HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-22-2006-9cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 22, 2006
Action Agenda
Item No. Q -G
SUBJECT: The Orchard -Preliminary Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution of Approval
2) Applicaticn
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:
Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Glenn Bowles, 245-2577
PURPOSE: Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for The Orchard Subdivision,
BACKGROUND:
Request -Preliminary Plan
Applicant: J, Bruce Ballentine, agent far Black Diamond Properties
Owners: Yukio and Yasuko Tanaka and Kathy Cheek and Karen Andrews
Subdivision fellows the Conservaticn-Cluster Option of Flexible Development
• Total acreage is 61.12 acres, including public road right-of-way
• 18 single family residential lots
• Lat sizes range from 2.01 to 2,16 acres, with a 2.045 average,
• The percentage of open space is 34,80%.
• 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
Flexible O tion 18 2.045 34.80 21.28
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 Ghurch Road in Chapel Hill Township,
Existing 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 (6.23.2)..
Maximum impervious surface in the University Lake watershed is 6% of the gross acreage
(6.23.3).
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 was timbered ten to fifteen years
ago..
• The Tanaka Tract has significant tree species planted in an orchard setting along
Orchard Lane, as it enters the subdivision.
Adjacent Land Use:
• Single family residential, with lot sizes ranging from one to six acres in older subdivisions
to the south and west, 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).
This is the proposed lot density with the common open space included.
PROPOSED:
Roads:
• Access to subdivision is from a proposed 2,177-foot long cul-de-sac, Orchard Trail, off
Janes Ferry Road (SR 1942), a paved, public road in Chapel Hill Township. The total
length of the public road right of way is 2,625 feet, as the right of way is extended to the
east property line, beyond the cul-de-sac. (IV~B-3-c-7)
• NCDOT has provided written approval for Orchard Lane and the right turn lane,
• All roads shall be constructed to NCDOT (and County) requirements. (IV-B-3-c & IV-B-3-
d-1)
• 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. (IV-B-3-c-7)
• Staff recommends a deceleration lane at the Orchard Lane entrance to Jones Ferry Road.
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 Flexible Development Option is 33% of site,. (IV-G-1)
• The developer proposes to provide 34.80% open space, which the Home Owners
Association will own. Another 0.91 acres of platted land within the stream buffers
(secondary open space), which is not counted in the dedicated open space calculations,
the Home Owners Association controls through deed restriction. This deed restriction
does not diminish the usable lot area below the 40,000 square foot minimum (6.24.2).
• Nearly 40% of the dedicated open space consists of regulated floodplains, land with
slopes over 25%, and mature upland forests. (IV-C-3)
• 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 ERDC identified conservation sites for this area, The payment in-lieu option
is viable.. (IV-B-7-b)
Private Recreation
• Acreage required to be set aside: 1.71 acres or 61,12 acres 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 the attached letter, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools awarded a Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools for 18 housing units. (See the attached memo dated March 6,
2006, )
Fire Suppression
Applicant will install a water withdrawal facility in Moore Pond along Deerfield Trail for the
purposes of a source of emergency water for fire suppression,
Buffers:
Flexible Development Option (IV-D-2)
• Every proposed lot has afifty-foot 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. (See the attached letter
from Alan Clapp.)
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 Jones 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 recommended approval unanimously of the
preliminary plan on May 3, 2006.
Third Action: The County Board of Commissioners considers approval of the preliminary
plan to allow the applicant to begin work on the required public improvements.
COMMENTS FROM THE MAY 3, 2006 PLANNING BOARD MEETING
• 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?
Answer: Open space is calculated on the actual subdivision acreage, not on acreage
outside of the plan,
• Are the fire suppression recommendations aCounty requirement?
Answer: This falls under the general category of "ensuring 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?
Answer: The Planning Board and staff determine basic subdivision density and
impervious cover using zoning district minimum lot sizes and watershed density formulae,
In lieu of more specific groundwater usage standards, these density regulations indirectly
address groundwater usage rates, There is no County agency with the explicit authority
to regulate groundwater usage,
• The issues of swapping impervious cover on lots within a platted subdivision.
Answer: 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
according to the attached Resolution of Approval,
Planning Staff and Planning Board recommend Approval of the Preliminary Plan
according to the attached Resolution of Approval.
