Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-23-2007-9cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 23, 2007 Action Agenda Item No. q — c, SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan Modification for Lots 22-26 of Ashwick Subdivision DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENTS: 1. Amended Resolution of Approval P 3 2. Application Letter w/ Plot Drawings p 5 INFORMATION CONTACT: 3. Signatures of all Lot Owners P 9 Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2592 4. Sept 6, 2006 Planning Board p 12 Jennifer Leaf, Planner 1, 245-2603 Minutes Robert P. Davis, Current Planning 5. May 15, 2001 Resolution of P 19 Supervisor, 245-2580 Approval 6. Preliminary Plan (Lots 22 — 26) PURPOSE: To receive the Administration and Planning Board recommendations and to make a decision concerning the modified preliminary plan for Lots 22 — 26 of the Ashwick Subdivision. REQUEST: The owners of lots 22 — 26 request a 25% reduction of the subdivision perimeter building setback from 100 feet to 75 feet. RATIONALE FOR REQUEST: This reduction would, in effect, increase the buildable area on the lots in order to allow construction of decks, patios and accessory structures that other single- family residential uses within the subdivision and area normally have the ability to do. Per Section IV-B-8-g of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board of County Commissioners is the only body that can vary the 100 -foot perimeter building setback of a Conservation Cluster Flexible Development. The square footage of homes in this subdivision range between 1,600 and 2,800 with the predominate size being approximately 2,100 square feet. This request is ' due to the limited buildable area for house and other structures rather than any desire to build larger homes. Three of the lots already have 1,600 square foot homes constructed on them per the developer; none of these lots have room for an accessory structure. LOCATION: The Ashwick Subdivision is located in Efland (Cheeks Township) on the northern side of US 70 West near the Efland Fire Station (EMS Station # 4). The zoning of the subdivision and the surrounding vicinity is R-1, a single-family residential district with 40,000 square foot minimums (14,000 under Flexible Development). All lots are connected to public sewer and Orange-Alamance water and were developed under the Conservation-Cluster Option of Flexible Development at the minimum of 14,000 square feet per lot. The entire subdivision has been platted with many of the lots sold with homes constructed. • On May 15, 2001, the BOCC approved the Preliminary Plan for the Ashwick Subdivision. Included in the approval was a 100 -foot perimeter building setback for structures for all lots within the subdivision. • On November 6, 2002, the BOCC amended the May 15th Resolution of Approval to accommodate the construction of an internal walkway system within the common open space. • The 100-foot building setback is a unique requirement of the Conservation-Cluster option of Flexible Development. The original intent of the buffer was to provide a 100-foot minimum distance between potential structures in newly approved subdivisions and adjacent property lines bordering the subdivision. The original idea was that 100 feet was necessary for privacy for adjacent owners, even though adjacent lots may have structures located within 20 feet of the subdivision boundary. • Lots 22-26 are severely encumbered by the setback requirements. The building pads' depths at the center are approximately 40 feet, more or less, on lots 22 - 26. While this depth is adequate for most homes, there is little or no usable area for decks, bricked patios, workshops, or garage/storage structures for lawnmowers, garden tools, etc. (See applicants' plot plans on pages 6-8) • As a side note, the Planning Board asked staff to investigate (research) how 100' building, setbacks are realized in urban settings, such as this case, versus rural settings where lots are always more than 4 times larger. • All property owners within the subdivision are aware of the applicants' application and have signed documents indicating their consent with the request. (See attachment on page 9) • Even with the 25-foot setback reduction, the restrictions (which creates more in-lot open space/unbuildable areas) on these lots are still greater than on other lots within the subdivision. PROCESS Planning Board, on September 6, 2006, voted 9-1 to recommend approval of the request to reduce the subdivision perimeter-building setback from 100 feet to 75 feet. BOCC to receive Planning Board and Administration recommendations and to make decision. