Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-04-1995 - VIII-E 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y PLANNING BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 4 , 1995 Action Agenda Item # V=.;-: SUBJECT: University Manor - Preliminary Plan DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING —Yes- -x—No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Resolution of Approval Mary Willis vicinity Map Extension 2583 Application TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Agency Comments Hillsborough-732-8181 Fiscal Impact Analysis Durham -688-7331 Preliminary Plan Mebane -227-2031 Conservation Easement (draft) Chapel Hill -967-9251 Well Easement (draft) 11/20/95 Planning Board Minutes (draft) PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for University Manor Phase I Subdivision (formerly Stoney Creek Farm) . BACKGROUND: Between September 1994 and February 1995, Concept Plans for four subdivisions in the vicinity of NC 10, New Hope Church Road and University Station Road were approved by the Planning Board. Combined, the Concept Plans propose a total of 493 lots. University Manor Phase I is the first Preliminary Plan to be submitted. Concept Plan Number of Lots Acres Approval Date Guernsdale Phase I 10 25 9/19/94 Phase II 72 137 12/19/94 University Manor formerly Stoney Creek Farm) Phase I 60 99 10/17/94 Phase II 35 75 4/17/95 Phase III 79 147 2/20/95 Craig Manor 79 120 12/19/94 University Trace 158 245 2/20/95 Total 493 848 z The property is located on the south side of NC 10 east of New Hope Church Road, and is known as lots 5.27 . .20 and 20A of Tax Map 26, Eno Township. The zoning district is R-1 Rural Residential. The Land Use Plan designation is Rural Residential. An area of about 2.8 acres in the northeast corner of the subdivision is located in the Upper Eno Protected Watershed. Forty-seven residential lots are proposed on the 95-acre portion of the property located on the west side of Stoney Creek. Sixty lots were proposed in the Concept Plan. approved on October 17, 1994. The remaining 62 acres of the tract, located on the east side of Stoney Creek, received Concept Plan approval as' a separate development. (University Manor, aka Stoney Creek Farm, Phase III. ) wastewater Disposal Individual on-site septic systems are proposed. Environmental Health has indicated that each of the proposed lots contain adequate soils suitable for septic disposal. Water Supply Water will be provided by community wells. Two community well sites have been approved by Orange County Environmental Health and the Public Water Supply Branch of the NC Division of Environmental Management. The Preliminary Plan shows the location of two well easements which contain the area within a 100-foot radius from the wells. One of the wells is located within the area designated as common open space. The other well site, as indicated on the Preliminary Plan, is located on lot 7. The approval of lot 7 by Environmental Health takes into account the location of the well. However, the Final Plat will need to show the area contained within the well easement as separate lot area owned by the homeowners association. The wells are required to be operated and maintained by a private utility company. The attached Resolution of Approval requires that the homeowners association own the area within the 100-foot radius, and that easements for operation and maintenance of the well be granted to a private utility company. Common Open Space and Conservation Easement Approximately 23 acres (24%) of the subdivision are contained within open space area to be owned by the homeowner's association. About 8.7 acres of the open space is located within the floodplain and wetlands of Stoney Creek. The attached 3 Resolution of Approval includes a condition that the floodplain be further protected through dedication of a conservation easement to Orange County or the Triangle Land Conservancy. The area to be included in the conservation easement will extend beyond the floodplain to coincide with the boundaries of lots 18 through 24, and lots 8, 9, 27, 28, and 29. Likewise, the boundaries of lots 7,8 25, 26 and 27 will be adjusted to exclude the floodplain from the lot boundaries. (The majority of area within the floodplain and wetlands associated with Stoney Creek is located on the east side of the creek, and is not included in this subdivision. That area would be similarly protected through the requirement for a conservation easement if University Manor Phase III is developed in the future.) Watershed Protection The boundary of the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Portions of lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are within the boundary of the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. An impervious surface limit of 36% applies to the portion of those lots within the watershed. A small portion of lot 7 is also within a stream buffer. Drainage Easements The Preliminary Plan indicates 20-foot drainage easements on lot 16, and along the boundaries of lots 9 and 10 and lots 26 and 27. The Resolution of Approval includes the provision 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 Access to all lots would be provided by three new public subdivision roads. Comments from the NC Department of Transportation required adjustment to some road alignments to assure adequate sight distance. No turn lanes were recommended. Preservation of Historic Site The Historic Preservation Commission appointed a subcommittee to visit the Boyd House, a historic structure located on the property, and evaluate its condition. The committee members found that the structure had deteriorated to the extent that restoring or moving the house would be unreasonable costly. It was recommended that the developer salvage, or advertise for salvage, some of the notable interior woodwork. This provision has been included in the attached Resolution of Approval. 