Board of County Commissioners Proposal
Revised August 3, 2Q06
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date of Meeting: August 22, 2006
Name of Subdivision: The Orchard
Owner/Applicant: Bruce Ballentine, 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 again on August .3, 2006, and containing eighteen lots, subject to the
fulfillment 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 construct 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
information regarding the tentative location of septic systems is available from the
County FIealth Department, Division of Environmental 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 IV-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.
S. Roads and Access
I. The owner/applicant shall construct, prior to the approval and recording of the Final Plat,
Orchard Trail to NCDOT standards, within afifty-foot (50') right-of=way, with ten-foot
(] 0') utility easements on each side, and with NCDOT construction inspection and
approvah
OR
Board of County Commissioners Proposal 6
Revised August 3, 2006
The owner/applicant shall submit a letter of credit or cash to secure conshuction 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 Flanning and Inspections
Department (the Planning Department). The {inancial 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 inancial guarantee
shall be effective for 372 days after the County Manager signed the Certificate of
Improvements.
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 al] 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
.Jones Ferry Road according to the provisions of Section IV-B-.3-c-12 of the Orange
County Subdivision Regulations before Planning Departrnent 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 Planning Department at the same tune as the request for Planning Department
signatures on the Final Plat. The owner/applicant shall perform no work in the Orchard
Trail or Jones Feny Road right-of=ways before issuance of approved NCDOT driveway
permits and encroachment 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 right-of--way sufficient to provide fifty feet (50') of
right-of--way from the existing Janes 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 IV-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 standards before the Final Plat is
submitted.
9. A sign, between three (.3) and four (4) square feet in area, shall be placed at the terninus
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 Orange 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 form approved by the County
Board of Counfy Commissioners Proposal ~
Revised August 3, 2006
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 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 landscaping 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 .Tones Ferry
intersection.,
OR
Guaranteed financially through a letter of credit or cash submitted to secure required
landscape installation and preservation.. The owner/applicant shall provide, as specifed
in Section IV-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 specifed in Section IV-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 .Tones 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 concurrently with the Final Plat. The owner/applicant
shall convey athirty-foot (.30') buffer easement along Orchard Trail and .Tones 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
I. 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,
>;. Parkland
1. The owner/applicant shall pay cash in the amount of $8,190 (18 units x $455A0 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.
Board of County Commissioners Proposal e
Revised August 3, 2006
2. The owner/applicant shall provide private recreational open space as specified in Section
IV-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
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 encroachment 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 stonnwater improvements, all areas in
reserved open space shall remain in their natural condition..
F. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity reap 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.1 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 Planning Department for review and approval.
5. The Planning and Solid Waste Departments shall review and approve a plan for the
collection and proper disposal of all 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 meta], and corrugated cardboard, must be recycled,
8. All haulers of construction waste shall have proper licensing.
9. Before any on-site construction activity, the owner/applicant shall hold apre-construction
conference with the County Solid Waste staff: This may be the same meeting held with
other development officials,
10. Before installation of a subdivision sign, County Planning shall review and approve a site
plan and construction drawings.
11. The owner/applicant shall instal] a water withdrawal system for emergency fire
suppression in Moore Pond (a private pond) off of Deerfield Trail with signage
acceptable to the Orange County Fire Marshal.
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, atl as approved by the County Attorney, that will govern the maintenance and
control of the improvements as set forth in Article IIT-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.
13. The maximum imperviousness surface coverage that may be allocated to the individual
lots shall be 107,263 square feet. This figure is exclusive of Orchard Lane right-of--way.
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.
Board of County Commissioners Proposal
Revised August 3, 2006
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.
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 Planning 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
April 5 and 22, 2006.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,
the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2006..
I, Donna 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 thaC 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
- ~ APPLIC~ ~N FOR PRELIMINARY PLC' °' APPROVAL 10
` - i1-(AJOR SUBDIVISION
sjos
olzAN~e couNTY
22 FEB 2006
DATE:
,ASE TYPE DR PRIN7 LINK ONLY)
The Orchard Subdivision
SUBpNIS10N NAME:
lJOrth Side of Intersection o£ Jones Ferry Road ~ Damascus Church Road
LOCATION' Owner 1: Yukio & Yasuka Tanaka;
Developer: Black Diamond Properties Owner 2: Kathy Cheek/Karen Andrews
OWNERldEVELOPER:
221 Providence Road Tlcl.EPHONE ND.: 919-929-0666
ADpRESS:
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
AGENT/CONTACT: Bruce 8allentine
221 Providence Road
TELEPHONE NO.• 919-929-oeas
ADpRESS•
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
A TNBL: 7.117.10A & 7..117.11
SUMMARY INFORMATION Lots Township Chapel Hill
()
k
~
Orange County Tax Map gioc _
-
Zoning pistrid(s): RH _.