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No public Financial Impact RECOMMENDATIONS: Administration recommends Approval of the request in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval. Planning Board recommends Approval of the request to reduce the perimeter building setback to 75-foot width and to require that a double-sided shadowbox fence be constructed in the common area, at the rear property line of Lots 22 — 26. The Homeowner's Association shall maintain the fence. (See attached preliminary plan for proposed fence location) Administration Recommendation RESOLUTION Ki THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ASHWICK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR LOTS 22-26 Date January 23, 2007 Name of Subdivision Ashwick Owner/Applicant Ashwick Associates, LLC (formerly Perry's Construction Corporation) The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves this amendment to the May 15., 2001 Resolution of Approval of the Preliminary Plan for lots 22-26 of the Ashwick subdivision. The amendment shall be in accordance with the sheet, titled Preliminary Plan Modification for lots 22- ' 26 (dated August 23, 2006) prepared by Phil Post and Associates, and subject to fulfillment of amended requirements specified herein. The Final Plat of Ashwick Subdivision shall be re-recorded, along with the amended declaration that states the following: C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 4. For lots 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, the 100 feet building setback buffer, as required by the Subdivision Regulations Section W-B-10 D2, shall be reduced to 75 feet width. 5. A six-foot double-sided shadowbox or similar fence shall be installed in the common area, along the rear property lines of 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, prior to re-recordation of the final plat. The Homeowner's Association shall maintain the fence. Provisions for the installation and maintenance of the fence shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. Administration Recommendation NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, that this amendment to the Resolution for Approval for the Preliminary Plan for Ashwick subdivision is approved in accordance with the above mentioned conditions and attached preliminary plan with the modified 75 feet building setback shown (dated August 23, 2006). Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of 72007. 1, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 2007 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this _ day of 2007 Clerk to the Board of Commissioners SEAL Ashwick, LLC. 827 McDade Store Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 919- 732 -3420 August 7, 2006 TO: Orange County Planning Dept. We would like to request a partial waiver to the tree buffer of lots 22 through 26 in phases 2 and 3 in the Ashwick Subdivision. The Subdivision has a 100' tree buffer around the perimeter which falls into the rear of each of these lots and determines the rear boundary of the building envelope. With the houses set as close to the front setback as possible, even using a narrow house plan, the rear setback created by the tree buffer falls so close to the rear of the house that there is no space for a deck, swing set or storage building for lawn equipment. A reduction of the tree buffer to 75' would allow this needed space. In exchange for the additional 25' the Home Owners would put up a 6' wooden fence along the rear of their property line or would plant additional trees to reduce visibility from adjacent property owners. Two of these lots are sold and each has requested to put a deck, storage building, etc. Plats of these lots are enclosed showing the building envelopes and the location of each of the houses. Thank you for your consideration Ric and Perry A ` wick, L C. LOTS 22,24,26 Rich Perry Andy and Kate Pope L 2 Any pe K P e irds Matt Edwards Cynthia Edwards nn«sz 00 1. S887547 5`1 E 13 9 ..2.2' .71 0'' 1 c,., O til L` . co N86*11'59 w c I 1391 :56' . cn 0 1 N� P WORK MAP PHILIP ,R, 401 Provide _. _ _ ....._. "POST chaPd Hni. - (919)929 -1 wBm�not 493 -2600 822 North --"""""'— Greexsstroro, LOTS 22 & 23 ASSOCIATES .(919)273--1 mss— 8----- ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. CHEEKS TOWNSHIP 12/07/2006 13:50 91,93833824 Nuv-ef�e 03,.SiP FRr;M: MORGAN MOTORS TOIR-411036 PAGE 02 P; 1-12 10 3.3le-10 12 5.31c-12 13 3.31c.13 :1j. 4 October 10, 2006 ASHWICK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RE: Ashwick subdivision Land Owners Orange County Planning Dept. has approved a request for a partial reduction of the 100' tree buffer behind lots 22-26. This would be reduced to 75' if each owner of these lots agrees to put up a 6' wooden fence in the rear of their property in exchange for the 25' reduction. On these lots the 100' buffer falls so close to the rear of the houses that it leaves no room for a deck, storage building, etc. We need the signatures of all of the owners so that the Orange County Planning Dept. can submit it to the Orange County Commissioners. Lot TM[BL Owner Owner 1 3.31c..1 S tt adeiros El' abeth Madeiros 2 3.31c..2 Hein Merrick G 3 3.31c..3 Triplett Donna J. Trip tt 4 3.31 c..4 ' bert 0 5 3.31c..5 Mark A. S Barbara, Sprout 7 3.31c..7 ulong Roberta D, on 8 3.31c..8 P 's Cons c C&P. jTu ti 10 3.31c..10 B-e-nnis J ewis Cory L. Hunt rZboL. MjyFe baraXSproul n e4 mus J. ew's 11 3.31c..11 �en Haidyth S. W en el Phi 12 3.31c..12 P la. S 13 3.31c..13 James -Xyv gton 14 3.31c..14 15 3.31c..15 16 17 21 .;pnStqtt .v B. Allen 3.31c..16 Grego _1 Eppard 7� 3.31c..17 Mcheal alz 7- 7 3 47�: .31c..21 Steven Risle Barbara Christoff 10 cgP.EE �rd Ppar Kattly Balzerano Ct Risle �11 I pm&r 28 3.3 1 c..66 48 3.31c..48 49 3.31c..49 50 3.31c..50 51 3.31c..51 52 3.31c..52 53 3.31c..53 54 3.31c..54 55 3.31c..55 56. 