4 Payment in-lieu-of Parkland Dedication The amount of the required payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication is $4136. This amount reflects that payment for the approximate 10% of the area in the subdivision consisting of floodplain and steep slopes is calculated at a higher rate than the remainder of the area. On July 11, 1995, the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) received an informational report concerning the status of the Concept Plans which had been approved in the Stoney Creek area. RPAC indicated interest in obtaining a community park site in that vicinity. Such a park site would need to be approximately 25 acres in size, and would need to be "high and dry" for active recreational uses such as baseball and softball, tennis, volleyball, basketball, and jogging. The most desirable area for a park site is the area on the north side of NC 10, at its intersection with New Hope Church Road. That area is not included within the University Manor Subdivision. It is included within the Guernsdale I Subdivision, which initially received Concept Plan approval on September 19, 1994 . The Concept Plan was re- approved on August 21, 1995. The size of University Manor Phase I is not sufficient to require dedication of a usable amount of parkland, and the preferred location of such a site is not within the boundaries of the subdivision. For these reasons, payment in-lieu of parkland dedication is recommended. (The Planning Staff understands that the applicant is considering the possibility of also developing University Manor Phases II and III and Craig Manor, and Guernsdale II pending negotiations with property owners. If the same applicant submits Preliminary Plans for several of the Concept Plans, then it may be feasible, through negotiation between the various property owners, for the area in Guernsdale Phase I to be dedicated as a park site. Collaboration between the property owners could result in the dedication of a single park site to collectively satisfy requirements for all of the developments. Re-approval of the Concept Plan for Guernsdale I was requested in order to allow for such negotiations prior to submittal of a Preliminary Plan. If a park site is dedicated, the payment-in-lieu would not be required.) Planning Board Recommendation The Planning Board considered the proposed subdivision on November 20, 1995, and recommended approval by a 7-1 vote. (See attached minutes for reasons for dissent. ) RECOMMNDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Resolution for the University Manor Phase I Preliminary Plan. nt4 ��' ` ZZ ��04t•: /'Ofr�(� e�;t I io Ac UN I VE KSITY ' a '- 3 _ox 11 rio 3 n. .{ MANOR - ` rfu 2.47 fG pN ASE I 00 s:c..' Lc �0n �C \ 6.9 4C I ENO_ 1 � ���_ '�• � QWNSMIP V:N � SHIP max ^ =q..4c. 03 34 �_ G zu. 4G a l n IV © -4lff 5°t! a 3C n IY4C ,44h WI .13aG /o .• �• I O s f 74 P/0134.44C. FVTVV�r DWLLOPH"T 44c. VAHMMSITY 0 Is.04 O 4t;Sf KAA!oa r147 s s�l-IC ===..Y— -— _ 4C ij3324C. Nl'4 44440 \� Off__._ Na •Otlr a •Nil _. r Srs AC \ ,� , C„> a.144C NN' Al 0 O - 2434G I jN • W I1� ii. •� Q AV I WO . 819 I a•wc aoiy I , 1 134{4C. !` r!,.�/�• ti ® 4�J n( �` �••'� 190 L fin . `. I -5J \ 22 y�1t • nf, /� i�74124M \ I1.304C. ( v \ 19 tif{ 44 lr aG N \ {7f 4C +9 Ix• ,,,• l o)t • It 1'D ' %. un „ l 1010014: l 0 O!4C. 4 /' ,• `li V ' ` • 4740( -_ / Aux �� ' 6 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CONKISSIONERS Date December 4, 1995 Name of Subdivision University Manor Phase I Owner/Applicant Sanford Bailey The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the University Manor Subdivision Preliminary Plan, dated August 1995 and containing 47 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 Westcott Court, Brampton Place, and Chilmark Circle as shown on the Preliminary Plan. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the general public of Westcott Court, Brampton Place, and Chilmark Circle 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 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. 7 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. a. The community water system shall be constructed according to the plans approved by Public Water and Sewer Branch. OR b. A letter of credit, escrow agreement or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of the community water system. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a licensed engineer or utility 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. B. Roads and Access 1. Westcott Court, Brampton Place, and Chilmark Circle shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, within a 50-foot right-of-way, and the construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. OR A letter of credit, escrow agreement, or bond shall be submitted to secure construction of Westcott Court, Brampton Place, and Chilmark Circle to the standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The financial guarantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT. 2. An erosion control plan for construction of the roads shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Division. 3. 10 ' by 70' sight triangles shall be shown at all intersections. 4 . If a divided entrance is included in the final design, detail drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. 8 5. 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. 6. 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, escrow agreement, or bond. 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 New Hope Church Road 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. The floodway and floodway fringe of Stoney Creek shall be noted on the face of the Final Plat. Development restrictions within the floodplain 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. A 60-foot stream buffer shall be provided adjacent to the floodplain at the northwest corner of lot 7, as shown on the Preliminary Plan. Development restrictions within the buffer shall be specified in a document describing development ;9 restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 3. The Final Plat shall show the boundary of the Lower Eno Protected Watershed on lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. Impervious surface may not exceed 36% of the area within the watershed. 