HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-13-2006-9cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 13, 2006
Action Agenda
Item No. ~'C
SUBJECT: The
DEPARTMENT:
- Preliminary Plan
Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN)
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution of Approval
2) Application
3) Vicinity Map
4) Preliminary Plan
5) Agency Comments
6) Fiscal Impact Analysis
7) Jan. 11, Feb. 1, & May 3, 2006 PB
Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Glenn Bowles, Planner II 245 2577
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan far The Orchard Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
Request -Preliminary Plan
Applicant: J. Bruce Ballentine, agent for Black Diamond Properties
Owners: Yukic and Yasuko Tanaka and Kathy Cheek and Karen Andrews
Subdivision follows the Conservation-Cluster Option of Flexible Development
• Total acreage is 61.12 acres, including public road right-of-way
• 18 single family residential lots
• Lot sizes range from 2.01 to 2.16 acres, with a 2.045 average.
• The percentage of open space is 34.80%,
• Maximum to actual lot ratio (MTAR) is 1.06
• Gross density is 3,.41 acres per lot.
Number of Average Lot Percent of Acres in,Open
Subdivision Type Lots Size' O en S ace - S ace
Conservation-Cluster 18 2.045 34.80 21.28
Flexible O tion
Net Subdivision Land Area 61.12 acres
Area in ublic road r.o.w. 3.02 acres
Area outside of ublic road r.o.w. 58.10 acres
Platted lot area 36.82 acres
Area in common o ens ace 21.28 acres 34.80%
Location
North side of Jones Ferry Road at Damascus Church Road in Chapel Hill Township.
Existina and Proposed Conditions
Existing:
• Zoning: Rural Buffer (RB) (Property is located within University Lake Protected
Watershed)
• Minimum zoning lot size for University Lake Protected Watershed is two acres. Density
limitation in the University Lake Protected Watershed is up to, but no more than, five lots
with a density of one dwelling per two acres and a density of five acres for all lots
thereafter, The developer could conceivably create up to 18 new lots under a
conventional subdivision.
• Maximum impervious surface in the University Lake watershed is 6% of the gross
acreage.
Physical Features:
• Gently rolling land draining northerly into Neville Creek.
• A small tributary of Neville Creek drains the eastern edge of the property.
• Predominately wooded. The Andrews Cheek Tract (eastern half) was timbered ten to
fifteen years ago.
• The Tanaka Tract has significant tree species planted in an orchard setting along the
Orchard Lane as it enters the subdivision.
Adjacent Land Use:
• Single family residential, with lot sizes ranging from two to six acres in older subdivisions,
agricultural and forest lands mainly to the north and east.
• The Perry estate properties to the north
• The Poplar Hill and Granpian Hills subdivisions to the west and the Springhill Forest
subdivision to the south
The parcel directly to the east contains over 19 acres.
36 of the 66 tax parcels (54%), to which staff mailed notices of the December 19, 2005
Neighborhood Meeting are less than 3.40 acres (the density of the proposed subdivision)
in size, This is the proposed lot density with the common open space included. Another
six adjacent lots are four acres in size, or less,
Proposed:
Roads:
• Access to subdivision is from a proposed 2,177-foot long cul-de-sac, Orchard Trail, off
Jones Ferry Road (SR 1942), a paved, public road in Chapel Hill Township. The total
length of the public road r.o.w. is 2,625 feet, as the r.o.w. is extended to the east property
line, beyond the cul-de-sac,
• NCDOT has provided an email memo of approval for Orchard Lane.
• All roads shall be constructed to NCDOT (and County) requirements
• Neville Creek floodplain and steep valley slopes to Sesame Road, about 900 feet to the
north, do not make future road extensions to the north feasible or advisable.
Flexible Development Option
• Eighteen (18) single-family residential lots under the flexible subdivision option,
• Average lot size = 2.045 acres
• Actual to minimum lot ratio: 1.00
Open Space:
Minimum open space required for Conservation-Cluster Option is 33% of site acreage.
3
• The developer proposes to provide 34,80% open space,
• Nearly 40% of the dedicated open space consists of regulated floodplains, land with
slopes aver 25%, and mature upland forests,
• Over 60% of the dedicated open space is forested, but not in a regulated floodplain or on
slopes over 25%,
• The Home Owners Association will own all of the dedicated open space,
Recreation Space:
Public Recreation Space:
• Chapel Hill Township District Park (per the Recreation Service Area Boundaries Map)
• No physical dedication is warranted because neither County Recreation has identified
sites nor has ERCD identified conservation sites for this area. The payment in-lieu option
would require the developer to pay cash in the amount of $8,190 (18 units x $455,00 per
unit) to Orange County.
Private Recreation
• Acreage required to be set aside: 1,71 acres (61,12 x ,028)
• Applicant will provide an approximate 4,600-foot long footpath within the subdivision and
a total of 8,82 acres of private recreation space,
Certification of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
As per their letter, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District has awarded a Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools for 18 housing units, (See attached memo dated March 6, 2006,)
Fire Suppression
Applicant will install a water withdrawal facility in University Lake near Jones Ferry Road,
under the direction of OWASA for the purposes of a source of emergency water for fire
suppression.
Flexible Development (Conservation-Cluster Option)
• Every proposed lot has afifty-fcot perimeter setback buffer and every building site has at
least a 100-foot building buffer from the subdivision perimeter, plus additional sideyard
setback areas.
• Developer provided a landscape plan showing primary and secondary tree protection,
• 34,80% of the property is in common open space (40% of which is primary and 60% is
secondary open space. No platted lots contain primary open space.
Water -Sewer:
Individual well and septic disposal systems will serve all lots.
The Orange County Environmental Health Department has determined that there are 18
acceptable private septic disposal fields and replacement fields. Please refer to the
attached letter Pram Alan Clapp,
The applicant is negotiating an agreement with OWASA to use University Lake as a water
source for fire suppression, (Please refer to the attached letter.)
Development Process, Schedule, and Action
Planning Board
• First Action: Concept Plan approved on February 1, 2006 with the following conditions:
1, Because of existing and projected traffic volumes on Jones Ferry Road, provide a right
turn deceleration lane on the north side of Janes Ferry Road to the east of the
entrance.
2, Submit a plan to address land-clearing debris handling with the preliminary plan
application. County regulations allow no burning of construction materials or land
clearing debris on-site, which are associated with subdivision activities,
• Second Action: The Planning Board consider approval of the preliminary plat
• Third Action: The County Board of Commissioners considers approval of the preliminary
plat to allow the applicant to begin work on the required public improvements.
COMMENTS FROM THE MAY 3, 2006 PLANNING BOARD MEETING (Staff response in
italics)
• The yield analysis is different when the original lots of record are not considered. Why
has not Planning staff applied the required open space percentage (33%) to the lots of
record, rather than just the proposed subdivided parcels?
• Open space is calculated on the actual subdivision acreage, not on acreage outside of
the plan,
• Are the fire suppression recommendations aCounty requirement?
• This falls under the general category of `insuring the public health, safety and welfare ;
which is a valid subdivision issue,
• What authority does the Planning Board have regarding the use of groundwater resulting
from subdivided lots and what are the appropriate thresholds?
The Planning Board and staff determine basic subdivision density and impervious
cover using zoning district minimum lot sizes and watershed density formulas. In lieu of more
specific groundwater usage standards, these density regulations indirectly address
groundwater usage rates, There is no county agency with explicit authority to regulate
groundwater usage,
• The issues of swapping impervious cover on lots within a platted subdivision,
• Impervious surface is calculated for the entire gross acreage and maybe allocated,
within the subdivision, on a lot-by-lot basis. This figure is disclosed on the final plat
and also in the Declarations of Development Restrictions and Requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact Analysis is included as an attachment.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The proposed development is compatible with the use and densities suggested in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
2. The proposed development complies with the Subdivision standards relating to open
space percentage and acres, the type of open space and roadway design,
3. The proposed development complies with the Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum
lot size, impervious cover, and density,
4, Aright turn deceleration lane is appropriate for the entrance into Jones Ferry Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Administration recommends Approval of the Preliminary Plan in
accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval.
Planning Board recommends Approval of the Preliminary Plan
in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval,
Board of County Commissioners Proposal 4Q
Revised May 4, 2Q06
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date of Meeting: June 13, 2006
Name of Subdivision: The Orchard
Owner/Applicant: Bruce Sallentine, agent for Black Diamond Properties
The Orange County (the County) Board of County Commissioners hereby approves its
Resolution for The Orchard Subdivision preliminary plan, dated February 22, 2006, Revised
April 10, 2006, and containing eighteen lots, subject to the full lhnent of requirements specified
as follows:
The applicant shall irrevocably dedicate Orchard Trail, the public road including its cul-de-sac to
the general public and constrnet the road to North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) standards. The approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the County Manager
to accept for The County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of the
public road. The County acceptance of the dedication to the general public of the public road
shall be without maintenance responsibility. The owner/applicant shall maintain Orchard Trail
including its cul-de-sac until such time as the NCDOT or some other governmental body accepts
the road for maintenance. Before the applicant can record The Orchard Subdivision Final Plat
(hereafter the "Final Plat"), the owner/applicant shall address following items:
A. Sewage Disposal
1. Each residential lot shall contain an adequate area for aconventionally-sized septic
disposal system, and its associated repair area, approved by the County Division of
Environmental Health.