3.31c..56 57 3.31c.57 6,9,18-20,22,26,27, 11 Pe 's Construction Corp. w I MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Dobyns, Checks Township Representative; Craufard Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Joel Knight, Little River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Representative; Sandra Quinn, Eno Representative; Renee Price- Saunders, Hillsborough Representative (Vice-Chair); Jeff Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At- ]Large; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At-Large OTHERS PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Glenn Bowles, Planner 111; Jennifer Leaf, Planner 1; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant 11; Brian Carson, GIS Technician; Allan Rosen, citizen; Rick Perry, builder/developer AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AGENDA ITEM #2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Next Regular Planning Board Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 4, 2006 b. Planning Calendar Tom Altieri: One minor change to the September calendar is that the NC 57 Small Area Plan Task Force meeting was changed to September 13 'at 7 pm. c. Nominations to the New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm Steering Committee Brian Dobyns: When will this committee be meeting? Sandy Quinn: The scheduled meetings are on the third Monday at 5:30 pm. Because of the timing of the meeting, I am unable to work on this committee. Jay Bryan: Please contact Brian Crawford to see if he might be interested or available to serve on this committee. Joel Knight: I am unable to serve, due to the time of the meetings. d. Dane County Comprehensive Plan information 13 Craig Benedict. Possibly. The attorneys are meeting to discuss the issues. f. Presentation by the State Forester Robert Davis: As was recently requested by the Board, Jake Pressley, the State Forester, has been invited to make a presentation for the next Planning Board meeting in October. He would like to know in advance any particular issues that you would like to have him address. Please email any suggestions to Sherri or me by the end of this week. AGENDA ITEM 48: PRELIMINARY PLAT MODIFICATION FOR LOTS 22 -26 OF ASHWICK SUBDIVISION Jennifer Leaf presented the following abstract: PURPOSE: Review request for a modification to an approved Preliminary Plat for five lots in the Ashwick Subdivision. Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding a request to reduce the building setback buffer by 25 ft. from 100 ft. to 75 ft. BACKGROUND: • On May 15, 2001, the BOCC approved the Preliminary Plan for Ashwick Subdivision, which included a 100 -ft. building setback buffer. • The 100 -ft. setback is required between the building envelope and the "subdivision boundary, as outlined in Section IV -B -10 D2 of the Subdivision Regulations, Flexible Development Conservation - Cluster Option requirements. This is allowed to be within the lot when the subdivision has a minimum of 33% open space in common ownership. • Section D2 also has a requirement that each lot must contain sufficient area to accommodate a single- family detached dwelling and customary accessory uses, including, but not limited to, storage buildings and garages, patios and decks, lawns, and driveways. REQUEST: • Lots 22 -26 are severely encumbered by the setback requirements. (See letter from applicant) A 1,000 - square ft. building footprint that meets the 30 -ft. front yard setback requires all usable area on a lot, leaving no room for accessory uses in the rear yard. The owners of lots 22 -26, Richard Perry, Andy and Kate Pope, and Matt and Cynthia Edwards, are requesting a modification of the setback requirements. (See attached letter) They have requested a 25 -ft. reduction of the setback buffer, from 100 -ft. to 75 -ft. BOCC approval is required prior to the modification of a building setback buffer of an approved major subdivision final plat, as per the Subdivision Regulations, Section IV- 13-8 -g. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the County. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends Approval of the request to reduce the buffer to the 75 -ft. width in accordance with conditions outlined in the attached revised Resolution of Approval. 0 Jennifer Leaf: The primary reason for this requested change is that the developer recently realized there were problems regarding the placement of accessory use structures on these properties. Some of the landowners have inquired about putting up accessory buildings, and there isn't room with the current lot requirements. Originally there was approximately 46% open space provided in the entire subdivision. This change will only create a loss of less than one acre, and we will require no tree removal for trees over 8" in diameter in the remaining 75' buffer, as well as a continuous fence along the rear property line, to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Michelle Kempinski: Wouldn't it be appropriate for this to go to the Board of Adjustment since the plan was already approved by this Board? It sounds like more of a hardship request. Jennifer Leaf: The current subdivision regulations reflect that for requests for a waiver of the buffer rules, it needs to come through the Planning Board and the BOCC. Craig Benedict: There's a general rule that says whoever makes the rules for a subdivision, they're the only ones who can accept modifications. That's why the Planning Board is involved now. The Planning Board gave the Resolution of Approval several years ago when the subdivision was approved, so it is the only one to recommend a change. The Board of Adjustment is not involved in