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. 4 . 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. 5. Provide 30-foot drainage easements on lot 16, and along the boundaries of lots 9 and 10 and lots 26 and 27, in the locations indicated on the Preliminary Plan. Additional drainage easements may be required following review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan. E. Parkland/Open Space 1. Cash in the amount of $4, 136 shall be paid to Orange County as payment in lieu of parkland dedication. 2 . The entirety of the open space 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. Final documents granting a conservation easement to Orange County or the Triangle Land Conservancy for the permanent protection of the floodplain on the west side of Stoney Creek shall be submitted to and approved by the County Attorney. F. Miscellaneous 1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. 2. The following natural and man-made site features shall be shown on the plat: a. Stoney Creek floodplain and wetlands b. Duke Power transmission line 3. The following easements shall be shown on the plat: a. Conservation Easement dedicated to Orange County 10 b. Well easement dedicated to private utility company C. Drainage easements on lots 16, 26/27, and 9/10, as well as other location which may be required following review and approval of the erosion Control Plan. d. Duke Power easement 4. A setback of 40 feet shall be maintained as measured from the edge of right-of-way of Westcott Court, Brampton Place and Chilmark Circle. 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. 5. Provide documentation that the notable interior woodwork of the Boyd House, such as the hand-carved mantels, vertical beaded board wainscoting, heartpine flooring, and the Chinese Chippendale staircase and balustrade, has been salvaged or advertised for salvage. 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 Westcott Court, Brampton Place and Chilmark Circle 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. 1 f APPLICATION '/ _ R P;RELIVIINARY PLAN 'pROVAL 11 MAJOR SUBDIVISION 8/93 ORANGE COUNTY DATE: PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) SUBDIVISION NAME: University Manor LOCATION: Old NC 10 and New Hope Church Road OWNER/DEVELOPER: Sanford W. Bailey ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 1859 TELEPHONE NO.: 919-556-2146 Wake Forest, N.C. 8-1859 AGENT/CONTACT: BASS, Nixon & Kennedy, Inc. TELEPHONE NO.: 9.19-851-4422 W. Harry Mitchell A. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Orange County Tex Map � 27131ock ­2f Lot(s) 201 -20 Township Eno/Chapel H111 Zoning District(s): R-1 Total Number of Acres: 151.39 AC. Phases: Total Number of Lots: 47 Average Lot Size:61 ,586 Minimum Lot Size: Number/Type of Structures: (existing)EXi St. to be removed (proposed) 47 si!41 a fami I y rest ceFFes Lineal Feet in Streets: 4,675 LF Acres in Open Space: 21 .Zb Ac. Water Supply: N/A Public (specify) Yes Community A Individual Wastewater Disposal: N/A Public Ispecify) N_Z.A_ Community Yes Individual School District: Ora n a oun Fire'District: Eno Rural General Land Uses in Area: _ Vacant Undeyel ODed Critical Areas: 22_ Ar_ stream/drainageways 31 .6 Ac. flood prone areas Lower Eno watershed (specify) None historic sites other (explain) Is the property to be subdivided currently under 'farm use value taxation'? Yes_No X. If 'yes', please contact the Orange County Tax Office. Subdivision of the property may require payment of deferred taxes under 'farm use value taxation% B. All plats must be submitted on sheet no smaller than one inch equals two-hundred feet (1'=200') and no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1''~20') and must contain the following'information: X subdivision name X :`: "`°' zoning of tract and adjacent X i' :"?`` name & address of owner(s) properties �: ,. X name & address of subdivider X building setback lines by notation (if other than owner) or typical lot layout T name of surveyor, engineer, X location and width of existing and ........... o landscape architect or architect, proposed easements (drainage, (13 X addressistti x d l utilities, roads, etc.) , registration an sea V1 Y: (title) Preliminary Plan XXN existing. proposed and adjoining X scale, north arrow rights-of-way including dimensions a) _� date (including revision dates) and street names and state road Vf U E • 4 X township, tax map-block-Jot numbers. Lineal feet of road y U-4 X references centerlines and approximate Parent Parcel Identification N acreage of new street rights-of- X deed book and page k of property way i' "-' to be subdivided ' X existing and proposed utilities, CL rJ boundary described with bearings including type, sizes, hydrants, E " and distances valves, manholes o �o X :; + J v total acreage of the tract and X existing and proposed curbs, Y y acreage of lots, including and gutters and culverts, including U excluding area within rights-of- sizes and grades � m L t way N/A location and width of alleys, v to X >xiri, z:"•:%:; s control corner sidewalks, bike lanes, transit systems, and bus stops (please complete reverse side) X proposed lot lines wiW"imensions typical t cross•sactions and X lot & block numbers intersect —details including 12 y _ phasing lines design and 'width of travalway and X shoulders topography at ton foot (10) intervals X horizontal alignment and general curve data (public roads) O X _ >< water bodies, streams, flood-ay X CD and floodplains centerline radius on all proposed in X streets stream buffers X Q) X permanent features such as location and size of parcels N U dedicated for public use, buildings, cemeteries, historic E -­4 01 %" recreational use or reserved in X landmarks .6.3 tA.4 adjoining lot layout names of ­4 a common, with purpose noted I X 2L impervious surface data (if located djoining Property owners. If (D k&-0 in water supply watershed) :ubdivided, subdivision plat name, 4-) a) X vicinity map showing general plat book & page number, and —4 Co C_ Q) location of subdivision with streets Perimeter lot numbers. E W NZA 0 (0 and roads identified by State road location and size of lots of U number and name restricted development potential -Nd CU 'a X landscaping and buffer and notation on plat regarding 75 i6 requirements N/A same U V) X stormwater detention and/or township, corporate and extra 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 I Twenty-five (25) copiei of the preliminary plat. 2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in pencil). 