Total Number of Arms: 61.12
Total Number of Lots: 1S Average Lot Size: 2.08 AC Minimum Lot Slze: 2. DO AC
m osa 9 ~r e Sinole ,Family Residenc
(P P '~ ~
Numbertrype of Structures: (existing) D Acres in Opan Space: 21.2 e
Linear Feat in Streets: 120D
Public (specify}
wel
l ,
Community x Individual
-
x Individual
Wafer Supply.
___
---
Wastewatarplsposai• Septic Publie[speclfy)
r -,Community
South Orange
Flre District
rboro
Sehocl Dlstrlet: Cha el Hill - Ca
Bin le Family Residential
s
General Land Us R In Area: x .~_ flood prone area
streamfdrainageways
Critical Areas-
IIaiversit Lake - PW hlstor(c sites
Watershed (spocdy)
~~ other (explain)
is the properlyto be subdivided currently and®r "farm use value taxation^? Yes _ No X . If °yas; `please
Subdivision of the property may requtra paymont 4f deferred taxes under
contact the Orange County Tax Office.
"farm use value taxation.^
B lats must be submitted on sheet no smaller Phan one inch equals two•hundred feet (t"=20D~ and no larger than'
All
ti
f
p
on:
orma
one inch equals bxanty feet (t"=2D') and must contain the following in
x zoning of fract and adjacorrt
X subdivision name proparges
g x building setback lines by notation or
_- name & address of owner(s) {yplcal lot layout
x x IocaElon and width of existing and
'~ name & address of subdivider --' proposed easements (drainage,
(if other than owner) utilities, roads; eta)
x x ~ Existing, proposed and adjoining
_ Hama of surveyor,'englneer, landscape -"- rights-of-way including dimensions
architect or architect, address, and street names and State Road
g ragistratlon ~ 8 seal numbers. Linear feet of road
(title) Preliminary Plan canterllnes and approximate acreago
X scale, norih arrow of Haw street rights-ofwey
z ~ data of plan preparation and revisions
~ x
existing and proposed utilities,
x township, tax mep•block-lot references _,~ __.-,
Including type, sizes, hydrants,
X Parent Parcel Identification $ valves, manholes
_ deed book and page # of property to be
x subdivided
boundary described with bearings and x
_____ eXtsting and proposed curbs, gutters
and culverts, Including sixes and
_ distances grades
i
_ x -cation end width of alleys, } }
' x total acreage of the i.md acreage of -----J lar,,.aiks, bike lanes, transit
--"""" '"-- lots, Iriduding, and excluding area wlfhin systems, and bus stops
x typical sfteet crosssectlons and
i - rights-of•+~ay __._ _._-
x control corner Intersection details iriduding design
i ~_ -- and width of fraveiway and
shoulders
ti x horizontal alignment, centerline
X ~ ---_ __._....
_ proposed lottlnes with dimensions radius, and general curve data on al
X lot & block numbers _ _ ,,. proposed streets
tTt. -- phasing line(s) X _ permanent features such as
x v~+~ topography at ten (10) foot intervals ~---' "'- buildings, cametories, historic •
x ~ wafer bodies, streams, floodways and landmarks
floodplains x __ adjoining lot layout names of
x stream 6uffars adjoining property owners, ii
_--- subdivided, subdivision plat name,
g _- location and slza.of parcels dedicated for plat book & page number, and
public use, recrea u`nosa n tad served X perimeter let numbers.
in common, with p p location and size of lots of restricted -
w<„:...~ impervious surface data (if located in -- '-"-'- development potential and notatlon
watersupplywatershed) X on plat regarding same
• x ~_ stormwater detention andlor
vldNtir map showing general location of ---- ratantlon sites and undisturbed
'-"- ~ aubdivlslon with streets and roads areas for Inflitratlon purposes (if
idanfifled by state Road number and located to water supply watershed}
name
X landscaping and buffer requirements ~ __ identlfled natural areas and wildlife
tin ,__, township, wrporata and oxtruterritorial ~•-- condors
plannin0 )urisdlctlon tines which cross
the property
!, C OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
t. Twenty-flea (25) copies of the Preliminary Piat arcels involved clearly marked).