this case. Judith Wegner: Is this specified in the Subdivision Ordinance? Jennifer Leaf. Yes. Judith Wegner: Does it specifically mention waivers? Jennifer Leaf. Yes. Judith Wegner: What type of land is the area above the `green' area? Jennifer Leaf. It is currently wooded. It serves as an open space buffer between the lot lines and the edge of the property. Judith Wegner: Where would the fence go, and what type of fence would it be? Robert Davis: It would go along the edge of the property line, and would be a 6' fence, as discussed in the abstract. Jennifer Leaf: We are requiring the fence because of the possible removal of vegetation. The fence would be equally attractive on both sides. Renee Price - Saunders: Is there any statute of limitations on how long lots can be within a subdivision without construction? 5 15 Craig Benedict: There are regulations in terms of when the phases are approved and recorded. Once all of the sections are recorded by the developer, they can request a waiver to the Resolution of Approval, and there are no time limits. The requested change is only for 5 or 6 lots, which are still owned by the developer. Renee Price - Saunders: Is this a part of the one phase? Rick Perry: Part of the lots are in Phase 2 and some are in Phase 3. There were originally 58 lots, which were revised to. 56 lots in the two phases. Craufurd Goodwin: Presumably a tree buffer has logic to it. The request seems to say that this is inconvenient. What is the future rationale for these types of requests? Jennifer Leaf. The size of the lots was originally thought to be OK. We are not making any precedent for waiving the buffer requirements; Staff just didn't realize the potential problem with accessory buildings. Craufurd Goodwin: Was this a staff error? Jennifer Leaf: It wasn't really a staff error; all parties agreed. After the setbacks, there's room for a 1,000 square foot home in the building footprint, but not enough room for accessory structures. Michelle Kempinski: Do you mean inside the building envelope, or the lot size? Jennifer Leaf. The total lot size. A sample house placement is included in your packet. Craufiard Goodwin: So, let me restate my question; are we setting precedent by approving this request? Robert Davis: We're trying to get away from this. This subdivision has more than enough open space. A lot of developers want to go the conventional route because of the 100' perimeter setback requirement, and still meet the 33% open space requirement. It's not really a precedent. We have this same situation currently in Churton Grove subdivision under an approval in the 1980's.. Michelle Kempinski: There appears to be a 30' road front buffer. Could the houses be shifted forward to provide more room? Robert Davis: That would be considered an individual variance of building setbacks, which would be handled through the Board of Adjustment. Variances are done on a case -by -case basis for every lot, and the grounds would be questionable in this situation. The request through the Planning Board is the easiest way to resolve the issue for these lots. Sandy Quinn: Is it possible to change the size of the lots? C1 16 Robert Davis: Three of the lots have already been sold. Jennifer Leaf: Even if the lot size was changed, they still wouldn't be deep enough for an accessory structure. Robert Davis: The 100', buffer requirement is variable by the Boards. It was put in the regulations to address developments in open fields where there is no visual separation. In this case, the buffer is wooded. Bernadette Pelissier: If this wasn't a staff error, a 1,000 square foot house isn't very large so it should have been addressed with the original application. How can this-be prevented in the future? Is there any way to ensure that in the future the lots are buildable? Robert Davis: Staff will have to look more closely at this type of situation in the future. Bernadette Pelissier: Can this be changed in the ordinance? Robert Davis: Yes, it could be. Craig Benedict: A 100' buffer is easily accommodated in rural areas on 1 -2 acre lots, but not on 1/3 acre lots, which are the majority of the applications received. We probably need an ordinance amendment to accommodate this. This is something that could be reviewed by the Ordinance Review Committee. Robert Davis: There was a public dedication of land along McGowan Creek that was important in the original plan consideration. Jay Bryan: Is there only one adjacent property that's affected by this change? Robert Davis: Yes, it is one individual residence. Jennifer Leaf: We didn't see an actual house on the aerial. Jay Bryan: Was there any public comment on this at the time of plan approval? Robert Davis: Not that I'm aware of. I can check the past minutes. Jay Bryan: We want to correct these circumstances, and not allow it to set a precedent for a future situation. Jeff Schmitt: How large is the building envelope square footage? Michelle Kempinski: 2,700 square feet. Jeff Schmitt: That seems like it should be large enough. 