3. Where municipal or OWASA sower is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department soils analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon. 4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or his/her authorized representative which sots forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV-8-3-d-1 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations). 5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section VL of.this Ordinance which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but not be limited to, a private road maintenance !'Crv:enent. 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 being met. a. Fee - $350.00 plus $5.00 per lot (11 fee for prc!iminary and final plat). 7. It the subdivision contains 10 lots or more the following information shall be subirmittad with the Z application: Number of years to buildout. - 2 Years b. Number of houses to be built during each year to buiidout. 24 Houses C. Average price of houses including lots for each year to buildout.$200,000.00 - $300,000.00 1, the applies certify t t the foregoing application is complete pnd ccurate. A RE OWNER't SIGNATURE C/ Aw. DATE OATEV FEES: Amount Date Paid Receipt # ORAN"-%E COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 13 REFERENCE NUMBER DATE PIN MAP REFEF�NCE -7 0 r APPLICANT: OWNER. HILL R-D R L R5 I E- -1 --44 22 riTTS '-!r- TELEPHONE: SPECIFICATIONS: LOT SIZE/ACREAGE. DESIGNATED WETLAND? YES NO LOCATION DIRECTIONS: FEE: RECEIPT. SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT. 1,5, CONFIRMED BY PLANNER: PLANNER DATE CLERK 4 DRAWING Nq--�. ,T -q PICALE - --- ------ ------ - ------ -------------- ----------------- V)6ul 0 10- SEE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON THE REVERSE SIDE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 14 REFERENCE NUMBER MAP REFERENCE -V DATE PIN APPLICANT: OWNEFt. 741 • TELEPHONE: SPECIFICATIONS: LOT SIZE ACREAGE: DESIGNATED WETLAND? YES - i) L NO - LOCATION DIRECTIONS: ;,? ') Q f FEE: RECEIPT: SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: CONFIRMED BY PLANNER: PLANNER DATE CLERK DRAWING NqT,-T -T SCALE Y EL-n LEVEL Q.49 TEE R Z Q,�-E. ---------------------- A�' 'o1-4 L:T-zl SEE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON THE REVERSE SIDE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 15 3001' REVERE ROAD HILLSSOROUCH. NORTH CAROLINA 27278 .• e r. tit l.. • September 21, 1995 Mr. David M. Rooks, III Northen, Blue, Rooks, Thibaut, Anderson and Woods, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 100 Europa Drive, Suite 550 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Re: Boyd House, University Manor Dear Mr. Rooks: As you may remember, at the k;I•=ric Preservation Commission meeting on September 12 the Commission appointed a subcommittee to visit the Boyd]`louse and evaluate its condition. Today I received a verbal report of the subcommittee's findings from Todd Dickinson. The members of the Commission who mwcwcd the Boyd House found that its supporting structure and essential facilities such as the kitchen and bathroom had deteriorated to the extent that restoring or moving the house could be unreasonably costly. The subcommittee does, however, amirage the developer of University Manor to salvage (or advertise for salvage) some of the notable interior woodwork such as the hand-carved mantels, vertical beaded board wainscoting, heartpine flooring, and the Chinese Chippendale staircase and balustrade. On behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission, thank you for attending our September 12 meeting and for making the effort to work with Preservation NC to try 14 donate the Boyd House. If you have any questions or need assistance, please call me or Don Belk at 967- 9251, extension 2580 or 2594. Sincerely, e-4"Gl 26.tender( Emily C. Cameron, ASLA Planner H/Landscape Architect xc: Orange County Historic Preservation Commission Mary Bess Willis, Planner III ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 16 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Willis FROM: Warren Faircloth, Erosion Control Supervisor DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT: University Manor Subdivision DATE: September 7, 1995 Since more than 20,000 square feet will disturbed for this project, an erosion control plan must be submitted and approved before any timbering, demolition, clearing, grading, or other land-disturbing activity begins. The designer should contact me to discuss this project and erosion control standards before proceeding much farther with the design and approval process. The designer should also obtain a copy of Orange County's Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Manual if they do not already have one. The sediment and erosion control plan for this project must be designed according to the standards in this manual, not according to the State's standards. xc: Sanford W. Bailey Bass, Nixon and Kennedy, Inc. #22 9-7-95 Post Office Box 8181 Carrboro/Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688-7331 Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 FAX 919-644-3002 17 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR UNIVERSITY MANOR SUBDIVISION, PHASE I RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH Prepared by The Orange County Planning Department October, 1995 PROJECT DESCRIPTION University Manor Subdivision,Phase I,is a proposed 47-lot subdivision located in Eno and Chapel Hill Townships on the east side of New Hope Church Road and the south side of NC 10. The current zoning is AR - Agricultural Residential. Approximately 21 acres of open space in the vicinity of Stoney Creek are proposed to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. the average lot size is approximately 1.4 acres. All lots will be served by individual wells and septic tanks, and public roads. For Phase I of University Manor, project build-out is estimated at two years. Housing units will be constructed, beginning in 1996,with completion of the project scheduled for 1997.Units will consist of detached single-family homes,and the applicant estimates the average sales price to be$250,000 per year, 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 fmancial 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. 1 RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD 18 Bureau of Economic& Business Research — University of Florida Modified 3/15/95 — Orange County,NC Planning Department SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: s PROJECT: University Manor Phase I TOWNSHIP: Eno/Chapel Hill CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: Beginning Year: 1996 Ending Year: 1997 Inflation Rate: 2• 0 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS: Persons/House: 2.22 Children/House: 0.29 %Non—Elderly: 100.00% f HOME SALES DATA: l Average Distribution Number of Sales Price of Units Year Homes S by Year 1996 24 250000 51.06% 1997 23 250000 48.94% 1998 0 0. 0.000/0 1999 0 0 0.000/0 2000 0 0 0€)0010 2001 0 0 0.00% 2002 0 0 0.00% 2003 0 0 0.00% 2004 0 0 0.000/0 Y 1 2005 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: Orange County ( 1 } Elementary School 50% Middle School 23% Chapel Hgl—Carrboro fl High School 27% SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN/HOUSEHOLD: ENTER NUMBER OF UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE TO GENERATE NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN. Children School Age -Housing a Units Per House Children Single—Family 47 0.29 14 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 0 0 0 Apartment/Condominium 0 0 0 Town House 0 0 0 Totals 47 0.29 14 i SECTION 2 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA 19 BUDGET YEAR: 1994-95 COUNTY POPULATION: 102894 SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION: 5582 COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA General Government 110.08 0.0011 Public Safety 138.75 0.0013 Public Works 5000 0.0005 Human Services 25338 0.0025 Education School District 74450 0.0072 i SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT Total 744.50 0.1334 t COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES S : REVENUES PER CAPITA Taxes —Other Than Property 4387997 42.65 Intergovernmental 9053572 87.99 Service Charges 2775491 26.97 Miscellaneous 1089416 10.59 F COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES S : EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA General Government 6532710 63.49 Public Safety 6350477 61.72 Public Works 2739666 26.63 Human Services 16618148 16151 Education(Recurring Capital) 750000 7,29 Non—Departmental 2787882 27.09 COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE (S : EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE General Government 6532720 5934781 ` Public Safety 6350477 4576920 Public Works 2739666 5479332 Human Services 16618148 65587.17 Education Recurrin Capital) 750000 100739 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES S : EXPENDrrURES PER STUDENT County Government 8099482 1451.00 School District 0 0.00 State 18977908 3399.84 SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES (S): EXPENDITURES PER EMPLOYEE County Government 8099482 10879.09 School District 0 0.00 State 18977908 7549081 TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION: County Tax Rate ($) 0.7460 Per$100 Assessed Valuation School District Tax Rate ($) 0.0000 Per$100 Assessed Valuation Assessment Ratio 100.00 Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable 20 SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 HOUSING UNITS 24 47 47 47 47 POPULATION 53 104 104 104 104 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 3 7 7 7 7 Middle 2 3 3 3 3 High School 2 4 4 4 4 TOTAL 7 14 14 14 14 COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Government 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Public Safety 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Public Works 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Human Services 0.1 0.3 0.3. 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES f YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 HOUSING UNITS 47 47 47 47 47 POPULATION 104 104 104 104 104 } SCHOOL CHILDREN f Elementary 7 7 7 7 7 Middle 3 3 3 3 3 High School 4 4 4 4 4 TOTAL 14 14 14 14 14 i COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES General Government 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Public Safety 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Public Works 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Human Services 03 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 E SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES i' . 21 SECTION 4 — PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT x YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TAX BASE($1000) 6000 11924 12270 12626 12992 REVENUES($) i Property Tax 44760 88953 91533 94187 96919 Other Taxes 2272 4579 4711 4848 4989 Intergovernmental 4688 9447 9721 10003 10293 Service Charges 1437 2896 2980 3067 3155 Miscellaneous 564 1137 1170 1204 1239 TOTAL (S) 53722 107012 110115 113308 116594 EXPENDITURES ($) General Government 3383 6817 7014 7218 7427 a Public Safety 3288 6626 6819 7016 7220 Public Works 1419 2859 2941 3027 3115 Human Services 8605 17340 17843 18361 18893 Education 10487 21133 21746 22377 23026 Non—Departmental 1444 2909 2993 3080 3170 a TOTAL (S) 28626 57685 59357 61079 62850 NET FISCAL IMPACTS 25096 49327 50758 52230 53744 YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TAX BASE($1000) 13369 13756 14155. 