2. The septic system location may restrict the size and location of improvements. This
disclosure shall be included in a document describing development restriction to be
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall also disclose that
inforn~ation regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the
County Health Department, Division of Enviromnental Health.. Each lot that does not
contain a suitable building site shall be designated on the Final Plat as being of restricted
development potential and by instrument recorded in the Orange County registry as set
forth in Section N-B-2 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
3. The owner/applicant shall not destroy trees, inventoried and located within the primary
tree save area for any reason including to install on-site waste disposal system drain or
repair fields.
B. Roads and Access
1. The owner/applicant shall construct, prior to the approval and recording of the Final Plat,
Orchard Trail to NCDOT standards, within a fifty-foot (50') right-of--way, with ten-foot
(10') utility easements on each side, and with NCDOT construction inspection and
approval.
OR
Board of County Commissioners Proposal 5
Revised May 4, 2006
The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash to secure construction of
Orchard Trail to NCDOT standards. A certified/licensed engineer or grading contractor
shall submit an estimate, as specified in Section III-E-2 of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations, of the construction cost to the Plam~ing and h~spections Department (the
Planning Department). The financial guarantee shall reflect 110% of that construction
cost estimate and an accredited financial institution licensed to conduct business in North
Carolina shall issue such financial guarantee. The financial guarantee shall be effective
for 372 days after the Certificate of Improvements is signed by the County Manager.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final Plat shall
state that The County shall not release the financial guarantee until NCDOT inspects and
approves the road construction and provides written certification of such approval.
2. The Final Plat shall state that all lots shall receive access from Orchard Trail, and no
driveways shall be permitted within fifty feet (50') of the intersection of Orchard Trail
with .Jones Ferry Road.
3. The owner/applicant shall submit to the County Erosion Control Division for review and
approval, before any land disturbing activity on the site, an erosion control plan for
construction of Orchard Trail, private recreation activities, and drainage improvements.
4. The owner/applicant shall erect an approved street name sign at the intersection with
.Tones Feny Road according to the provisions of Section N-B-3-c-12 of the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations before Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat,.
5. Before any construction or alteration of any existing access within the .Jones Ferry right-
of--way, the owner/applicant shall secure a driveway permit from the NCDOT District
Offices.. Owner/applicant shall submit a copy of such NCDOT approval permit and letter
to the Plamling Department at the same time as the request for Platming Department
signatures on the Final Plat. The owner/applicant shall perform no work in the Orchard
Trail or .Tones Ferry, Road right-of--ways before issuance of approved NCDOT driveway
permits and encroaclunent agreements.
6. Sight triangles, ten feet by seventy feet (10' x 70'), shall be shown on the Final Plat at the
.Jones Ferry intersection. The sight distance triangle shall be exclusive of the proposed
sign easement.
7. Dedicate, in fee simple, additional rigbt-of--way sufficient to provide fifty feet (50') of
right-of-way from the existing .Jones Ferry Road centerline, along the subdivision
frontage. Said dedication shall meet major collector right-of--way standards, as identified
in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and required in Section N-B-.3-c-1
of the Subdivision Regulations,
8. Within the dedicated Jones Ferry Road, the owner/applicant shall construct a deceleration
lane built or secured by letter of credit to NCDOT stazldards before the Final Plat is
submitted.
9. A sign, between three (.3) and four (4) square feet in area, shall be placed at the terminus
of Orchard Trail indicating that the street is subject to future extension. Orchard Trail
shall be clearly indicated on the Final Plat with the words "Subject to future extension."
10. The owner/applicant shall prepare a deed to Orazlge County conveying a 50-feet stubout
area to be held by Orange County for possible future extension of Orchard Trail to the
eastern property line. The deed shall be prepared on a fornl approved by the County
Attorney, provide for atwenty-foot (20') temporary construction easements on each side
of the 50-feet stubout, and be recorded contemporaneously with the recording of the Final
Board of County Commissioners Proposal 6
Revised May 4, 2006
Plat. Developer shall show the twenty-foot temporary construction easements on the final
plat.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. The owner/applicant shall install or preserve lazrdscaping on the approved landscape plan
(open space and pathways plan), and the Planning Department shall inspect and approve
such landscaping before signatures on the Final Plat. No part of the landscaping shall
encroach into the ten-foot by seventy-foot (10' x 70') sight triangles at the Jones Ferry
intersection.
GR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit or cash submitted to secure required
landscape installation and preservation. The owner/applicant shall provide, as specified
in Section PJ-B-8-b-9 of the Orange county Subdivision Regulations, an estimate of the
cost for required preservation, plantings and their installation. 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. Provision for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape plan
shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and requirements
that Planning Department staff prepared and recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat. Clear cutting or other removal of any trees or other vegetation on individual lots
is prohibited as specified in Section PJ-B-8-c of the Orange County Subdivision
Regulations.
.3. The owner/applicant shall provide a Type A Land Use Buffer along Orchard Trail and
Jones Ferry Road, as shown on the Preliminary Plan. The buffer shall be thirty feet
(30') wide and shall be composed of deciduous and/or evergreen vegetation, forming
semi-opaque intermittent visual obstructions from the ground to a height of at least
thirty feet (30'). Said buffer shall be so noted on the plat, and detailed in a document
describing development restrictions and requirements prepared by Planning
Department staff and recorded concunently with the Final Plat. The owner/applicant
shall convey athirty-foot (30') buffer easement along Orchard Trail and Jones Ferry
Road to the Homeowner's Association (HOA) for enforcement and maintenance..
4. The stream buffer areas along the rear of Lots 10, 11, and 12 shall have similar
development limitations and permitted uses as the adjacent HOA open space.
D. Drainage
1. Locate all drainage easements on the Final Plat, as required following Erosion Control
Plan review and approval.
2. The owner/applicant shall size and locate all drainage culverts as required by NCDOT
and a North Carolina licensed Professional Engineer,
E. Parkland
l . The owner/applicant shall pay cash in the amount of $8,190 (18 units x $455,00 per unit)
to the County as payment in-lieu-of parkland dedication for the eighteen platted lots
before Planning Department signatures on the Final Plat.
2. The owner/applicant shall provide private recreational open space as specified in Section
N-B-7-b of the County Subdivision Regulations and in Article 5.1.1 in the Zoning
Ordinance. The owner/applicant has set aside 21.28 acres as open space, within which an
Board of County Commissioners Proposal
Revised May 4, 2006
approximately 4,600 linear-feet long footpath (hereafter the "footpath") will be
constructed. The HOA shall maintain the Pedestrian Open Space Areas (hereafter the
"POSA's"), footpath and open space area.
3. The HOA shall obtain an approved NCDOT encroaclmient agreement for the footpath
that falls within the Orchard Trail right-of-way before construction.
4. No activities are allowed in prescribed open space, except recreational facilities.
5. Except for construction of the footpath and stomrwater improvements, all areas in
reserved open space shall remain in their natural condition..
F. Miscellaneous
L The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map according to standards found in
Section V-D-2 and V-D-.3 of the County Subdivision Regulations.
2. The Final Plat shall reflect the drainage easements as required in D.l above.
3. The owner/applicant shall convey all open space into the HOA.
4. Before installation of lighting within the subdivision, the owner/applicant shall submit a
lighting plan to the Plarming Department for review and approvah
5. The Planning and Solid Waste Deparhnents shall review and approve a plan for the
collection and proper disposal of al] tree stumps and fallen logs before the Final Plat
approval..
6. The owner/applicant shall note impervious cover square footage limits for each lot on the
Final Plat.
7. Clean wood waste, scrap metal, uid cm-rugated cardboard, must be recycled.
8. All haulers of constnrction waste shall have proper licensing.
9. Before any on-site construction activity, the owner/applicant shall hold apre-constnrction
conference with the County Solid Waste staff: This maybe the same meeting held with
other development officials.
10. Before installation of a subdivision sign, County Plarming shall review and approve a site
plan and construction drawings.
11. The owner/applicant shall install a water withdrawal system for emergency f re
suppression in University Lalce along Jones Ferry Road at a location and with signage
acceptable to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
12. The owner shall file, with the Planning Department and record with the Final Plat, a
declaration of covenants and restrictions, articles of incorporation, where required, and/or
by-laws, all as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern the maintenance and
control of the improvements as set forth in Article III-E of the Orange County
Subdivision Regulations. Said documents shall provide for ownership of Open Space by
the HOA, and the dedication of easements to the HOA to access in-lot POSA's, drainage
easements and buffers, for maintenance.
G. Certifications
1. The owner/applicant shall have notarized on the face of the Final Plat a Certificate of
Survey and Accuracy signed by a Professional Land Surveyor.
2. The owner/applicant shall sign a Certification of Declaration and Maintenance in the
form provided in Section V-D-6-b of the County Subdivision Regulations on the face of
the plat and shall record concurrently with the Final Plat a document describing
development restrictions.
Board of County Commissioners Proposal
Revised May 4, 2006
3. The NCDOT shall certify approval of Orchard Trail has been entirely constructed to
NCDOT standards or that construction plans have been approved before Planning
Department signatures on the Final Plat.
4. The Plamiing Department shall sign a Certificate of Approval..
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Orange County Commissioners
that The Orchard Subdivision Preliminary Plan is approved in accordance with the above
mentioned conditions and attached Preliminary Plat, dated February 22, 2006, and revised on
Apri15 and 22, 2006.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,
the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2006.