6 17 Brian Dobyns: The request is not just for the house structure, but for accessory buildings. Jennifer Leaf The owners couldn't put in an accessory building. We're looking at not only the home size. Robert Davis: One of the owners called our office and requested to build a workshop on their land, and because of these requirements, they couldn't do it. Also, in looking at the past minutes, public concerns at the original time of application were about water and sewer system, the reduced lot size due to the flexible development design, the potential loss of vegetation, the impact on McGowan Creek, concern over the house size, and the visual impact to adjacent properties. These concerns were all addressed. Craufurd Goodwin: Five years ago, Staff failed to catch this. I have no problem with acknowledging that an error occurred. I have concern about the potential precedent for similar situations in the future. Renee Price- Saunders: Regarding the person who wants to build a workshop, is there already a home there? Rick Perry: Currently there are homes on three of the lots. Robert Davis: The issue is that nothing else besides the home could be built on the lots. Michelle Kempinski: You could build a patio. Adding a patio wouldn't affect the setback. . Robert Davis: It would if it was raised on the sides above 30 ". Renee Price- Saunders: If we give approval now, would the footprint size change for the current homes to the new limits? Robert Davis: If the buffer is relaxed, the house size for the existing homes could be expanded. Michelle Kempinski: So the houses could be built to the new standards, but the question is if it allows for accessory structures. What if they want to build an accessory building — wouldn't it be reviewed at the time the permit is required? Couldn't it be treated as a variance rather than asking the Planning Board to make this change? Robert Davis: The Board of Adjustment has no authority to waive the subdivision regulations for major subdivisions. If the request pertained to setbacks on an individual lot, they could come to the Board of Adjustment. Staff can only address this situation if it were a minor subdivision. Major subdivisions are the Planning board and BOCC decisions. MOTION by Judith Wegner to accept the recommendation of Staff to recommend approval of the request to reduce the buffer size to 75' to the BOCC. The Planning Board also requests that OR Staff more intensively review projects to avoid this occurring in the future, and consider text amendments to make the language clearer. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. Renee Price-Saunders: The problem is with the two lots that aren't built. This may be a concern for the BOCC. How will this change affect the size of the homes of those lots? Judith Wegner: We would need to say to the BOCC that this would apply to existing or future lots. Jennifer Leaf. If they want to build a larger house, then they couldn't have an accessory building. Robert Davis: We're not modifying the impervious surface requirements. That is locked in. Jay Bryan: So, this would be it for this subdivision? Would other lots be affected? Robert Davis: No other lots have this problem. VOTE: Aye (9)-Joel Knight, Judith Wegner, Bernadette Pelissier, Jeff Schmitt, Sandy Quinn, Brian Dobyns, Craufurd Goodwin, Renee Price-Saunders, Jay Bryan. Nay (1) — Michelle Kempinski. Michelle Kempinski: My objection is that this subdivision was approved five years ago. Three of the five lots that were requested already have homes built on the land. The lots were purchased with the awareness of the setback. The request may set a precedent for other approved subdivision lots where the owner would like to increase the buildable lot area. AGENDA ITEM #9: DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESSES Jay Bryan: Before we start on this agenda item, Allan Rosen has requested that we distribute a letter from the Village Project about the process. Does the Board want to accept it tonight? (No objections. Distributed.) Tom Altieri: Based on the August 28 work session, we received some additional direction for developing the process for the Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC asked that Staff and the Planning Board Chair meet with the County Manager to determine how best to proceed, which we are in the process of scheduling. There were questions raised about the timetable, staff resources, the Advisory Board role, project management, and meeting facilitation. There are a lot of areas that the County Administration, Planning Board Chair and Planning Staff will discuss. Planning Staff is asking that the Planning Board focus on the comments received that night. The goal is to have a response for BOCC consideration at their October 3 meeting. The original thought was to prepare something for the September 19 meeting, but that is too soon considering other deadlines. Staff feels that a special meeting of the Planning Board is needed to complete this. I'd also like to ask for latitude in reviewing the comments myself and revising the draft process, and making revisions before the Special meeting. These changes would be done using tracked changes, so that you could see the changes made. We feel confident that we have - Z 1 RESOLUTION AIM : TWORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AS-.HWICK SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN Date :. Name of"SUbdivisiotf an OwnerrAppffc ' t May 15, 2001 Ashwick Perry's Construction Corporation,' I The Board 'of CdUnty Commissioners hereby approves the Preliminary Plan for Ashwick subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated Apdll 4, 2000 (last revised October 26, 2000) and- subjecirtarf Mitrrre &mquirements specified. hefeln:�- All roads sheill' be irrevocably dedicated to the general oublit'and'be constructed td standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to,accept for'the County ands on behalf of the public: generally; the 'offer of dedication of Ashwick Drive, Glenw'idk Drive, Norwich CoUrt FEims. Wick Place, Chadwick% Lane, Benwich Lane, and, StrayM'ck, Court This acceptandWoi., dedication taithell,general public shall be without maintenance responsibility ; These.