14566 14988 REVENUES($) Property Tax 99729 102621 105597 108660 111811 Other Taxes 5133 5282 5435 5593 5755 Intergovernmental 10592 10899 11215 11540 11875 Service Charges 3247 3341 3438 3538 3640 Miscellaneous 1274 1311 1349 1389 1429 TOTAL ($) 119976 123455 .127035 130719 134510 P EXPENDITURES(S) General Government 7642 7864 8092 8327 8568 Public Safety 7429 7645 7866 8095 8329 Public Works 3205 3298 3394 3492 3593 Human Services 19441 20005 20585 21182 21796 Education 23693 24381 25088 25815 26564 Non—Departmental 3261 3356 3453 3554 3657 TOTAL ($) 64673 66548 68478 70464 72507 NET FISCAL IMPACTS 55303 56907 59557 60255 62002 22 SECTION 5 - PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRIM ! YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 REVENUES(S) County 10487 21133 21746 22377 23026 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 23663 47684 49067 50489 51954 TOTAL (S) 34150 68817 70813 72866 74979 EXPENDITURES (S) A County 10487 21133 21746 22377 23026 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 23663 47684 49067 50489 . 51954 TOTAL (S) 34150 68817 70813 72866 74979 d i NET FISCAL IMPACTS 0 0 0 0 0 F i f YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 REVENUES (S) County 23693 24381 25088 25815 26564 School District 0 0 0 0 0 State 53460- 55011 56606 58248 59937 z t TOTAL (S) 77154 79391 81694 84063 86500 EXPENDITURES (S) County 23693 24381 25088 25815 26564 School District 0' 0 0 0 0 State 53460 55011 56606 58248 59937 TOTAL (S) 77154 79391 81694. 84063 86500 NET FISCAL IMPACTS 0 0 0 0 0 1 { I -SECTION 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCALIMPACTS 23 i YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 t } HOUSING UNITS 24 47 47 47 47 POPULATION 53 104 104 104 104 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 3 7 7 7 7 Middle 2 3 3 3 3 High School 2 4 4 4 4 TOTAL 7 14 14 14 14 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 i TAX BASE($1000) 6000 11924 12270 12626 12992 t COUNTY BUDGET($) Revenues 53722 107012 110115 113308 116594 Expenditures 28626 57685 59357 61079 62850 BALANCE 25096 49327 50758 52230 53744 SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($) Revenues 34150 68817 70813 72866 74979 Expenditures 34150 68817 70813 72866 74979 BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0 x COMBINED BUDGETS($) Revenues 87872 175829 180928 186175 191574 Expenditures 62776 126501 130170 133945 137829 BALANCE 25096 49327 50758 52230 53744 YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 HOUSING UNITS 47 47 47 47 47 ` POPULATION 104 104 104 104 104 z SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 7 7 7 7 7 Middle 3 3 3 3 3 High School 4 4 4 4 4 TOTAL 14 14 14 14 14 COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 TAX BASE($1000) 13369 13756 14155 14566 14988 COUNTY BUDGET($) Revenues 119976 123455 127035 130719 134510 Expenditures 64673 66548 68478 70464 72507 BALANCE 55303 56907 58557 60255 62002. SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET($) Revenues 77154 79391 81694. 84063 86500 Expenditures 77154 79391 81694 84063 86500 BALANCE 0 0 0 0 0 COMBINED BUDGETS(S) Revenues 197129 202846 208729 214782 221010 Expenditures 141826 145939 150172 154527 159008 BALANCE 55303 56907 59557 60255 62002 1 24 SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS 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: Orange County ( 1 ) Elementary School 50% Middle School 23% Chapel Hill—Carrboro 0 High School 27% YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 3 7 7 7 7 Middle 2 3 3 3 3 High School 2 4 4 4 4 TOTAL 7 14 14 14 14 YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ' SCHOOL CHILDREN Elementary 7 7 7 7 7 Middle 3 3 3 3 3 High School 4 4 4 4 4 TOTAL 14 14 14 14 14 SCHOOL CAPACITIES-ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT -ALL SCHOOLS Elementary 2838 Elementary 2767 Middle 1232 Middle 1290 High School 1518 High School 1505 TOTAL 5588 TOTAL 5562 YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary 2770 2774 2774 2774 2774' Middle 1292 1293 1293 1293 1243 High School 1507 1509 1509 1509 1509 TOTAL 5569 5576 5576 5576 5576 YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Elementary 2774 2774 2774 2774 2774 Middle 1293 1293 1293 1293 1293 High School 1509 1509 1509 1509 1509 TOTAL 5576 5576 5576 5576 5576 DI) 25 (2) University Manor - Phase I (60 Lots - Eno Township) Presentation by Mary Willis. (Due to the amount of information contained in the abstract, a complete copy of the abstract information is an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) Willis noted that the number of lots has been reduced to 47 lots and using the plan demonstrated and explained the areas where the reduction occurred. Willis stated that there are two community wells proposed. The areas within the wells will be owned by the Homeowners' Association. One well that is shown on lot 17 will be on a separate lot and the other well will be located in the open space. They will be operated and maintained by a private utility company. The utility company will have easement but will not have ownership of the wells. Willis also indicated the location of the open space noting that the applicant will be dedicating conservation easements as described in the Resolution of Approval. Willis continued that there is a historic structure on the property and the application was presented to the Historic Preservation Commission. There is also a condition in the Resolution of Approval that states the materials in the house will be salvaged or advertised for salvage before it is destroyed. Barrows asked what could be done in the open space for the power easement. Willis responded that it would be up to the power company. Some