2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax Map (with tax p
3. yyhere municipal or OWASA sewer Is not available, a copy of the P2liminary Plat indicating Health Department
approvalldenlai for each tot show thereon. hcant or hislhar authorized representative which
4. Where a private road is proposed, a wriften statement by the app'
sets for the justlflwtion fora private reaared In accordance wi4h Section VI ofthis Ordinance whi h assuretrons).
5. Auxillarydocumants, in draftform, P P
__ not be 14mited to4a prNaf "road maintenan e 9 arrant and articles ofnincorporation sad restrlcUVa covenants
„~~..-;.-~ 6e required as necessa as evidence that the 0
perfaining to a homeowners association. These documents may ry m\ h
ordinance requirements are being met
&. Fee - SSDD plus yS.OD par tat (one fee for Preliminary and Final Plat).
7. if the subdivision contains SO cots or m pearse following information shall ba submitted with the appllcatlon:
~i a. Number of years to buiidouf. 6 houses/year
b. Number of houses to be built during each year until bulidout
c. Average Price of houses Including lots for each year to bulldout SSOOx - itn$
I certify that to the best of my knowledge the information mnfalned above, and in the supporting documents, is a factual representation \,
Ise Iication, the 02nge County Planning and InspectionbD necessary
I of tfia proposed development 1 acknowledge that by signing ih PP ec5ons of the subJed property as may
is authorized, pursuant to N,C. Gen. Slat. Section 753e-300, to make as many insp
. I b verify that the proposed Work outlined herein is consistent with the provisions of all applicable State and local laws, ordinances and
regulations. By signln8 this applieetion,l acknowledge and agree that inspectors, inning officers, erosion control officers, and o er
on resentafion of proper credentials, lo~enter the
i staff of the Qrange County Planning & InspecPohrps DeperfinePnt have a right, up P d•' ~~ ~J~ ' b4 ~~~~~
II subject property at any reasonable hour for the u uses of Ins ectlon or they en r errant action. ir',r115/',V't~i
f ~~~, . Z I- d L
Zl ~ 06 ~U-^"'" ~ DATE
' . DATE OWNER'S SIGNATURE
F,~ ~...n_r ... .+t
~ PLJCANT's SIGNATURE
Y
~-b o~
- ~: "Data Pa ,, ~e~p
:..
FEEP• Amount :. •. - .
...,_ _..csa?:•,;~• ,F,~-.~w.,-c. ~. , , .. is .
_,x ,, ___---
' x
i
X ~
X
NA
X
X
X
X
i x
------
{,
x
NA
I
I C
I
I: __
total acreage of thr t and area wlfhln
lots, Including, and etcluding
rigtrts-of~»aY
control corner
proposed lot'11nes with dimonsicns
tot & block numbers ,
phasing tine(s)
topograpfiy at ten (10) foot intervals
water bodies, streams, floodways and -
tloodplains
stream buffers
IocaUon and size,of parcels dedicated for
public use, recrea urnnse noted served
in common, with p p
imParyious surface data (if located in
water supply watershed)
vicinity map showing general location of
subdivision Sfthte Road numbs rand
idenUflad by
name
_ landscaping and buffer requiretnanls
township, corporate and e%tratenitorial
__ planning Iurfsdlcgon lines which cross
the property
OTHER SU~BMfTfAL REQUIREMENTS:
X location and wlddr of alleys,
.--- - sidewalks, bike lanes, transit
X systems, and bus stops ( c
_ typieetstteetcrosssactionsand
"-'-""' Infersaclion details iricludln0 design
andwidfhoftravelwayand
shoulders
x horizontal alignment, centerline
-'-- ~- radius, and general curve data on all
proposed streets
X ___ permanent features such as
-~ buildings, cemetarlas, historic
landmarks
X adjoining lot layout names of
-'- ~ adjoining property owners. If
subdivided, subdivision plat name,
plat book & page number, and
x perimeter Ioi numbers.