-, roadsl�sfialla „; be maintained by the owner/applicant (Perry's Construction Corporation) until such time a$ i they are* accepted; for;. maintenance', by, -NCDOT or some other.govemmentali body:- I;:. Alteasement!�Jdr' drairt'age', pedestrian access or other purposes.; al I'privatd "open space, and alil public recreation space shall likewise be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as they are transferred. to the control of the Homeowners Association or are accepted fo6i!? maintenance by the Orange�Ajamance Water System or by the County,. The internal pedestriani'.”, walkway system shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as it is transferred to: the. control of the, Homeowners Association. Z17; 57:�A'l a =�a,01874 I "We' t'� '4Q-*J 9117-3 a —Vil Lai a---TfJ —#i# t-77M X. ' Sewage., Disp.esaY.and Water, System A-1: Each residential. lot, shall be provided ,. a sewer line stub' out in accordance with! Orange CoUhtyj,'sewer connection guidelfhe&.,-= 2. SeWeriline construction drawings shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to submittal to. NCDOT or any state regulatory agencies,,. for permitting or approval.;: Sewer shall be designed in such a way to alloW* ' foffuture extension of lines to adjacent properties as outlined in Section IV-B-64 and IV-13-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations., The propdsb&,i*-'25-foot easement crossing McGowan Creek shall be deidicaiddlifor future s6W0.`,0Aensiont.; and for; NN temporary public access to the public recreation space until such future time when other forms of public access are available. Any changes, in design to comply with. requirements fronT.. either - NCDOT or other agencies shall also be approved by County Engineer. Sewer,lines and. sewer system irrigpvements shall be, constructed as, provided. herein ,prior1a...firial -,plat approvaf.' OR A letter- of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be- submitted.: to: • secure: construction of the sewer system to Orange County standards. An estimate :of • the: construction cost must be prepared by a certified/licensed engineer and'submitted to the Orange County Planning Department and County Engineier� The financial guarantee must reflect 110 percent of....thatestimate, and be issued,,. by, an accredited financial institution licensed!to do. business in North Carolina. - Thee document describing development restrictions to be recorded'v0th the Final i� Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the sewer system construction has been kmpected.and , proued.bX.Qrange ainty 3.. All existing and proposed sanitary sewdre easements toiber dedicate' &.. to Orange County, shall be shown on the preliminary and final. plats. The .developer shall submit .a copy .of a letter from the County Engineer certifying that all sanitary sewer lines -have been installed per the approved plans and dedicated to Orah go Gounty'prio-r to the issuance of any building permits. As-built;drawirigs shallt.pa subititt dd::..-to,­ ands.- approved by County Engineer prior,to e issuance,'..'. of . the first cerfificate of occupancy. 4. Each residential lot shall be provided water line stub out in accordance with Orange,41amance. Water System connection guidelines. r. 5. Water line construction drawings shall be approved by the Orange-Alamapce Water, System prior to submittal to NCDOT or any state regulatory.. agenciesjfoC permitting, "or approval. Any changes in design to comply with requirements from either NCDOT or other agencies shall also be approved by Orange-Alamance. Fine hydrantlocations shall be approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal. Water; lihes and.: water system imp.rovementsi shaft be con'structedfas,p. provfded her6in*pnorAofina[plat approval. OR A letter of credit or escrow agreement, or other` security shall be - submitted to secure construction the water system to Orange-Alamance Water System standards. An estimate of the construction cost must be prepared by a certifidd/liceinsed engineer and submittedi, to the Orange Countyi: Planning Department and County Engineer. The financial guarantee must reflect 110 percent of that * estimate and be issued by an accredited financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina. 21 The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final ti ;Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released, until the water system and hydrant construction has been inspected and• approved by Orange - Alamance -Water System, Inc. and the Orange County Fire Marshal. C. Fire flow and water line pressures shall be approved by the Orange County. Fire Marshal pdo ,to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. ` 7:• -Sewer tap acreage access availability capital facility fees !Sewer fees based on an acreage or a per lot charge. shall be •paid to`. grange.,. County prior to Planning Department signatures on the final plat. Sewer fees ;.. basedr..on house size shall be paid to Orange County when obtaining, individual. building permits. B. : Road-st and Access Ashwioli Drive, Glenwick Drive, Norwich Court, Farns Wick Place, Chadwick Lane, Benwich Lane, and Straywick Court shall be constructed to NCDOT minor local standards with a 50 -foot right -of -way and 5 -foot utility easements on ?;each side. Construction shall be inspected and approved by;. NCDOT. A letter. 