use such as gardening would probably be acceptable to the power company. Waddell noted that his experience with power easements was the power companies had no problem with uses that would keep the areas clear where they need to get to the equipment for repair. Brown asked about access from the other developments into this development. Willis responded that the boundary of this plan is Stoney Creek and that there is no plan for access into the other portions. Brown asked how the Health Department would determine the adequacy and quality of the I f 1 it L 26 community wells. Willis responded that the State water supply branch of DHS permits community wells. Approval has been received from Orange County Environmental Health Department as well as from the public water branch for wells to be drilled in the proposed locations. In order for the plan to move forward for final approval, the wells would have to be drilled and samples sent to the State. There are a number of tests that must be performed on the wells before the State will give final approval. The water system must be installed prior to final approval by Orange County Staff. Willis continued that she was not sure of the involvement between Orange County Health Department and the State. Brown expressed concern with the possible failure of the wells and the responsibility and obligation of the utility for maintenance and repair. She also asked if the utility companies are bonded noting concern that a problem such as the one which occurred in Piney Mountain Subdivision could happen in this subdivision. Willis responded that the utility company would not own the areas of the easements, they will be owned by the Homeowner's Association. Willis continued that the County Attorney had indicated that one of the problems with Piney Mountain was that the area was owned by the utility rather than the Homeowners' Association. Brown asked why a community system is proposed rather than individual wells. Willis responded that there would be additional development constraints due to the separation required between structures, wells, septic tanks and adjoining properties. Katz noted that he had some experience with such water systems. He noted that the level of sophistication necessary to properly operate a private sewer system is much more than that required to run a water system. The State does have a reasonable system in place to monitor. Since it is owned by the Homeowners' Association the health issue is limited to the owners of the system. Willis noted that the State does monitor the quality of the community wells, which does not occur with individual systems. Brown continued expressing concern that she felt the sustainability of the property is being 27 tested to its limit by the size of the development. Jobsis asked who would maintain the water lines and the response was the utility company. The developer noted improvements that have been made in the Plan to protect the view along the road. Brown asked if the landscape designer and developer was aware if the Stoney Creek Planning Group's work and the flexible development proposal as well as recommendations by Randall Arendt. The applicant responded that they felt as if they had the beginning of extensive open space development for the area. Howie expressed appreciation for the improvements made by the developer over the Concept Plan. Waddell agreed. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for University Manor - Phase I with the Resolution of Approval (an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . MOTION: Jobsis moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff with the Resolution of Approval. Seconded by Barrows. VOTE: 7 in favor. 1 opposed - Brown - would prefer that the developer consider the Stoney Creek Plan and flexible development. , 28 O R A N G E C O U N T Y PLANNING HOARD r i ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 20, 1995 Action Agenda t Item # 8 b (2) SUBJECT: University Manor - Preliminary Plan ► DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC SEARING Yes x No — — ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Willis Resolution of Approval Extension 2583 vicinity Map j Application TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Agency Comments Hillsborough-732-8181 Fiscal Impact Analysis Durham -688-7331 Preliminary Plan Mebane -227-2031 Conservation Easement (draft) Chapel Hill -967-9251 Well Easement (draft) PURPOSE: To consider the Preliminary Plan for University Manor Phase I Subdivision (formerly Stoney Creek Farm) . 4 BACKGROUND: Between September 1994 and February 1995, Concept Plans for four subdivisions in the vicinity of NC 10, New Hope Church Road and University Station Road were approved by the Planning Board. Combined, the Concept Plans propose a total of 493 lots. University Manor Phase I is the first i Preliminary Plan to be submitted. Concept Plan Number of Lots Acres Approval Date Guernsdale Phase I 10 25 9/19/94 Phase II 72 137 12/19/94 University Manor formerly Stoney Creek Farm) Phase I 60 99 10/17/94 Phase II 35 75 4/17/95 Phase III 79 147 2/20/95 Craig Manor 79 120 12/19/94 University Trace 158 245 2/20/95 Total 493 848 , a , N , !