I, Domra S. 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 , 2006 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 , 2006.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
APPLICATION FOR PREUMINAR;Y PLAN APPROVAL y
- MAJOR SUBDIVI.yION
ORANGE COUNTY - 5/05
22 FHB 2006
1ASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY) DATE: __
SUBDNISION NAME• The orchard subdivision ~ _•______
North Side of Intersection of Jones Ferry Road & Damascus Chuzch Road
LOCATION• _
Developer: H1ack Diamond Properties .Owner 2: Kat y Cheek/KarenaAndrews
OWNERlDEVELOPER:
ADDRESS„ 221 Providence Road _ T(eLEPHONE NO.: 919-929-0686
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
AGENT/GONTACT- Bruce eallentine
ADDRESS' 221 Providence Road TELEPHONE NO.: 819-929-OS86
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
TMHL: 7.117.1oA & 7.117..11
A SUMMARY INFORMATION Chapel Hill
Orange County Tax Map ,Block Lot(s) Township
Zoning District(s): RH
Total Number of Acme: 51.12 _.
Total Number of Lots: 1B Average Lot Size: 2. os Ac Minimum Lot Size: 2.OO AC
Number/Type of Structures: (oxisting) o (proposed) i a Future 5inale •Family Resident
Linear Foet in Streets: lz oo • Acres in Opan Space• 21. z e
Wator Supply: Well _ _ public (specify) __ Community x ~ Indlviduai
Wastewater Disposal: Septic public (speclFy) Community x Ihdlvidual
School Dlstrlet: Cha el Hill - Carrboro FUe District: South orange
GenaraiLand Usesln Araa: sin le Family Residential
Critical Areas: x straamtdrainageways X ~ _,,,~ flood prono areas
University Lake - PW Watershed (specify)„ __[tistorlc sites
other (explain) ..
Is the property to be subdivided currently undor °farm use valuataxation°? Yes ~ No x . If °yes;' please
contact the Orange County lax Offico. 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 Phan one inch equals two-hundred feet (1"=20D') and no larger than
one inch equals twenty feet (1"=TD') and must eonNaln the following inforrnagon:
x subdivision Hama x zoning of tract and adjacent
x x proparl;es
_, name & address of owner(s) ~ building setback lines by notation or
typical lot layout
x name & address of subdivider x location and width of existing and
~~ (if other than owner) ~ proposed easements (drainage,
utilities, roads; etc.)
x x
_ ~ name of surveyor, engineer, landscape ~ Existing, proposed and adJolning
architect or architect, address, rights-of-Way including dimensions
x registration # 8 seal and street names and State Road
_ (title) Preliminary Plan numbers. Linoar feet of road
x scale, north arrow centerlines and approximate acreage
^„ date of plan preparation and revisions x of new street rights-of-way
x township, tax mop-hlock-lot references _ existing and proposed utilities,
x Parent Parcel ldentiilcation # ~ ~ including type, sizes, hydrahts,
deod book and page # of property to be waives, manholes
x subdivided x
_ boundary described with bearings and ~._ existing and proposed curbs, gutters
distances and culverts, Including sizes and
grades
- X' _ total acreage of the tract and acreage of X _ ..,~ ,- iocagon and width of alleys, 10
sidewalks, blko lanes, transit
f _
I _
and excluding area w,lfhin
lots, Including systems, and bus stops
.
rights-of-~vay x typical street crosssecgons and
x control corner ._
Intersoctlon details including design
__ and width of travelway and
)
x shouldora
horizontal alignment, centerline
x
_ proposed lot tines with dimensions
_ -- -- ~
radius, and general curve data on all
x lot & black numbers proposed streets
rra ~
phasing line(s) x permanent features such as
x topography at ten (10) foot intervals ~
---- ,_
buildings, cemeteries, historic
1
x =
water bodies, streams, floodways and landmarks
-
x floodplains x adjoining lot layout names of
-
I stream butfiars adjoining property owners. if
g tocaUoh and slze.of parcels dedicated for subdivided, subdivision plat name,
- - public use, recreational use or resorved plat book & page number, and
in common, with purpose noted x perimeter lot numbers.
x iocagon and size Of lots of restricted
~~~^>~ ~^-~ impervious surface data (if located in ~_
development potential and notation
water supplywatershed) on plat regarding same
x
vicinity map showing general IocaGon of x
-- - stormwater detention andlor
retention sites and undisturbed
- subdivision with straeta and roads arses for InflltroUon purposes (if
idenUUed by State Road number and located In water supply watershed)
X
~ name
landscaping and buffer requirements
xA
IdenUfled natural areas and wildlife
xa township, wrporata and extraterritorial -- -' corridors
- -
planning Jurisdlcgon Ilnes which cross
the progeny
G OTHER SUEiMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
S. Twenty-flue (25) copies of the Preliminary Plat ~
2, One full size copy of an Orange County Tax Map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked).
3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer Is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department
approvalldenlal toreach lot show thereon.
4.. Where a private road is proposed, a written statement 6y the applicant or his/her authorized representative which
sofa for the )ustlUcation for a private road (sea Secgon IV-B-3-d-S of the Orange County subdivision Regulations),
5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared Ih accordance w19h Secgon VI of this Ordinance which assure
completion and)or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance. Such documents may include, but l^
'^ ""~;. not be limited to, a private road malntenanca agreement and articles of incorporation and restrlcUVe covenants \~"
pertaining to a homeowners association. These documents may 6e required as necessary as evidence that the ~N
ordinance requirements are being mat. M h
' B. Fee - 5500 plus 55.00 par lot (one foe for Preliminary and Final Plat),
7. If the subdivision contains SO lots or more, the following information shall be submitted with the application:
a, Number of years to buildouf. s Years
6 houses/year
i b_ Number of houses to be built during each year until buiidouL
o, Average price of houses Including lots for each year to bulidout S6 oox - 1M$
i certify that to Iha best of my knowledge the informnilon eontalned above, and In the supporting documents, is a factual representation \
i of the proposed development. I acknowledge that by signing this application, the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
', i is aulhor¢ed, putsuantto N.C. Gen. Stet. Section 153e-380, to make as many inspections of the subJect property as may be necessary
'~,, i to verify thak the proposed work outlined herein is consistent with the provisions of all applicable Slate and local laws, ordinances and
ragula6ons. By signing ihls application, i acknowledge and agree that inspectors, zoning effects, erosion conhol officers, and other
staff of the Orange County Planning & Inspectlons Department have a right, upon presentation of~propar credentials, to enter th+ve~q/~~-
subject property at any reasonable hour far the purposes of Inspection or that en r ement action. d p4 ~`~~'', }~ 11,//~ Z~
i ~ OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
A PLICAM'S SIGNATURE DATE
a. -:4~", ii it
... - :,
,~ "~' k ~~" p `~ .Date Paid 2 2 ~-b t)lO Receipt # i.
FEEF• Amount .. ,~a..r ~.: .. .;; ..
... _ .,...JAR i`Z3' :.7r:-?*lslt'A-~~L•>~: '~':- . t
X
11
location and width of alleys,
" x' total acreage of the tract and acreage of --- '"-' "- sidewalks, blko lanes, transit
' '-`-' ~ '-- lots, Including. and excluding area within x
b systoms, and bus stops
typieei street crosssactlons and
X way
rights-o
control corner "--• Intersection defaiis iriduding design
_ __ and width of travatway and
x shoulders
horizontal alignment, centerline
x proposed lot Imes with dlmansians -- ""' - radius, and general curve data on all
X lot & block numbers proposed streets
HA ` ~ phasing line(s) x permanent features such as
x „
~ ~ topography at ten (10) foot intervals --'- _
buildings, cemeteries, historic
x water bodies, streams, iloodways and landmarks
x floodpiains x
rs '-'-`
b
ff adjoining tot layout names of
adjoining proporty owners, IF
i x e
u
stream
~ IocaUon and size.of parcels dedicated for
nal use or resorved
ti subdivided, subdivision plat name,
plat book & page number, artd
i o
public use, recrea
in common, with purpose noted x perimeter lot numbers.
flon and size Of lots of restricted
_ x
w,~„~~:x.: `_ ,_
impervious surface data (f located in _ lora
development potential and notation
-- ~- water supply waterahad) on plat reBarding same
x atormwater detention andlor
i x vtelnity map showing general location of -- - -'- retention sites and undisturbed
'~` ~ subdtvision with streets and roads aoas forinflitration purposes (if
ti.' identified by Stato Road number and located in water supply watarshod)
X name
landscaping and buffer requirements Np
Identified natural areas and wildlife
rra township, corporate and exhaterritorial -- -' condors
_
planning }urisdlctton lines which cross
fho property
OTHER SU~BMtt`fAL REQUIREMENTS:
I C
I 1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the Preliminary Plat
2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax Map (with tax Parcels involved clearly marked).
a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating Health Department
ble
il
a
,
a
va
3. Where mun)clpal or OWASA sewer )s naf
approval/dental for each tot show thereon.
bdvlslon Regulat ns)..
S
d
1
o
of t
1
private road (sea Secgon N g-3-
4 sets forthe Justlflcation for a
ccordance with secti
I u
he Ora ge County
on VI of this Ordinance which assure
t
n a
5. Auxiliary documonts, in draft form, prepared
d articlos of incorporat on andrrestricllve covenants
t
e
n
b
I~,~^~~~"-' an
nanw agreemen
road malnt
be ro wired as necessary as evidence that the
mited to~a private
not bo li
meownans association. These documents may q
h
~ o
pertaining to a
ordinance requiroments are being met.