'of. credit or escrow agreement ;or other security shall be submifted'`16' secure., 4 construction of Ashwick;;,Drive,. , G16dwick Drive, . Norwich Court, Farms 41'... . Wick Placer . Chadwick Lane, 4.;Benwid - Lane; and Straywick Court to., N.C'DOT.O' standards. - An 'e u "'estimate of' constrction "cost must be prepared' by' a, cerldfied/licensed,,engineer or grading contractor and submitted toy, the., Orange County`. Planniri -: D`epartment.:. The ;.financial guarantee must refledf` 'iIG*- percent, of that!estimate and be issued,,by; an.accredited financial instituti.od- licenser to do. business in North Carolina. f 2." An erosion control plan for the entire project, including streets;- shall be submitted '. by!lthe applicant-for review and shall be approved by the Orange'County Erosion Control Division prior to any disturbance on the site. • The Erosion Control Plan shalh,include a stormwater management, plan "t,T,iedts'the.requiroments, of both ttie County and the Neuse River Basin. rules 3: Paor„to any, construction or any:alteratiorr =of any existing, access within the eight'.. of -way of. US Hwy. 70 West, the developer /owner shall secure a driveway permit.;`:; frdm the'NCDOT District Office. - -The applicant shall submit a copy of the NCD OT. ' permit and approval letter to the: Planning Department when requesting Planningi �' Department signatures on the Final Plat. Sight distance triangles shall be shown at all intersections within the subdivision, or included within the right -of -way of the proposed street. 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. 4. All lots shallhsecure access from streets internal to the subdivision. Lots with frontage do ;more than one road shall be.•designed to access :from the street with M lower traffic volume: i.e. lot 1 and 6 to Farnswick Place, lots 7 and 21 to Glenwick Lane, lot 31 to Straywick Court, lot 43 to Benwich Lane, and lots 48 and 58 to Chadwick, -Lane. Driveway cuts shall'Ibe a minimum of 50 feet from street . intersections.: These restrictions shall be stated irva document describing development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the final plat. Non-vehicular access easements (NVA)= areas...- where vehicles are prohlbite•fr-brri traveling —shall also be. shown- on the,;final plat 5. ApproVed" street name signs shall be erected at the intersection required in Section IV-13-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the signs. are, in placo-or a. copy. of the' receipt for purchase of the signs shall 'be- submitted. to the. Planning. Departm. ent at, time of request to record tha+ Final Plat The. applicant shall dedicate, in fee simple," an additional 20 feet or 5g' feet from the centerline of the existing right-of-way whichever is greater, along the entire fforitage of US, Hwy 70 West to the North Carolina, Department of Trat#ortatibn for future road improvements. The dedication shall be shown on final plat. Property lines to stop at new public right-of-way. 7-: To erisureisafd ingress. into the property:tha dbvelb'p er shall construct and'Install, to NCDOT standards, a right hand taper along the west bound lane of US Hwy 70 West, and a left hand turn lane between the west and eastbound lanes of,US Hwy 70 West: as shown on the attached sketch ;drawing. &I The;: B'driwich. Lane right-of-way shalf'•.extend tdl-'the northwestern', external.' property line of the subdivision in the proximity of lots 31, 34, and 35.* , A conveyance of a 50-foot right -of -way with 20-foot construction easementsl..on, each side ofthis'northwestern, most'portion of Benw`iidh`;--Larie.is acdeptable'>in­: lieu-of< construction. : The final plat shall clearly indidatd,' the .Wdstern, ex.terrt-.,..ofi,- street construction on Benwich Lane. . .., "The develbperr shall install and construct an internal walkway within the,i"i, : NCDOT right-of-,way of all interior roads (Ashwick Drive, Gienwick Drive, Norwich Court, Farns Wick Place, Chadwick Lane, Benwich Lane, and Straywick Court);to prqvidv,pedestrign access throughout the subdivision.; Such Walkways shall: beGt, g2dedfaraaeverrzurfack and covuedAn a-naturaL materiaLsuch: as. woodchips,..: they'. shall.;notbe pavecF.,'...' The internal walkway system shall be..-initalled as indicated.on. the, Final Plat;and inspected by Planning Department staff prior to Final Plat approval and again prior to. the transfer of control of th•Homeowners Association from the,developer to the home owners as,provided by the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Ashwick Subdivision. The Declaration of Development Restrictions and Requirements prepared by Planning Department Staff shall include a maintenance agreement for the Homeowners Association to permanently : maintain the internal walkway system. 