� � I f r Li U 29 The property is located on the south side of NC 10 east of New Hope Church Road, and is known as lots 5.27. .20 and 20A of Tax Map 26, Eno Township. The zoning district is R-1 Rural } Use Plan designation is Rural Residential. An areaLofd i about 2.8 acres in the northeast corner of the subdivision is located in the Upper Eno Protected Watershed. Forty-seven residential lots are proposed on the 95-acre portion of the property located on the west side of Stoney Creek. Sixty lots were proposed in the Concept Plan. approved on October 17, 1994. The remaining 62 acres of the tract, located on the east side of Stoney Creek, received Concept Plan approval as a separate development. i (University Manor, aka Stoney Creek Farm, Phase Wastewater Disposal t Individual on-site septic systems are proposed. Environmental Health has indicated that each of the proposed lots contain adequate soils suitable for septic disposal. ' Water supply F Water will be provided by community wells. Two community i well sites have been approved by Orange County Environmental Health and the Public Water Supply Branch of the NC Division of Environmental Management. The Preliminary Plan shows the location of two well easements which contain the area within a 100-foot radius from the wells. One of the wells is located within the area designated as common open space. The other well site, as indicated on the Preliminary Plan, is located on lot 7. The approval of lot 7 by Environmental Health takes into account the location of the well. However, the Final Plat will need to show the area contained within the well easement as separate lot area owned by the homeowners association. The wells are required to be operated and maintained by a private utility company. The attached Resolution of Approval requires that the homeowners association own the area within the 100-foot radius, and that easements for operation and maintenance of the well be granted to a private utility company. I Common Open Space and Conservation Easement Approximately 23 acres (24%) of the subdivision are contained within open space area to be owned by the homeowner's association. About 8.7 acres of the open space is located within the floodplain and wetlands of Stoney Creek. The attached 30 1 E Resolution of Approval includes a condition that the floodplain be further protected through dedication of a conservation easement to Orange County. A draft of the easement is attached. The area to be included in the conservation easement will extend beyond the floodplain to coincide with the boundaries of lots 18 through 24, and lots 8, 9, 27, 28, and 29. Likewise, the boundaries of lots 7,8 25, 26 and 27 will be adjusted to exclude the floodplain from the lot boundaries. (The majority of area within the floodplain and wetlands associated with Stoney Creek is located on the east side of the creek, and is not included in this subdivision. That area would be similarly protected through the requirement for a conservation easement if University Manor Phase III is developed in the future.) Watershed Protection The boundary of the Lower Eno Protected Watershed Portions of lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are within the boundary of the Lower Eno Protected Watershed. An impervious surface limit of 36% applies to the portion of those lots within the watershed. A small portion of lot 7 is also within a stream buffer. Drainage Easements The Preliminary Plan indicates 20-foot drainage easements on lot 16, and along the boundaries of lots 9 and 10 and lots 26 and 27. The Resolution of Approval includes the provision 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 Access to all lots would be provided by three new public subdivision roads. Comments from the NC Department of Transportation (attached) require adjustment to some road ' alignments to assure adequate sight distance. No turn lanes were recommended. Preservation of Historic Site The Historic Preservation Commission appointed a subcommittee to visit the Boyd House, a historic structure located on the property, and evaluate its condition. The committee members found that the structure had deteriorated to the extent that restoring or moving the house would be unreasonable costly. It was recommended that the developer salvage, or advertise for salvage, some, of the notable interior woodwork. This provision has been included in the attached Resolution of Approval. 1 f t 31 t Payment in-lieu-of Parkland Dedication The amount of the required payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication is $4136. This amount reflects that payment for the approximate 10% of the area in the subdivision consisting of floodplain and steep slopes is calculated at a higher rate than the remainder of the area. On July 11, 1995, the Orange County Recreation and Parks Advisory Council (RPAC) received an informational report concerning the status of the Concept Plans which had been approved in the Stoney Creek area. RPAC indicated interest in obtaining a community park site in that vicinity. Such a park site would need to be approximately 25 acres in size, and would need to be "high and dry" for ' active recreational uses such as baseball and softball, tennis, volleyball, basketball, and jogging. The most ' desirable area for a park site is the area on the north side of NC 10, at its intersection with New Hope Church Road. That area is not included within the University i Manor Subdivision. It is included within the Guernsdale I Subdivision, which initially received Concept Plan approval on September 19, 1994. The Concept Plan was re- approved on August 21, 1995. The size of University Manor Phase I is not sufficient to require dedication of a usable amount of parkland, and the preferred location of such a site is not within the boundaries of the subdivision. For these reasons, payment in-lieu of parkland dedication is recommended. (The Planning Staff understands that the applicant is considering the possibility of also developing University Manor Phases II and III and Craig Manor, pending negotiations with property owners. If the same applicant submits Preliminary Plans for several of the Concept Plans, then it may be feasible, through negotiation between the various property owners, for the area in Guernsdale_Phase I to be dedicated as a park site. Collaboration between the property owners could result in the dedication of a single park site to collectively satisfy requirements for all of the developments. Re- approval of the Concept Plan for Guernsdale I was requested in order to allow for such negotiations prior to submittal of a Preliminary Plan. Staff is not aware of any further collaboration between property owners at this time.) RECOMMMNDATION: The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for University Manor Phase I.