.:::::::.............:::.:::.:::. .. . €c ::.>. .................... TOWNSHIP: Chapel Hill CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: EndingYear......................................................:::::::::::::..:.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::1998 ::: . ::.::..:::::::::. ......... ......... .._ :..:.:..: .:::........................... ...: ::... 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: 6tl�i � I ::.. ::.. DE: III»I � 1,E..,�' .:.# 1• '` : . .......: :::.::::::::::.. ;:.�. :,,,::,::::: :::...:::::::::,,:,,,:,,.:::.«::,:,:.:.,,,,,:,:,,,,,,:,.:,::::.:,:,::.:::::::::.:::,.:.:::,.......................................................................................................................... Children/House: ENTER"1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW 0.33 NXXXXXXX �. . :.. HOME SALES DATA: Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units Year Homes ($) by Year 1998 23 250,000 48.94% >` < <`' ':. ><'€<? <><«< << '» <_ #?>> < >< ` ' <'>>`«>»>.... .... . .. #IA A .. ................................................................................................o.. 200�0y 0 }0 0.00/o .:............ ....... ...... .. :.... ...... .., ....:........ :,..,:.....,... 2002 0 0 0.00% ........ o.. :2j%0j04 0 0 0..00/o :;;:»:<:.. ::>::»>::>::>:: .....�..............:::::::::::::::::::::::..::::::.:.:::::::::::::::: ::::::::::.:::::.:::::..........::..............:::::::.: , ............................................................,.:.: . ..:....: ..::.. : . ...::.........................::..,.::.., ::.::.:::::.:.:..::..: . . .:.. .:.,,:,,,,.,::: 2006 0 0 0.00% SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER"1" IN ( ) BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYP School District: School Attendance: ....................:...::::::::: ::::.�::.::.S::v:.�:::.�::::::::: :::•::::::::.�::::: .::::: :::::::•:::::::::.:�::.•::::::::::v::::::: .::: ::::::::w:::::•:.�::•::v: .... Middle School 17% :::i'iiiiiii iiiii?i i::i::i...... ..... l:k::��'FF:'+. :`::#�:: :E2:: Y::< t�: ?2::X2:::%::y:::�:%::j: 33 SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS YEAR T: 1998':':: « 2000 SI G HOU N UNITS 47 47 POPULATION 116 !' >' < 116 >> >?<>> »< SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary Middle High School 3 < '< >`> 3 TOTAL 16 �$.:: 16 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 6 ..:... . .6 €€€ SCHOOL EMPLOYEES �. 0.84 .,.;. _�?A�, TAX BASE($1000) 02 2 11900 : > 1 5 : :><`;;G�.E�f�; ... :�.�.E� :;.; COUNTY NTY BUDG E T s 110041 <>;>> <>><:'s�>'�.:: ���» ....'1..'1.. �# . Revenues '<>; `.�..;� � '�.::� .:: Expenditures <; 3 > 66401 69762 5 ?> BALANCE ''>�=°�'.+t+'���» 4 640 >����`<` » ' '::::<:>::>::<•���� 458 0 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET $ ( ) Revenues . .: : 66092 6 94 Expenditures 69438 BALANCE C OMBIN E D BUDGETS $ .. . 8 1 5050 Revenues 176133 > >> �` '1.. Ex enditures > :::><:: >; 132493 139201 ;::; :'� .:: viii:4::•iii:Grii: :ii: 5 458 0 ' # BALANCE :»>:«:>:<:>:<:;<>::. . YEAR 2003 2005 :<:>: ........�..� >���?�<<>>:»:<� »' HOUSING UNITS 47 47 POPULATION 116 116 .1�.. ...:::............:......: ..... >::::: :�� ;; <`< > »'>'><� <> :::'�:....... SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 10 10 1 .. Meddle :>:<:; ; ;::: ,..:::.::.��.:,::. High School 3 ... TOTAL 1 6 ><> .62 «' COUNTY EMPLOYEES >;::;.::::>��.. E..: 0.62::s:'>;a::>::::>::>:<'s�:»>:�,.�.�E.� ': 0 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES <'> 0.84«>< ::>s:;:>:;::>::>::':1�«I :: 0.84 1 4145 E 1 > << ��'� « 13464 TAX BAS (s 000) T COUNTY OUNTY (S) 1308 ? .. Revenues ;? 124501 �<>>` ><>�����.'".�.'�.�.'� `� Expenditures :�:<:'<<� �.�..�..:...<::: 75126 7 8930 P 51876 ::;;::>:<.;;:...... �.:: .:1�;;:: 49375 »»>» < # BALANCE •:::: >z>`' �.?�.:.:::::: SCHOOL T BUDGE T ($) Revenues 74778 85 6 <> :<<:; .....�..•:�:.'> >< >>><�<`'� �<> 3 »> Expenditures 74778 78563 »� .�",',�:...�� ><>�<«' .�.�.�..':�.���` �.� P BALANCE E O BiN ED BUDGETS S C M I ► . Revenues 199279 :<< '�:>:<: 209367 9 Expenditures < > i'I :.;: 9904 ... P 14 74 3 .BALANCE »> <>: €'IE > »' 51875 49375 „ »»> <`»<« ' ... .. C 34 SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: School District: School Attendance: » Middle School 17% YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 SCHOOL CHILDREN .................. Elementary t ... 1#}. ry ..................... Middle ::::.'• ::. ::: :. € f » 3 Hi h School 3 .............`> > > > YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary Middle 3 >€€><'€€ ?<<<>»>« ''_' 3 <« .................................. gHih School TOT ::> :>::»>::> SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT-ALL SCHOOLS x. Middle 1522 -Middle 1267 >< << � [TOTAL 5970 TOTAL 5617 YEAR 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 PROJECTED OJEC ED ENROLLMENT Elementary 2878 <»»>' >`>'<<« .::' 2878 :: Middle �`�'�> ``�'"�'•"�>�' 1270 ?`< <`` >�>'>>:." :'_`.> 1� 1�... 1270 High School $ 1485 ....... :�. ..:.,.:... 1485 :<>::«:::«....:'.�.':�.<.?:`:.<.:_:::�:.:';::.:':::•: .. fix:. < ` '?«<'< ` TOTAL 33 5633 56 «< >` »?<'' YEAR 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 PROJECTED E ENROLLMENT Ele m enta 2878 '<'`'<�«'<> <'<: ........2.��... 2878 Middle 1270 < ><`':>< :`>':':: ' ' :�: .7.�.:: 1270 High I School 1485 `:`> <` ::`�:�':`'``;; TOTAL AL >« ���� <�� 5633 ` <`�<. '<�« ''?'