B. Foe - $500 plus $5-OD par lot (one fee for Preliminary and Final Plat)..
the fogowing information
shalt be submitted with the appllcatlon:
Yi 7.. If the subdivision contains 10 tots or more,
a. Number of years to 6uildout. 3 Years
ilt during each year unfit buildout.
b 6 houses/year
u
b. Number of houses to be
rice of houses Including lots for each year to buildout.
e Ss oox - 1MS
p
c. Averag
i certify that to the best of my knowledge the iniormetfon enntalned above, and In the supporting documents, Is a factual representation
s authorr¢.ed, pureuantto NnC. Gen. Slate Sectiont 153e 380, tohlmakelasmany iinspections f thte sulbject property as may be necessary
to verify that the proposed work outlined herein is consistent with the provisions of all applicable Slate and local laws, ordinances and
staff of the Orange County Plenningo& IrupectlonsdDepeNment have a dghtu pon presentation of ptoper cr denU'ais rto enter the
subject properly at any reasonable hour for the purposes of Inspectlon or they en r ement action, 8' ~p~
06
:,a . , :~ '" ~~YiR°•~(b'' ph Date Paid
;~, FEES- Amount ; ..~ --
i
OWNER'S SIGNATURE OA•n
> (~,,
- . _ .. _ . .,rh: -has-, ~" .•.. .
12
M
Rp
pH\\-`'
SRS MR RD
a
0
0
3
m
.x
O
'' SCH00~ (t0
~,,,.~--
SQ N \R
F
r ~
~ N
~ ~
0
oc.
d
G
L
L~
O
UItI~ ~?l1i
DAMASGN RD
CHAR
CPRO~', ~P~ZD
'PORES
°a
Ya
W
~s-
0
-,
HOLLY CREEK LN
N016[N~9f15 t]tltlN~a03N1 IFIP~I~~IY U ( 13
/ ' ~~ v^:
8§~ ,L ~y` ~'ps°~ °' ~'~,?may.:
Fns[ , p~ `V • / // ~~/ `7 ~ s rag yYf
e+" h~/ I Q 6qi -~ 'v N
e S°d ( _
4 e - ~
3 ~ ~ ~rn 4['t y!'i~ Owa
P ~ ~ 9 ;, . ,8 ''
gp~ ~g~pp ~ ppQp~ gg ~ ~ ` ~------- Q9
g ~^' ...a " ~L~S
~ C E9 tl ~. ;,` of ~~~ `
~ 'r.'~ % '., ~~.
5y .'.`
{{ y 9 ~ 8 9 9 A3 v v~~r ~"~'~ s
": ~C e9; q°.~3 3 ~' ~~ao 2 u a%,~~! A==ygg ~ } ~rr`FA'J'~ ~( 1
8 ~ ~~ ~q Gg a a ~} a° 9 ~~t ,' ~ as ,/
6 :~' .''~3 E E g 'F. k Q /..~
9geg n v v ~ °0.'
~~ Qp ~ ~~ ~~.a ~~ g e~~ eq gg e 9r~ \ r``
p 9_9 9.
g~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~' ~~ ~~ 9 g, r.., yg `~
4 E
tP
eYn q@ Y. _ _
E 6F GXne~!~~ ~ ~ ~~~@ ~'~g~~~6~ p~` 6~8g p8 K f
0 78 egeq~0~n ~ ~Sa eYBg ¢iXE~F~ f~' ~~,'ae46gu~ i _ ~Xv
~~ ~p ~&~YYeB ` ~ €tl6 ~'¢ Cpgsy qq8 ~18~ pgypg ~ d 'e
nq Xee~A ~9¢¢ ! e~ l~Y~ d~t pa XX~Cep~ S
3~ ~qgq 3~gp§gp@;pxip a? ~~ ,~~q~9 ~sY~Y~~gp~g ~~ y~glF e A
9 gg @ 9 ~e gppg
~X ~3 Y~A~6~ ~~ ntl C~F„F . gtlX~6 YS SX~X ~'~ ~~
ee pn F € Y8 ~8 E XS 8~i~~e iX Y523B
c~gk ggggg$ CFFg
~y®~SyE~5~~~~4i~
6~~~1~~~~~~~~s~~
oYe' i;Illili~l
liii! i
~•I~Ilii~ilil~l
//
D
~r
8e~k
[[~e
vv~(
ovoa
'
I
®
G:
[
6 /
.
r'
I:r ~~?7
i
~?i I
q~i
~t I i
~
` 68P8 P P
r I
a
` I
/, \
o ~ ~r I
n
i3~
9 ~
€
lee i
8
rq ~
~
~r ~,m I
I
y /
Pr ~?
3f
~?b,.
~v
ua m'vs~rvattt[rt nm[~irv Sue I~v brw'fan Yfttx[ovol ttwmnoa~5 rn'wi\N.Y~eav NUma •1~^i\m~laa\al
Feet
i inch equals 933 feet
0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400
~i US Interstate (~ Critical Area ~3 City/Town Limits
~"~ US Highway it j Protected Watershed ~`i Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
~,i NC Highway t"~
....J Un rotectedWatershed
p s~
,.~ y'`
School System Boundary
/
~i Major Road
~
Building a
'® ~\
/
Township / \
a
/~/ Background ~ Zoning -';
i-`~~ ~ Piedmont Electric Utilities 4' ;=i
i.:- Transition Area ~
t_ J. County N
rage i of ~
15
Glen Bowles
From: C. N. Edwards [cnedwards@dotstate,nc.us] Sent: Thu 3/23/2006 8:22 AM
To: Glen Bowles
_ Cc:
Subject: Re: Preliminary Site Plan- The Orchard Subdivision
Attachments:
Using the criteria established in our driveway manual, no turn lanes are warranted. However, a
right turn decel lane is desirable. NCDOT would have no objection to the construction of the lane if
required by the County. The design must be reviewed and approved by NCDOT, Feel free to
contact me if you have any questions.
Glen Bowles wrote:
Staff feels that a deceleration lane would be warrented, Will you
concur on this improvement?
From: C. N. Edwards [rnailto~cnedwardsC~dot.state.nc.us]
Sent: Wed 3/22/2006 10:51 AM
To: Glen Bowles
Cc: Craig Benedict
Subject: Preliminary Site Plan- The Orchard Subdivision
Glenn,
Per your recent request, this office has reviewed the preliminary
site plan for the proposed development located on SR 1942, )ones
Ferry Road. We provide the following comments:
The site is composed of 18 single family residential lots served
by a single cul-de=sac roadway. The development is not expected
to create a significant traffic impact to the adjacent roadway
network. No turn lanes are warranted for this development.
The proposed intersection location provides acceptable spacing
with existing intersections. Acceptable intersection sight
distance can be obtained with appropriate grading.
If the Developer desires that Orchard Trail be a State maintained
road, then the road must meet NCDOT subdivision road construction
standards. Complete construction plans must be submitted to this
https://10,.25.3.0..7/exchange/GBowles/Inbox/Re:%20Preliminary%20Site%20P1an-%20T... 03/24/2006
1:~>~+-~-tlT'L
16
ofi:lce for review and approval.
A 10' X 70' sight distance triangle easement is required a the
proposed intersection. The sight distance triangle shall be
exclusive of the proposed sign easement.
No work shall be performed in the roadway right of way prior to
issunce of approved NCDOT driveway permits and encroachment
agreeements.
It will be necessary for an established duly authorized home
owners association to obtain an approved NCDOT encroachment
agreement for the proposed footpath that falls within the roadway
right of way prior to road addition.
Feel free to contact me if you need additional information. We
will be happy to attend any planned technical review meeting as
you deem necessary to provide comments on this or any other
project.
https://I 0.253.0.7/exchange/GBowles/Inbox/Re: %20Preliminary%20Site%20PIan-%20T... 03/24/2006
r-a~~-rrvi- a
Glen Bowles 17
From: Reynolds Ivins Sent: Fri 4/7/2006 10:15 AM
To: Glen Bowles
Cc:
Subject: The proposed Orchard subdivision
Attachments: --_. _ _ _
_ _
Glenn, I have reviewed the plans and find them to be in general accordance with
Erosion Control requirements. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Reynolds ]. (Ren) Ivins
Orange County, NC
Erosion Control Supervisor
WK (919)245-2586 Cell 215-0758
https://10.253.0,7/exchange/GBowles/Inbox/The%20proposed%20Orchard%20subdivision,EML,,., 04/07/2006
r`~t ~ ~ ~ ` CARRBORO FIRE DEPARTMENT
-
CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
5
April 4, 2006
To: Mike Tapp, Orange County Fire Marshal
From: Travis L. Crabtree, Deputy Fire Chief
Carrboro Fire Department
I
~~
~, ~F yu
cy
.may ~~ ;,~ ~~
Re: Alternative Water Points for The Orchard Subdivision
The fire department requests that an approved water source be
provided within l.S miles of the new subdivision proposed to be located
at the intersection of Jones Ferry Road and Damascus Church Road.
This water source must be certified by a registered professional
engineer or soil conservationist that the water source will provide a
minimum of 30,000 gallons of usable firefighting water and/or be able
to deliver a minimum of 250 gallons of water per minute far no less
than a two (2) hour duration during a drought with. an average SO-year
frequency. An all weather driving surface capable of supporting the
imposed loads of a 40,000 lbs. fire pumper must be provided to ensure
year-rouxrd accessibility.