-"'"-" '-- development potenU I and bon
on prat regarding same
X atormwater detention and(or
"-'- -- retention sites and undisturbed
areas forinflltraUon purposes (if
" located in water supply watershed)
NA IderiUfled natural areas and wildlife
'-"' -~ corridors
1. Twenty-flue t25) copies of the Preliminary PiaL arcels involved clearly marked).
2. One full size copy of an Orange Counfy Tax Map (with tax p
3. Where rnunleipai or OWASA sewers not available, a copy of tDre Preliminary Plat indicating Health Departmen
approvalldeniai for each lot show thereon. hcant or hislhar authorized representative which
4, Where a pdvata road is proposed, a written statement Lry the aPP
sets for the jusgflcagon for a prNate road (sae Secgon p/-g-9-d-1 of the Orango County Subdivision Regulations).
5. Auxlilary documents, in draftform, prepared in accordance with Secgon VI of this Ordinance which assure
complegan andJor maintenance of impmvaments required by this Drdmanee. Such documents may include, 6u
Dragon and restrictive covenants
ba inquired as necessary as evidence that the
not be limited to; a private road malntananca agmement and articles o mwrp
pertaining to a horneownars association. These documents may
ordinance requirements era being mat ilcatlon:
B. Fee - SSDD plus 55.DD par lot (one fee foro~reha f Ilovu ng information shall ba submitted with the aPP
7, If the subdivision contains t0lots or 3 years 6 houses/year
a. Number of years to buildout. sooK - iM$
b. Number of houses to be butit during each year unfitar to bulldout $
c. Average pfice of houses Including tots for each Ye
1 certify that to the best of my knovAedge the informailon conialned above, and in the supporting documents, is a factual representation
this a iication, Ute Orange County Planning one i~ as may b pnecessa+y
of the proposed development I acknowledge That by signing PP ions of all applicable State and local laws, ordinances and
is authorized, pureuanosed work outlined herein s consistent w th the Pr°v4s y msp~6ons ofo~~rgbemslonpcontrol officers, and other
to verify chat Dta prop itcagon, I acknowledge and agree that inspectors, zoning ar credentials, to enter the
regulations. By signing this app on resenfa6on of plop
staff of the Orange Counfy Planning & insp~tlDh n ~~ o f~ Pectlan or Cher enfprpeme~ n. ~, l ~p4
subject property at any reasonable hour for the pulp (_,~t
n
} ~ 21 W~+ EDb OWNER'S SIGNATURE 'OATS
+ PLICIINT'S SIGNATURE , ~r , .
t
_•: - ~~ •: Date Patd Z 2 ~- .. ^; .,F ~
~ ;~+ FEEF- Amount ;-' ~.a: ~,.• • ~ b D~ .
i
~~
I
a
C
E 'xA i.
e `: 5 5 ~Sj~'
-d:`~y ~(
A
~'&.
a t <
@, ~
5~~~
~ ~
g
~9=Q~
f J tl
//
v x yy ~+ '~ e~ e E 9 a7E 8~ xv c i` ~~ '-'
? ~e :55 6 ~? ~ ~y' ~eseu i ,nai~~ 5;24 ~„{ ~F~P I
p ~ 6 X=~ =`.g E~6 ~k ~E r~. [r..
6 ~p a -xe>9 er~ye e
aQQd~d ~ Q8 8 eee eeeE ~` pp ~ '`~.%
@B qv q5~ ~ 9 E "~''p~ ~g ~ 93 gBg ,Bt Fd~ppnp \ ~ ~`s ``1
e`3~~ ~ ~§~e ~f~E ~~..~9 ~~~ ~~ ~ 9~ G E ~~FC Kk ~. ~, `
~.. ~ 9.,. , ~, ~. ~-
fi f~i XF
Ep dE
~ 7 ~ 59 9 ~ S~R}}n g~gg$°~~E Xpp"E c~"^S~g F iip x
6 E5 ~5~~44~~ gg ~ 6~ [EXE `i @ ~;65 ~ B ~°;
€e E~ 2c 9~ S ifi cBE~ Kea ~e9 eF 'S E 9 E -
~~ 4~ ~~~~~s~ ' ~~ ~~$~ ~~g ~ 5~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ e -
¢¢gg FF g@ pp yeS ~- ~ ~~ ~t#t# Xapppp ~ ~
5[ 5~ igg~¢6@@SB cpp6 5~ 9•~i ~g6~fi9~~ ~f Sryp~g9 qp
'SX ~~ ^@ 9BE~ E~ ne ~i~:E 6E~i.~E~ ~E 5Xg E~ ~~
to 5r A6~xee XE ~~ X KS Tn'4g~n~, E -5228& , l
9 i
pcp ~¢¢pp [Egg qp pfip ~6
~~QFSyE35~i@ppp3
Q~~~~~~~~~~a~~.~
~I~IIII'ilil)
ilil~'~~I
t:a ~[~!III~~~il~
;III I~
~~~I~1111i~lill
NOIS1N000S OUtlH~NO 3N1
kii
S \ \b
f t
i \
OtlOH N30MOB
u~14
[
5 F q
s iEx €~
!E ~.