23 G. ' Land Use Buffers and Landscaping 'Landscaping.:. shall be installed [or preserved] as indicated the: approved I % .. - landscape plan prior to Final Plat approval. Landscaping shall 'also include a 75- foot Land Use Buffer along US Hwy 70 West as shown on the approved landscape plan. MN A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other- security shall be.:submitted. to securefthe required landscape installation and preservation. An estimate of the cost. fdr:- required preservation, new planting�q,, and their installation ; must. be.. provided. The financial guarantee shall reflect 110 percent of' the estimate -and must be*1issued by arT accredited financial institution; Iicensed....todo.,,,,:business in Nortft-Carollha; The'laadscaping, shall be maintained by the owner /applicant (Perry's, Construction Corporation) until such time as it is for maintenance by the homeowners association. 3. Provi§1d.risIotithe protection of existing trees iastshown ,on. the approved landscapefpIan -shall be included in a document describing, dev6ldpMent restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently With the Final Plat. D Drairiagp. I impervious surface data for all lots, pursuant to Article 6.23 Extra Requirements for* Watershed Protection Overlay Districts of the Orange County Zoriipd,, Ordinance,, sNaill be included in the development restrictions and requirerneaf, document to be prepared by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. . The impervious surface limitations for each lot shall indicate whether the irhperviobs. ..Wrface includes or excludes one-half (1/2) of the roadway width; in the calculations. ';Drainage.' easements shall be located on the Final Plat as required following r ev iew, an 6 ap p Fav a l of th,,—Erosi =CmIt M L PLar t 31! Drainage' culverts shall be sized . and located as required by NCIDOT and the Orange County Erosion Control Officer. E. Parkland (Public & Private Recreation Space) and Open Spade 1. The proposed fifty-eight (58) lot subdivision is located within; the Cheeks Townshipl, District Park area. Per Section IV-B-7-b of `the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, subdivisions (located within a floodplain) must provide a minimum.of 1/20 acre of recreation space per residential lot. Based on the number of proposed residential lots, the applicant shall dedicate a minimum of 2.9o-acres.,.'s(126,324 square feet) ,Iqf.Fthe0,,,County for public_: ecreation space or 24 submit an in-lieu of payment. The applicant has offered 4.46 acres (194,278 square feet) of land along the northern side of McGowan Creek. The location and amount of,the proposed dedication is consistent with the. County-'s,.objectives to preserve natural areas and 'provide public recreation'spacm The 4.415,acres, of public recreation space shall be dedicated to the County during the: construction of Phase 1. ,.The+applicantsshalV*.de n A e.phasing for the project in, such a way that the pedestrian trail system is installed 'during Phase 1. The applicant shall maintain a minimum of thirty-three (33) percent open ispace during alli, phases. of construction, and shall ensure that residents.-can access the- various .-sections of open space from the pedestrian trail system during all phases. Section A. 2- of this Res.olutton, provides for,pu b. l B c: access-,...Aa; the 4.46. acres of public recreation space. F. Miscellaneous;! 1 The Final Plat shall, contain a title' block and vicinity 6eip id'. accordance with Section V-D-2 Title Block and V-D-3 Vicinity Map of the Orange County SubdiMsiml Regulations. 2. The, building buffer, stream buffers, minimum building setbacks, easements4,` 11 public, (along US Hwy 70 West), public and private open space areas 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 w', the."Firiall Plat 3. Drainage'easements shall be provided as required by section D. item 2. outlined abaves.:`I 4. Anyl entrance sign illumination will consist of solar-power light fixtures. Such fixtures shall be installed in such a manner to prevent any potential for visual impairment to night drivers. 5. Iflany,00ndition.of this Resolution shall be held invalid or void., *the Resolution itself shall beivoid,and of no effect. G. ; - Certifications ov 1. A Certificate, of Survey and Accuracy signed by a Professional 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 landowners and developer spall,be on the face of the plat and included in a document describing 4 deVelopment restrictions to be recorded concurrently with therFindt. Plat. 3. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall certify that all roads have been ; constructed to - State standards or that construction plans have been approved,. 25 4. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department., NOW, THEREFOREk BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, that the Preliminary P lailp for Ashwick subdivision is approved in accordance with the above mentioned conditions:and attache ,"Preliminary Plat dated April 4, 2000 and last revised October 26, .2000'. "Ze Upon'motiqn of -Commissioner secdnded,by Commissioner i e the foregoing, resolution was,adopted this the /� day of 2001. 1, Bevef.1y A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina.,-DO'HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true. copy.-•of s.o much of the proceedings said Board at al meeting held on I 2001 as relates in any way to the ad6,ptipn:!,of th,,d,' foregoing and, thatisaidpropeedings are recordd.'d• .'ijn Minute Book No. ?0. of the mindti§g-,,of.saidi�.* WITNESS my hand. and the seal of saidr-ou this and day of 2001. - ' Clerk to the and of Co mml loners ... !:r�t