The developer should make arrangements to obtain a written statement
signed by the owner of any private suction water supply point,
authorizing its use by the fire department for emergency firefighting use
and at least quarterly maintenance backflushing performed by the fire
department along with any water supply training deemed necessary by
the fire chief.
Additionally, a posted and approved reflective sign shall be erected at
the location that is visible in both directions for a minimum of 200 feet.
301 West Main Sheet, Carrboro, North Cazolina 27510 Phone (919) 918-7349 Fax (919) 932-5359
An Equal Opportunity Employer
19
~~~~~
C~~
April 21, 2006
ORANGE WATER & SEWER ACITHORITY
Qualify Service Since 1977
Mr, J. Bruce Ballenfine, P.E.
Ballentine Associates P.A,
221 Providence Road
Chapel Hill, North Cazolina 27514
Dear Mr, Ballentine:
I'm writing in response to your inquiry about whether the Carrboro Fire Department or a volunteer
fire department could draw water from University Lake, at or near the Jones Ferry Road crossing, to
help fight a fue.
As an emergency measure, the use of UtuversiTy Lake water far fire suppression is, of course,
acceptable to OWASA.
We would like to point out the following:
/ It would be important to cazefully consider the traffic safety and access aspects of drawing
water from a location on Jones Ferry Road.
/ In drought conditions, the low water level could make it impractical to draw water from the
lake at Jones Ferry Road.
/ From the standpoint of water depth, the Jones Ferry Road bridge over the Morgan Creek
arm of iniversity Lake may be a suitable place to draw water under normal conditions.
However, as indicated above, traffic safety and access would need to be addressed and a
drought could affect this location..
/ In order to ensure availability of water from the lake to fight a fire even in a drought, it may
be useful to evaluate the feasibility of installing (a) a standpipe for connections to the tanker
truck, and (b) piping extended out into the lake to a suitable depth,
We would be glad to discuss the specifics, including basic precautions for water quality, at your
convenience. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. My telephone number is
537-4211 and a-mail: ekerwiz~owasa.org~
Sincerely,
~P_V2~-~----
EdKerwin
Execufive Director
c: John Greene
Todd Spencer
}Dtl J<s~;s 1-cnl Itmid Cyual (7ppurtuniq Gmph~c, Voicc 1919) 965-}}21
PQ L'm: 3l,6 Printed on tictTdcd Paper FAX (919) 96R-4464
Gu*6n; n. fJC 27i Ill Ui66 a oo, au~usn nrg
~n
MEMORANDUM
Date; March 16, 2006 ' ~~ 1
To: Glen Bowles, Orange County Planning '
From: Marty Roupe, and Members of Planning Department Staff ;;:
Subject: Courtesy Review Comments
Project: The Orchard (Feb. 23, 2006 transmittal)
The purpose of this memo is to provide comments for the proposed referenced subdivision which is
within the Joint Planning Area.
1. Consider street connectivity to other parcels. The Town of Carrboro's regulations would
require stubbing road to the East, rather than just a R/VU to the boundary. In addition
connectivity to Sesame Rd. to the North could he considered.
2. Consider requiring applicant to provide pedestrian access to the open space north of
lots 9-15.
3. It may be advisable to have all privately owned lot areas be platted outside of any
required open space ar stream buffers.
PAGE 1 OF 1 OC COURTESY REV THE ORCHARD 031606
.u
21
ORANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMARANDUM
To: Glen Bowles, CurrenCP/anner
From: Rich Shaw, ERCD Land Conservation Manager
Date: March 1, 2006
Subject: The Orchard Subdivision Proposal
Thank you for the opportunity to review a Preliminary Plat for °The Orchard Subdivision"
proposal. ERCD comments on subdivisions are generally to a) address any concerns with
respect to potential impacts an important natural or cultural resources, and b) identify any
areas that might be desirable for possible dedication to the County for public recreation/open
space pursuant to Section N-B-7-b of the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance.
My earlier comments (November 28, 2005 memo) were based on an examination of the
Concept Plan (dated 11/16/05) and ERCD's comprehensive resource database.
The Preliminary Plat (dated 2/22/06) appears to have addressed those earlier
comments. I have no further comments on this subdivision proposal.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 245-2591.
cc: David Stancil
Environment and Resource Conservation
PC) Box 8181 / 306-A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245-2590
2z
Orange Soil and Water Conservation
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2750
March 1, 2006
To: Glenn Bowles
Orange County Planning Dept.
From: Gail Hughes ~"Ga-P ~,.e~y~
Orange Soil and Water Cons ation District
RE: The Orchard
According to the Orange County Soil Survery, the following soils aze located on this site:
EnC Enon loam: 6-12% slope (C)
GeB-Georgeville silt loam: 2-6% slope (B)
GeC-Georgeville silt loam: 6-10% slope (C)
HeB-Helena sandy loam: 2-8% slope (B)
HrB-Herndon silt loam: 2-6 % slope (B)
HrC-Herndon silt loam: 6-10% slope (C)
TaD-Tatum silt loam: 8-15% slope (D)
These soils have different capabilities for septic tank use, building sites, recreational uses,
streets, and landscaping, and shallow excavations.
Attached aze the capability classes for each soil. This soil information is to be used as a
general reference.
An on-site investigation by the Environmental Health Dept. should determine
possibilities and exact locations of'septic tanks.
23
EI. I-~IIJL-
=Y AIE~~BC)RC)
~~
~~~_L CITY SCHOOLS
To: Neil Pedersen
Superintendent
From: Steve Scroggs
Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Date: March 6, 2006
Ballentine Associates has requested that a Certificate of Adequate Public Schools be issued for
the Orchard subdivision development project. This 18 unit, single family detached complex is
located off Jones Ferry Road past the current intersection of Old School Road. This request is in
compliance with the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO), enacted in July of
2003.
The requested subdivision will have 18 units, all single family houses. The request qualifies fox'
a CAPS using the existing capacity and student generation rates as approved by the Orange
County Commissioners. The spreadsheet used in that determination is attached. Occupancy is
expected to take place during 2007,
As this request has been made during the 2005-2006 school year, and as the current school
capacity has been approved by the County Commissioners during the 2004-2005 school yeaz,
Support Services recommends that the Board of Education award CAPS Number CH 0010 to
The Orchard.
As occupancy is expected in the 2007-2008 school yeaz, additional high school capacity will be
available at high school #3.
Resolution: Be it, therefore, resolved that the Baazd of Education awazds a Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools to The Orchazd, for 18 housing units, as described
above. Be it, fu[ther resolved, that the Boazd of Education directs the
administration to sign and authorize all appropriate documents related to the
above-mentioned request.
Lincoln Center, 75D S 69errilt Mlil Road ~~ Chanel Hill. NC 27516-2878 ^ (91~) 967-H271 ^ •rnvw.chces I<12nc us
March 3, 2006
ORANGE COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Rosemary ~ Summers,
MPH, DrPH
Health Director
Richard E. Whiffed Human
Servirns Center
300 WestTryon Street
Post Office Box 8181
H(Ilsborough, NC 27278
Phohe:(919)246-2411
Fax: (919) 644-3007
wvrw m oranne nc us/health
Animal Control Services
Central Administrative
Services
Dental Health Services
Environmental Health Services
Health Promotion and
Education Services
Personal Health Services
z
306-C Revere Road Y
POBox6181 1$
Hllisborough, NC 27278
,~
Phone: (919) 245-2361 aGi
FAX: (919) 644-3006 ~
0
w
SOIL/SITE Evaluation Summary for:
The Orchard Subdivision
Chapel Hill Township, Map 117, Lot 10
Map Date Revised February 24, 2006
Lot # DESIGN FLOW
1 600 gpd
2 600 gpd
3 600 gpd
4 600 gpd
S 600 gpd
6 600 gpd
7 600 gpd
$ 600 gpd
9 600 gpd
10 600 gpd
11 600 gpd
12 600 gpd
1; 600 gpd
14 600 gpd
1S 600 gpd
16 600 gpd
17 600 gpd
600 gpd
SYSTEM TYPE
Shallow Trench Conventional
Ultra Shallow Innovative Trench
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Conventional
Innovative Trench with pump
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Conventional
Innovative Trench with pump
Innovative Trench with pump
Innovative Trench with pump
24
NOTES: 2 5
The design flow is based upon the number of bedrooms applied for by the property
owner or developer.. The design flow for a bedroom is 120 gallons/day (gpd). (e.g.
600 gpd = 5 bedrooms)
Proposed house locations are provided by the property owner or developer as required
by 15A NCAC 18A ,1900 - .1969 (The Laws and Rules for Sewage Treatment and
Disposal Systems).
The design flow, type system, and pump requirement are subject to change based upon
the application and site plan or plat submitted for the Wastewater Construction
Authorization,
The blocked azeas on the accompanying plat aze the limits of the provisionally suitable
soils as evaluated by the Orange County Health Department.
It should be noted that all lots having aconventional-type drain field with pump are reviewed at a
minimum of every five years by the health department as required by 15A NCAC 18A ,1961
(Maintenance of Sewage Systems)..
Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional Systems axe placed in azeas with 24 inches or more of
provisionally suitable soillsite chazacteristics and a 6-10" soil cap is placed over t17e trenches,
Shallow Trench Conventional Systems aze placed in azeas with 30 inches or more of provisionally
suitable soillsite characteristics,
Conventional Trench Systems aze placed in azeas with 36" inches or more of provisionally
suitable soil/site characteristics,
Innovative Trench Systems can be used in areas with 24-36 "of provisionally suitable soillsite
characteristics..
The approved septic areas should be kept free of vehicular traffic togging grading, and
compacting activities. It is the responsibility of the property owner or developer to maxntaxn the
integrity of the septic areas prior to system construction and installation. No parking, cutting or
filling shall Ue allowed in or around the drain field areas.
Drainage ways and easements should be utilized to convey storm water run-off to the storm water
retention areas. These conveyances should not be located through designated septic drain field
azeas.
This report is for planning purposes only and does not constitute any approval. Lot approval is
granted by the health department only in the form of an Improvement Permit.
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD
Bureau of Economic & Business Research -University of Florida
Modified 4/15/97 -Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 -PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
PROJECT: The Orchard
TOWNSHIP: Chapel Hill
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year. ! 2006
Ending Year: 2009
Inflation Rate: 3.70%
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
PersonslHousei ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLESCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. ' 2.56
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0..36
%Ndn-Elderly: ; 0
70.01)/0
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes ($) by Year
2006; 6' '700,000 33.33%
2007 6 725,900 33.33%
2008' 6 752,800 33.33%
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( )BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO l
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County'.. ( O, j Elementary School 44%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Carrboro ( 1 ') High School 32%
SECTION 2 -LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
BUDGET YEARc `; 2005-2006
COUNTY POPULATION: (NC Demo) for July 2004 120965
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION:: 10965
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER CAPITA
General Services, Governing, and'Managemenf 175:15 0.0014
Public Safety 202.50 0 0017
Community & Ehvironment+ Culture & Recreation 78.63 0.0007`.
Human Services 294.16 0.0024
Education (School bistrict) 1780:00 0.0147
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT: POSITIONS PER STUDENT
Total.: 1780.00 b.1623:
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($): REVENUES PER CAPITA
Taxes -Other Than Property 29193224 241.34'..
Intergovernmental 14192353 1 17.33
Service Charges 8885675 73.46:
Miscellaneous 1287758 10.65
26
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA
General Services, Governing, and Management ' 17352989 143.45
Public Safety 13925289 1 15.12
Community & Environment + Culture &Recreation 6560300 54.23
Human Services 32129721 265.61
Education (Recurring Capital) 2290256 18.93
Non-Departmental 27617021 228.31
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
General Services, Governing, and Management 17352989 ,''99075.02
Public Safety 13925289 68766.86
Community & Environment + Culture &Recreation 6560300 83432.53
Human Services 32129721 109225,32
Education (Recurring Capital) `-2290258 1286.66
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
County Government 49981296 4558.26
School District 30372967 2769,99
State 26787400 2442.99
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
County Government ''49981296 28079.38
School District 30372967 17063,46
State' 26787400 15049.10
TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
County Tax Rate ($) excludes 0,3028 to schools ' 0.8430 'Per $100 Assessed Valuation
School District Tax Rate ($) includes 0.3028 from O C. 0.1843 Per $100 As sessed Valuation
Assessment Ratio ` 100.00
Elderly Exemption 0 $11,000 Where Applicable
SECTION 3 -DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
YEAR `.2006 2007 2008
HOUSING UNITS 6 12 18
POPULATION 15 31 46
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 0.95.. 190 2.85
Middle 0,50 0 99 1.49.
High School 0.69 1 38 2.07
TOTAL 2 4 6
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government -0.02 0 04 0,07
Public Safety 0.03 0 05 0.08
Public Works 0.01 0 02 0.03
Human Services 0.04 0 07 0.11.
TOTAL 0.10 0.19 0.29.
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.23. 0.45 0.68
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
27
SECTION 4 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2 8
YEAR 2006'. 2007 2008
TAX BASE ($1000) 4200 ' 8711 13550
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax ' 35406'. 73432 114226'.
Other Taxes 3707 7688 11959:
Intergovernmental 1802 ' 3738 5814
Service Charges 1128 ' 2340 3640
Miscellaneous 164 ' 339 528
TOTAL ($) 42207 87537 136166
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 2203 4570 7109
Public Safety 1768 I 3667 5704
Public Works 833 ' 1728 2687
Human Services 4080 ' 8461 ; 13162
Education 10137 21023 32702
Non-Departmental 3507 7273 ? 11313
TOTAL ($) 22528 ! 46723 72677
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 19679 ' 40814 ! 63488
SECTION 5 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 2006. 2007 2008.:
REVENUES ($)
County 10137 21023 32702'
School District 7741 ' 16054 24972
State 5277'' 10944 17024
TOTAL ($) 23154 ! 48022 ` 74698
EXPENDITURES ($)
County ' 10137: 21023 32702
School District 5983 12409 19302
State 5277 10944 17024'
TOTAL ($) 21397 ' 44377 69028
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 1757 ' 3645 5670
SECTION 6 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHICIFISCAL IMPACTS
YEAR
HOUSING UNITS
POPULATION
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary
Middle
High School
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
TAX BASE ($1000)
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
Revenues
Expenditures
BALANCE
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET
Revenues
Expenditures
BALANCE
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues
', Expenditures
2007
12
31
2
1
t
4
0,19
0.45
8711
87537 736166;
46723 + 72677
40814 !63488 i
48022 74698'
44377 x69028
3645 ' 5670
135559 210864'
91100 141706:
44459 r 69159
SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County:: NO `) Elementary School 44%
Middle School 23%
Chapel Hill-Carzboro :YES ) High School 32%
YEAR 2006 2007 2008
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 1' 2 3 5 5
Middle 0' t 1' 3 3
High School 1 I 1 2 4 4
TOTAL 2' 4 6 11 11
SCHOOL CAPACITIES -ALL SCHOOLS CURRENT ENROLLMENT -ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary 4921 Elementary '' 4879:
Middle 2840 Middle 2572
High School 3035 High School 3514..
TOTAL 10796 TOTAL 10965
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 5012 ' 5177 5296 ' 5385 5518
Middle 2653 ' 2676 2749 ' 2840 2921 I
High School 3553 ' 3628 3687 i 3732 3789'
TOTAL ' 11218' 11481 11732 11957 12228
29
30
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 11, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: .Jay Bryan, Chape] Hill Representative (Chair); Craufurd Goodwin,
Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Sam Lasris,
Cedar Grove Township At Large; Renee Price-Saunders, Hillsborough Township at Large;
Sandra .Iolmson Quinn, Eno Township; Teffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large;
Theodore (Ted) W. Tr iebel (Vice-Chair), Little River Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township Representative; Bernadette Pelissier,
Bingham Township
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative
Assistant IT; Glenn Bowles, Planner II
AGENDA ITEM #9: CONSIDERATION OF THE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Glenn Bowles: I am the liaison for the Orchard Subdivision project. This is a 19 lot subdivision
on 84 square acres. There are two parcels of land with two landowners. This has a flexible
design option with 19 lots, and the open space is approximately .39%. The largest lot is 19 acres,
Besides that lot, the average lot size is 2.2 acres. The density is based on the first five lots of each
parcel being two acres in size, and any lot thereafter being five acres. The first 37 acres have 10
lots, and the other 48 acres could have 22 lots. You could potentially get 22 total allowable lots.
The land is generally rolling and feeds into Neville Creek, a part of Phil's Creek. There are some
large trees of value, and we would like the largest trees to be saved Most of the adjacent area is
small subdivision/residential or forestry. It will be accessed by a public cul-de-sac road. There is
limited connectivity feasible. Staff findings are basically that the topography suggests flexible
development. There are some interesting exotic tree species to be saved.. One USES study is
about the minimum infiltration rate/recharge rates in the basin (which is not site specific) uses
about 65 gallons/day/person. Most engineers suggest 100 gallons. The 65 gallon rate is
comparable to Madison, Wh The Fire Marshal would like to see a reusable water source for fire
suppression. There are two existing ponds that might serve that purpose. Regarding solid waste,
they will recycle products during construction, and will offer curbside recycling. A tree survey is
needed, and we would like add a note not to disturb the trees in the open space. We would also
like to see the details of the open space uses.
Michelle Kempinski: In your information, there were 19 lots shown but there were 20 lots on the
site plan.
Glenn Bowles: The 20°i lot will be recombined.
Michelle Kempinski: Is that included in the acreage?
Glenn Bowles: Yes..
Renee Price-Saunders: Why is the 20°i lot not included in the colored area?
31
Glenn Bowles: When the preliminary plan for' the subdivision is done, this lot will be severed
and recombined.
Renee Price-Saunders: How does the light green area fit in?
Glenn Bowles: It establishes minimum setbacks if structures are built.
Renee Price-Saunders: Why is the Tanaka tract included?
Glenn Bowles: I don't know that answer. The developer can explain that.
Craufurd Goodwin: Does the inclusion of the Tanaka tract skew the average lot size
calculations?
Glenn Bowles: I can only speculate but I don't Irnow the answer to that,
Sam Lasris: Can the Tanaka be subdivided?
Glenn Bowles: Possibly only one more lot could be created.
Renee Price-Saunders: Can the water resources in the area support this many lots?