.i l
I~S~ 551 it
f t pp~e
Eil~ °-! I i
[~.
e \
` mfr I
x
~~Fx 1 I
9fe~
~'~e
eq 1
_.._
I q
3
I ~
/~e
~ r
V
Cr
e?
iE
Xe NAfY fwNah SYmt lea im [O'aIMMKT111[[vv>) \[wavw5 mKl\a+%ww.. unma em.t\vaUUR'ii
__ rcca 1 inch equals 933 feet
0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400
US Interstate (~ Critical Area t" City(Town Limits
/'`~ I1S Highway t"~
.~.1 Protected Watershed ~`i Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
~~ NC Highway t .. 7
.~~ Unprotected Watershed ~`
~° "°
School System Boundary
''\i MaJor Road
['~
Building
o.•'~ ~
~
Township ~
/~/ Background
Zoning _~=,r
J' I'
C
N
/'`~•~' Piedmont Electric Utilities l;~ •~ Transition Area r..~' ounty
- - - - _. ^----o .
i~a
. n~h
m a.. m•
STATE of NORTH CARGLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL. F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 30, 2006
ORANGI;COUNTY
Black Diamond Properties
221 Providence Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
SUBJECT: Driveway Permit -The Orchard Subdivision Located on Jones Ferry Road (SR 1942)
Dear Sir:
Attached for your files is a copy of the Driveway Permit properly executed, Approval of this permit is
subject to the attached special provisions and comments made on the standard driveway construction
drawing. This permit is valid for one year from the date of approval. A written request is needed for an
extension. You will need to submit a request by June 30, 2007.
When the work has been completed, notify Nanette Fogleman by letter at P. O. Box 766, Graham, NC
2725.3-0766 so that a final inspection can be made. If you have any questions, please contact Ms..
Fogleman at (336) 570-683:3.
Sincerely,
C. N. E wards, P.E.
~~ ~~~^
DISTRICT L^NGINEER
Altac}unents
CNE/NDFhadf
cc:.I M Mills, P.E., NCDOT Division Engineer
Orange County Planing Depar[rnent
Jamie Collings, Ballentine Associates
DPA060630 The Orchard
P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253
16b
DRIVEWAY PERMIT SPECIAL PROVISIONS
(The Orchard Subdivision)
In addition to the requirement listed in the pernut, the special provisions below are required for the
subject driveway permit:
l A copy of the permit and the approved plans stamped by NCDOT will be on the site and available for
inspection by NCDOT personnel while construction is in progress.
2, Prior to beginning work, stationary advance warning construction signs are to be installed at
all project approaches in accordance with the Manual on iJniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) and maintained during the duration of the project,
3. Temporary lane closure and flagging operations are to conform to Division I1 of the NCDOT
Standard Roadway Drawings. All traffic control devices are to be retroreflective.
4. Certification of Pavement Conformance (Forms QMS-MV2 and QMS-MVl) must be filled out
and returned to the District Office thirty (30) days prior to the installation of asphalt materials,
5. All right of way and/or easements shall be clear of all encumbrances at no cos[ to the state. This
includes, but is not limited [o, paved parking, signs, rocks, planters, sluubbery, fences, and etc,
6. All above ground utilities shall be within five (5) feet of the right of way, The minimum six (6) feet
back of curb or two (2) feet back of ditch shall be approved by a NCDOT engineer before utilities are
installed.
7. When working within NCDOT right of way, District Personnel, Nanette Fogleman or Shawn
Smith, shall be noti£ed twenty- four (24) hours irr advance at telephone number (3.3G) 570-68.33
for inspection at each of the following phases: (A) Drainage, (B) Grading, (C) Placement of
base, (D) Paving, (E) Seeding.
8 The Traveling Public shall be warned in accordance with the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices. Refer to "Guidelines for Municipalities, Utilities, and Contractors" (.January 2000)
9 All culverts, pipe, and other drainage facilities shall be sufficient, clean of all debris, and in good
working order,
10. Any area within the right of way or any easements disturbed during any construction or maintenance
shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the District Engineer or his representative.