<::«::::::<: DRAFT35 Brown asked if there were other reasons for such a long period of time for development. Mr.Kelly responded it was basically the problem with getting the turn lane in place prior to developing the next phase. The first phase has been sold out. Surveyor, Steve Yuhasz,noted that one of the conditions of approval was that the turn lane be completed before any of the other phases could be submitted. The hold up of the completion of the turn lane has been the major cause of delay. MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed(Barrows and Brown-felt that two years was adequate for development and extension should not be granted). (2) University Manor (61 Lots-Chapel Hill Township) Presentation by Mary Willis. Copies of the abstract information,comments from the County Attorney,comments from NCDOT and the Resolution of Approval are attachments to these minutes on pages Willis distributed a table regarding payment-in-lieu for this subdivision and noted that the credit for dedication of the 30-acre park site exceeds the payment-in-lieu requirement. A copy of the table is an attachment to these minutes on page Willis reviewed the information regarding the water supply and emphasized the State and local procedural requirements related to community wells. Brooks referred to the concern regarding the extension of public water lines in case the community wells proved inadequate asking who would have to pay for such extensions. Willis responded that she felt it would be the responsibility of the individual homeowners. Allison asked if it was true that individual wells could be drilled on each lot. Willis responded that the Environmental Health Department,based on the general locations of the septic systems and the size of the lots,had indicated such an option is possible. Willis reviewed the information regarding the drainage easements noting it had been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. She also noted that the comments from the County Attorney have been addressed in the revised Preliminary Plan and/or included in the Resolution of Approval. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Resolution of Approval for the University Manor Phase 11 Preliminary Plan. Brown asked how many acres of the park have been dedicated thus far,including this Preliminary Plan. Willis responded that when the first phase was done, payment-in-lieu was required of approximately$4,000.00. At that time,it was not known that a single developer would be interested in the entire development. However the issue arose that if,at some point there was parkland dedication,it DRAFT 36 would offset the payment-in-lieu required initially with phase one. Willis continued that after phase one the concept plans were combined and included dedication of a 30-acre park. With the third phase,a significantly larger percentage will be required. Pro-rating is an equitable way to require dedication. Katz asked what would happen to the remainder of the park if phases three and four are not developed. Willis responded that it is anticipated that the development will be complete with the 30-acre park. If,for some reason,the remainder of the development does not occur,one option would be to acquire the remainder through monies collected through payment-in-lieu. Willis pointed out that there are some old,dilapidated structures that are located on the area that will be addressed with the Final Phase. The possibility is great that these structures are not salvageable. Brown asked if the County would have to bear the cost of demolishing the buildings or would the developer be responsible. Willis responded that would be part of the preliminary plan approval process for phase four. By the time this point is reached,there would have been more involvement with the Recreation&Parks Department and Advisory Board to determine the best way to handle these concerns. Brown asked about the time frame for phase four. Willis responded that the next preliminary plan must be submitted within a year for the concept plan to remain valid. She noted that phase three will be presented next, so,according to the Planning guidelines,it could be two more years before phase four is presented. She emphasized that the concept plan would remain valid for one year. If regulations should change,those changes would have to be reflected in the preliminary plan. Brown asked at what point the concept plan might become invalid and have to be redesigned to meet flexible development standards. Willis responded that if the concept plan is allowed to expire,then a flexible development plan must be presented. Barrows expressed concern that the fiscal impact analysis for this project is very misleading when it is broken down into phases rather than being presented for the entire project. She felt it would be more accurate if used for the total number of lots in the entire project. Willis responded that there are several ways to address this concern. One would be that the analysis from previous preliminary plans could be included that would address the continuation of the project. Another would be to provide it for the entire project;however,the template requires that the breakdown be by number of years to buildout,value of the houses within each year and the number of houses in each phase. In a large project such as this,there are many variables and she felt including in each project a summary of the previous phases could be done. This could address the cumulative effect of the development. Barrows agreed that this could be helpful. Katz noted that there had been previous discussion on the template and the key number is the number of pupils per household. It was noted at the time that this was from census data and was Chapel Hill Township rather than the entire county. He asked if this had been corrected. Willis responded that she would have to clarify this with the Planning Director since she did not work directly with the template. Katz continued with concerns that the figures for revenues and expenditures under the school budget are the same. Willis responded she was not involved with creating the template and would have to obtain that information from the Planning Director. 