Craig Benedict: The perk test showed there was a weak potential on lots 18 and 19,
Sam Lasris: Plus I5-17 may have to be reconfigured.
Glenn Bowles: The perk tests will determine the actual number of lots with the preliminary plat.
This is the maximum number of lots possible at this phase..
Michelle I{empinski: With the Concept Plan, what percentage of suitable soils must be
identified?
Robert Davis: Soil scientists have stated 50% to make sure the design was reasonable.
Environmental Health doesn't do preliminary testing. Also, having aRight-Of--Way on the large
tract provides a roadside buffer.
Craufurd Goodwin: If1ot 19 were not included, would this be approvable?
Glenn Bowles: Yes. The Concept plan shows that. They have the proper protection and density.
We need to see the soil tests.
Jay Bryan: Let's let the developer speak,
Ted Triebel:.Iust to reconfirm on the perk test, is this a theoretical number?
Glenn Bowles: Yes, it is theoretical.
Ted Triebel: Then lot 19 seems to be anon-issue.
Renee Price-Saunders: If lot 19 is not included, why not require a roadside buffer'?
32
Glenn Bowles: If the Tanaka lot is severed fiom the subdivision, the road buffer would not be
there.
Robert Davis: The Ordinance requires 50% of lots, and they provided more lots than needed..
The Preliminary Plan will show the actual locations.
Renee Price-Saunders: I just don't understand why it's there.
Robert Davis: The benefit is that there would be a roadside buffer.
Sam Lasris: If lots 15-17 are reconfigured, why not reconfigure the road for connectivity and
have more access options? How far are we from Sesame Grove?
Glenn Bowles: I may be '/< mile with interesting topography. Connectivity is not really an
option.
Bruce Ballentine: Regarding the soils report, we wanted to get a realistic feel of the situation for
the Concept Plan. We hired a soils specialist and had to reconfigure the numbers based on their
findings. The original plan is different than the original concept, which changed the road layout.
We have applied for a site evaluation and staked the properties on the site.. The Health
Deparhnent will do the analysis. We are proposing looking at what is existing, which is currently
two lots. The existing property needs to be shown for legal purposes. This will help define the
buffers.
Michelle Kempinski: Will lot 18, the Tanaka tract, be cut off before the other subdivision is
created?
Bruce Ballentine: It might be, but it is immaterial at this point
Michelle Kempinski: Lot 15 -12 are in the upper portion. There is a boundary on the NW side
and 2 lines drawn for the lots that is identified as open space. Which lines were used to calculate
open space versus lot size?
Bruce Ballentine: The inner boundary (pink area) is deeded to the owner. The outside area is
owned by the Homeowners' Association, Some of the open space is owned by the lot owners and
the Homeowners Association.
Michelle Kempinski: So, the total open space includes the open space owned by lot owners?
When the lot size was calculated, does that include open space?
Bruce Ballentine: Yes. It will be deeded to a buyer with a restricted use.
Michelle Kempinski: If the hatched area is included in the lot size and the open space, isn't this
double counting?
Bruce Ballentine: Yes.
Robert Davis: 3.3% open space is needed
33
Bruce Ballentine: The sketch (in the packet) shows the table of open space, Lots 1-14 are used to
count as open space areas, Lots 9-13 includes a POSA (Pedestrian Open Space Access) to
complete a pedestrian loop around the properties.
Michelle I{empinski: The minimum requirement based on .33% open space is 28 acres.
Bruce Ballentine: The lot yield due to density doesn't include open space. Math shows that one
could get 22 lots.
Sandra Quinn: Regarding individual wells and septic, what is the average square footage of the
proposed homes?
Bruce Ballentine: That will be up to the builder, It is estimated to be 4,000 square foot homes
costing $600-700,000.
Robert Davis: 3.3% of total land needs to be owned by the Homeowners' Association.
Craig Benedict: You need 33% open space outside the minimum lot size. I recommend these
concerns be tabled until the preliminary plan.
Renee Price-Saunders: Will the open space connect to Tones I^eny Road? Will this be open to
the public?
Bruce Ballentine: No, it will be owned by the Homeowners' Association. The road is public.
Renee Price-Saunders: What about the sheam?
Bruce Ballentine: Improvements will be the responsibility of'the HOA.
.lay Bryan: Is Staff recommending approval?
Craig Benedict: If what is heard tonight is correct, the .33% requirement might not be met, and
the plan would need to be changed before it could be approved.
MOTION made by Sam Lasris to table the discussion. Jeffiey Schmitt seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
34
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 1, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT:.Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Theodore (Ted) W. Triebel
(Vice-Chair), Little River Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative;
Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Sam L.asris, Cedar Grove Township At
Large; Renee Price-Saunders, Hillsborough Township at Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township
Representative; Bernadette Pelissier; Bingham Township; 7effrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove
Township
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandra .Johnson Quinn, Eno Township
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor; Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative
Assistant II; Glenn Bowles, Planner II, Lddie I{irk, Planner II
Other Attendees: George McFarley, Asst. Superintendent, Orange County Schools; Michael
Hammersley, Corley, Redfoot and Zack; Ken Redfoot, Corley, Redfoot and Zack; .lean Corbett,
Citizen; Christopher Tadevich, Citizen; Bany Corbett, Citizen
AGENDA ITEM #8: CONSIDERATION OF THE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Jay Bryan: Thanks, Glenn, for summarizing the changes
Glenn Bowles: This item was tabled last month, so that the applicant could make some
adjustments to the plan. Now, the development is 61.5 acres. The Tanaka ttact is not included in
the plan, and the other parcel has been recombined, so the parcels have new tax id numbers.
Excluding public right of ways, we have 59.5 acres of land, roughly. There are 22.1 acres of open
space, which is ,just under .36% of the site. This map shows how the parcels were combined, in
terms of how the property was platted many years ago. There are two different types of topo
lines. Along the streams, there are 2' contour intervals, and the rest is mapped at 5' contour
intervals, so things appear more dense and steeper. We asked the applicant to show the actual
steep slopes. The other areas are slopes between 15-25%, which by definition, are considered as
secondary open space. We must first consider all primary open space, the hardwoods, steep
slopes, and the floodplain, which is roughly 6-8 acres, The rest of the open space is secondary
open space (wooded areas, floodplain buffers, corridor buffers), which can be in platted lots. The
orchard effect, trees and bamboo thickets, will be preserved. Our findings changed slightly from
the last meeting. We are recommending approval, as the density, including the open space, is
similar and consistent with at least '/z of the neighboring developed areas,. Not al] of the lots are
the same size. We are recommending that the road be extended along the east lot line for'
potential future connectivity. Connectivity from other areas is not appropriate, due to the
hardwoods. Lots 9, 10, ll, 12 have been reoriented to stay out of steep open areas.. Staff
recommends approval of the concept plan.
Jeff Schmitt: Wlry is the road extension being proposed?
Glenn Bowles: For future connectivity. It was suggested by the Town of Canboro to help with
potential future development of adjoining areas.
35
Michelle Kempinski: On page 002 under existing, the appropriate number of lots should be 18
This is also noted on p. 003 at the bottom -there is no reduction of lots with the new design..
Glenn Bowles: It was suggested that the density was transferred from the larger tract, but as you
can see, when the tract was cut off; the density was not really affected under the flexible
development.
Robert Davis: This absh act was prepared before the other property changes were made.
Michelle Kempinski: Is the hatched area considered as open space?
Glenn Bowles: It is not considered as open space, but the developer has considered some lot
restrictions. Number 3 and 2 in the staff conditions show that we want to keep the open space
areas in their existing natural conditions, except a possible trail. This will be further defined in
the preliminary plan.
Ted Triebel: So, the total acreage is 61.5 acres. On page 4 regarding water recharge rates, it
shows 67 acres, What's the difference?
G1ennBowles: The number of households did change. There is one less house,.
Ted Triebel: Are these national averages?
Glenn Bowles: I used numbers which were from Madison, WI for total residential consumption,
not total consumption, Also, the State of'the Environment 2004 report r°eflects that as average,
led Triebel: My gut feeling is that 65 is low, and there is potential for a problem..
Glenn Bowles: 100 is frequently recommended, but that reflects total consumption. I feel
confident about the 65,
Bernadette Pelissier: When you take an average of all households, this development is for' rather
wealthy people, and wealthy people often use more water due to landscaping, etc. There is no
data available reflecting varying average by income levels or size of houses. The actual usage
will probably be higher than what is shown here.
Craufurd Goodwin: I'd like to point out that recommendation #2 on p. 004 makes no sense.
There is a duplication of words.
Glenn Bowles: We will make that change,
Michelle Kempinski: On #6 of the recommendations -why was only Gayle Wilson's attachment
addressed, and not the other comments?
Glenn Bowles: The other comments were already incorporated into the recommendations.
Bernadette Pelissier: On recommendation #7 regarding traffic. Does this pertain specifically to
this development?
36
Glenn Bowles: Yes, NCDOT will be reviewing the plans to make certain that the traffic
provisions are adequate for the development.
Ted Triebel: Recommendation #9 -The County does allow open burning.
Robert Davis: The County allows no burning in relation to construction activities.
Ted Triebel: Please clarify that in the recommendations.
.Jay Bryan: Is there a greenway plan for this part of the County?
Glenn Bowles: Yes, there is one proposed along Phil's Creek, but not specifically here along
.Jones Ferry or Neville Branch.
Brvice Ballentine: Regarding the road extensions, they are always desired by municipal areas to
provide access to land-locked areas. The adjoining properly has extensive access to Tones Ferry
Road, so it is not really needed. If it is your decision, or the BOCC's decision to dedicate the
open space, we can accommodate that, rather than have an extended right-of--way.
.Tay Bryan: Would any members of the public like to speak?
.lean Corbett: In looking at the Orange County State of the Environment report, the data on water
consumption shows an increase in consumption from 124 gallons per day in 1985 to 145 gallons
per day, which is a major increase. The estimate of 65 gallons per day per person seems
unreasonable. I'm very concerned about the water.
Chris Tadevich: My property is located northwest of the proposed development. We have a G00'
well, that drawers water at '/z gallon per minute. The neighborhood varies greatly, though. My
concern is with the 65 gallon estimate. I used with work with community wells in California, and
average consumption was 45,000 gallons per month, mainly for landscaping, I'm concerned
about the homeowner restrictions for the landowners regarding landscaping and lawn
maintenance in the development, since they will be upper income and will use more water to keep
their lawns nice. I question the woodland accuracy. There is over 100' of old trees, and these
plans do not seem to accurately show that. I'd like to understand how the woodland areas will be
protected, and if encroachment will occur. Also, the developer talked about trails, to encourage
people to enjoy the forests. While I appreciate that, what type of requirements will be in place to
maintain control of the open space areas? Open access space can cause problems with regard Yo
the neighboring activities and disruption of the property. Could there be some type of fencing, or
some method to maintain some level of control of the people using the space?
Renee Price-Saunders: With regard to the public access, I had asked previously if this area was
open to the public. I understood that the trails would be used only by the homeowners, not for
public use.
Chris Tadevich: It would be Homeowner's Association land, but there would not necessarily be
control over that space if it goes out to the frontage road.. There would be an encouragement to
go off into the wooded areas, which could attract a nuisance.
Renee Price-Saunders Would people have a place to park to access the trail?
37
Chris Tadevich: There is open parking available along Tones Ferry Road, and it is a highly used
area for cyclists.
Michelle Kempinski: Regarding the Corbett property next door, would you (Jean Corbett)
consider a conservation easement? That may answer some of your concerns
.Jean Corbett: I've thought about it.
Craufurd Goodwin: I'm confused about the various rates used for water usage.
Glenn Bowles: There is a big difference between the consumption used for homes, rather than
businesses or schools. Madison's numbers seem to be more consistent with experience.
Craufurd Goodwin: These would not be metered wells. People can use as much water as they
want.
.Jay Bryan: My suggestion would be to address this at the next meeting. As a part of the March 1
report, could Staff give us some background about these figures and other studies to support the
numbers used, that we can consider when evaluating proposals..
Sam Lasris: What's the difference between flexible and conventional subdivisions?
Glenn Bowles: Conventional subdivisions do not have open space requirements; flexible
subdivisions do.
Sam Lasris: We evaluate both, correct?
Glenn Bowles: Yes. Flexible subdivisions have more flexibility regarding lot size and open
space.
MOTION by Craufurd Goodwin to accept the Staff findings, with the exception of rewording #2
for coherence, and #9 with respect to open burning. Seconded by Sam Lasris,
VOTE: Unanimous,
3~,
MINUT>cs
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MAY 3, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
MENDERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township
Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove
Township at Large; Joel Knight, Tittle River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township;
Renee Price-Saunders, Hillsborough Township at Large; Sandra Johnson Quinn, Eno Township
MEMBERS ADSENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At Large; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove
Township at Large
STArr PRESENT: Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant
R; Eddie I{irk, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Planner R; Glenn Bowles, Planner II
AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
AGENDA ITEM #8: PRELIMINARY PLAN ROR THE ORCHARD SUBDMSION (VOTING ITEM)
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Planning Board to hear Staff Report to make recommendation to the County
Commissioners regarding the Preliminary Plan application for the Orchard
Subdivision.
Glenn Bowles: (Reviewed Abstract), Lot numbers 10 and 11 have been reoriented so that all the platted
]and is not in primary open space as the concept plan approval required, As a result of the Fire Marshal's
comments, the developer has approached OWASA to use the University Lake as a source of water for fire
suppression. OWASA has agreed but the specifics or design have not been completed, The Canboro
Courtesy Review requested a trail system around the property, but Staff does not agree because of the
concern for erosion on steep slopes and maintaining the pristine environment. Also, they requested that
the cul-de-sac be constructed to the eastern edge of the property. Staff was concerned about extending the
road because the non-use of the road, the expected deterioration of the road due to no use, and there is
question if and when the adjacent property maybe developed and at what grade the road on the other side
would be, Staff did not want the road to be paved twice if the grades do not match,
Michelle Kempinski: Originally there was a question if the Tanaka property should be considered as part
of this subdivision when determining the number of allowable lots. When the subdivision was redrawn to
exclude the Tanaka tract, was the number of allowable lots readjusted? The number of lots is pertinent, as
it comes up with one less lot.
Jay Bryan: Your question to Glenn is how was the 181ots determined?
Michelle Kempinski: Yes. My calculation is lower,
Jay Bryan: Would it be helpful to have the developer explain the calculations or the staffl
Bruce Ballentine: The calculations are not only based on density, The underlying density is based on the
parent tracts of land as of October 2, 1989, When the regulations changed in the County, you calculate
the density by going back to legal lots on that date (2 tracts), multiplied by 5 acres and the rest at 5 acres;
the TanakaBennett original property was 47.91 acres, and was part of the parent tract, An additional
calculation is the yield analysis.
Michelle Kempinski: Are you using the 85-acre tract to calculate the number of lots?
Bruce Ballentine: The density of the two parent tracts is included,
Michelle Kempinski: Previously we used different numbers when calculating the open space. Why not
use the same numbers?
Glenn Bowles: These can be considered estate lots, which use different calculations. The residual lot can
be considered as an estate lot, and all open space in it, We based the open space calculation on the
subdivision as submitted, The Tanaka fract is not actually a part of the preliminary subdivision, but since
it is a part of the parent tract, the area cannot be further subdivided,
Robert Davis: This is no longer part of the subdivision,
Bruce Ballentine: 221ots is the absolute maximum that could ever be developed on the two parent tracts.
Glenn Bowles: The Ordinance specifies the order to check the numbers, Step 1 is to calculate the yield
analysis. Once the subdivision is established, step 2 is to calculate open space of the subdivision.
Renee Price-Saunders: So, by removing the Tanaka fract from the subdivision, it cannot be further
subdivided in the future?
Robert Davis: The density only allows one or two lots on the Tanaka tract, which will not change, The
density calculation including the Tanaka tract was used in determining the density. That goes with the lot
of record.
.Judith Wegner: What power does the Planning Board have regarding the assumptions for sustainable
water supply and usage?
Glenn Bowles: North Carolina water laws prescribe a reasonable use doctrine, Existing and future
potential property owners have reasonable expectations of use of the groundwater, State law does not
specify those levels,
Judith Wegner: I understand the rights issue, I'm questioning more the linkage between the regulatory
capacity and use as it applies to the allowable density, How does the water draw apply?
Glenn Bowles: We use the USGS Study that was done in the 1990s that suggested that density of 2-3
acres per lot could be sustained under natural conditions based on normal groundwater flow,
Judith Wegner: It would seem we have the density protocol regulations that don't say for us to try to
regulate water usage.
Jay Bryan: We don't have water regulatory authority.
3~
Renee Price-Saunders: We are waiting to hear from Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney as to what we can
do about establishing thresholds for water usage. As we've seen from the various presentations, this is a
complicated subject,
~~
Michelle Kempinski: Are there provisions for swapping impervious surface requirements? Is that
allowable and legal?
Bruce Ballentine: We had a similar situation in Meadowmont. The developer was tackling the issues of
using the impervious requirements for all of all lots, With each building permit, the cumulative
impervious surface area is counted and recorded, so it can be determined by the neighborhoods. There
are situations when this could be of benefit,
Robert Davis: Impervious surface amounts need to be recorded on the final plat, and are redone on each
request.
Glenn Bowles: On a 2-acre lot, it's hard to hit 6%. The average impervious cover on 2-acre lots in
Orange county is less than 4%
Robert Davis: We don't encourage moving around the impervious limitations between properties,
Jay Bryan: We can't solve that issue tonight. We may want to review the policy on impervious surface
sharing at a later time.
Bruce Ballentine: This is the third time this subdivision has been presented, We have made the requested
changes, and this is essentially the same as the approved concept plan.
Michelle Kempinski: Do we get to review the homeowner association covenants?
Robert Davis: The County Attorney has these and they are being reviewed to check for conflicts,
Jay Bryan: The Planning Board doesn't review these.
Renee Price-Saunders: The Carrboro review with trails and slopes, do we need to consider this?
Glenn Bowles: No.
Jay Bryan: Regarding the use of University Lake as a source of water', what needs to be done?
Bruce Ballentine: There are details relating to signage and traffic safety. OWASA is outlining the
process. Is that a requirement for subdivisions in Orange County? I'm not sure why we're being
requested to do this, and it will be quite an expense.
Glenn Bowles: It was included in the Fire Marshal's comments, It is not a staff regulation but it is
encouraged if the Fire Marshal recommends it,
MOTION made by Craufurd Goodwin to accept the staff recommendations, Brian Dobyns seconded,
VOTE: 9 ayes; 0 nay