37 DP APT Walters asked the location of the curves referred to in the list of comments from NCDOT that would require redesigning. Willis responded that these concerns have been addressed on the revised plat. She noted that more detail would have to be provided to NCDOT before they would give final approval. Brown asked for further review of the water system and whether there was a backup water system for the entire subdivision. Willis responded that there are to be several community systems which will eventually be interconnected. Willis continued that the individual well sites must be approved and permitted by the State Division of Environmental Health. Complete plans for each system require State approval. Before the final plat is approved,the wells have to be drilled and tests for water quality and quantity must be done. The testing process required by the State takes several months. Brown asked at what point the Planning Board would see the overall plan for the entire water system. Willis responded that the plan is still done incrementally with each phase,each preliminary plan. A private utility company would own and operate the water system. Brown continued,asking if the Homeowners' Association would be responsible for paying the private utility company and what that cost would be. Willis responded that she did not know the cost. The Homeowners' Association would own the systems,but,grant easments to the utility company. Brown asked if there is a bonding procedure whereby the County would be protected from having to run water lines. Willis responded that bonding is required by the utility companies that would be sufficient to drilling new wells. Brown asked if any analysis of groundwater has been done in this area. Willis responded that she would have to defer to Dave Stancil who works with the Water Resources Committee. Strayhom asked if each phase would have a Homeowners'Association or,if there would be one Homeowners'Association for the entire subdivision. Willis responded that it would all be under one association. Strayhom asked if the lines would meet the standards for public water so that,at some point they could be hooked into the public system. Harry Mitchell,Consultant,responded that he did not really know what Hillsborough's standards are. However, there are no fire hydrants on the lines but hydrants could be added later. Mr.Mitchell noted that the lines would be six and eight inch lines and could support a hydrant system. Brown asked if the groundwater committee in the County had been working with large projects such as this one. Stancil responded that the committee is probably a long way from being able to make a quality assessment on a site-by- site basis. He noted that the USGS report will be out in November looking at recharge rates in the County on a basin to basin case. There is nothing available at this point that would allow site specific information. The only way would be to drill observation wells. The next phase of the water resources project will try to get closer to site by site basis. Stancil continued that there is a map of hydro- geologic units done by USGS which gives a general indication of locations of some of the best bearing rock formations and underlying hydro-geology are in the County.There is a relatively high yield level that stretches through the Stoneycreek Basin. The report in November will provide information on of recharge rates on a basin to basin basis. t 38 DRAFT Price asked about the load from the septic for such a large subdivision on the groundwater supply. Stancil responded that each site would be evaluated by the Environmental Health Department. Price expressed concern with the density. It was noted that there are 281 units over 595 acres. Stancil continued that the work with the Water Resources Committee has found that there are not a lot of water quality problems in Orange County. Mr.Mitchell noted that two wells have been drilled which yield 60 and 35 gallons per minute. This is twice the yield required by the State. Strayhorn asked the depth of the wells and the response was 300-500 feet. Brown asked about holding tanks. Mr.Mitchell responded that there will be a 10,000 gallon holding tank in the first phase. Brown asked if Mitchell had the complete water plan for the entire project and the response was no but it would not take a great deal to develop the entire plan. The wells will be scattered and inter-connected. There should be the ability to tap on to a public supply. MOTION: Brooks moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Hoecke. VOTE: 7 in favor. 3 opposed(Brown-specifically wants a complete understanding of the utilities in the project and to have impact statement updated and accurate in terms of its traffic and school projection figures. Katz-concerned with impact analysis.On projects of this scale we need to be working with a longer term. Price- concurred with both Brown and Katz.) AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 8/26/96 a. Zoning Atlas Amendments