1 I Before planting any landscape within the right of way, the encroaching party shall submit an
application for a planting permit to this office. The permit must be approved prior to the installation
of any plants.
tl. The Owner/Agent is responsible for all pavement-marking changes. All pavement markings shall
be thermoplastic. The Owner/Agent is responsible for contacting the District Office for a review of
the pre-mar(<ings 48 hours prior to any final pavement markings,
1.3. The turn lane along Jones Perry Road (SR 1)42) is required. This driveway permit covers the
driveway connections and the rroadway improvements.
Ibc
14 The District Office must be consulted if there are any changes in the plans as they were submitted.
15 For your general information:
The $50.00 inspection fee for this driveway connection was paid by check. (Check # 3131)
A Performance Bond requirement of $50,000 shall be posted prior to construction beginning
on SR 1942 (Jones Terry Road).
((od
May 12, 2006
SR t 942 (Jones Ferry Road)
Distance 553
the Intersection of Route No.
^ Miles N S E W
® Feet ^ ^ ® ^
i ano and Route No.
1940 Toward
Will 8e Used FOr: ®Residenliai /Bubdlvlsion ^ Commercial ^ Educational Facilities ^ TND ^ Emergency Services ^ Other
__. ..~,_ r,.,.,.. „v rnrrhnrn Citv Zonina Area.
:.„_s ....: ._...
,'~"r4rs;f'~}+` ~r=9.rx'~a" x aTs~tie .a 1 ~ r .....,,.,._._ . _-.-..... _... _...
u' „F 1_
S rx~5 ~rv.:~.a ,~4a4 ',Et^.~`!rai .-4~t ...G..: ... .
• I, the undersigned property owner, request access and permission to construct driveway(s) or street(s) on public righ -
of-way at the above location-
. (agree to construct and maintain driveway(s) or street entrance(s) in absolute conformance with the current "Policy on
Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways" as adopted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
• I agree that no signs or objects will be placed on or over the public right-of-way other than those approved by NCD
• I agree that the driveway(s) or street(s) will be constructed as shown on the attached plans,
• I agree that chat driveway(s) or street(s) as used in this agreement include any approach tapers, storage lanes or
speed change lanes as deemed necessary,
• I agree that if any future improvements to the roadway become necessary, the portion of driveway(s) or street(s)
located on public right-of-way will be considered the property of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and
I will not be entitled to reimbursement or have any claim for present expenditures for driveway or street construction..
• I agree that this permit becomes void if construction of driveway(s) or street(s) is not completed within the time
specified by the "Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways".
• I agree to pay a $50 construction inspection fee, Make checks payable to NCDOT. This fee will be reimbursed if
application is denied.
• I agree to construct and maintain the driveway(s) or street(s) in a safe manner so as not to interfere with or endanger
the public travel..
• I agree to provide during construction proper signs, signal lights, flaggers and other warning devices for the protection
of traffic in conformance with the current "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" and
Amendments or Supplements thereto. Information as to the above rules and regulations may be obtained from the
District Engineer,
• I agree to indemnify and save harmless the North Carolina Department of Transportation from all damages and claims
for damage that may arise by reason of this construction.
• I agree that the North Carolina Department of Transportation will assume no responsibility for any damages that may ~I
be caused to such facilities, within the highway right-of-way limits, in carrying out its construction.
• I agree to provide a Performance and Indemnity Bond in the amount specified by the Division of Highways for any
construction proposed on the State Highway system.
• The granting of this permit is subject to the regulatory powers of the NC Department of Transportation as provided by i
law and asset forth in the N.C. Policy on Driveways and shall not be construed as a contract access point,.
• I AGREE TO NOTIFY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER WHEN THE PRAPOSED WORK BEGINS AND WHEN IT IS
COMPLETED. ',
2004-07 NOTE: Submit Four Copies of Application to Loca61D-034t9Engineer, N. C. Depadment of Transportation TEB 65-04rev
Ike.
`;`.%4~'''~~rL'If,h ~ai'3'+'f`~Y1 7~'~^~t~'k.riU`.~.4» nis,rt...r-v ,. ._.....___._. _.
WITNESS
PROPERTY OWNER (APPLICANT) NAME ~bbott-Bi ~~y-~
COMPANY Black Dia and Pro ertles ..~---- SIGNATURc ~ ~
SIGNATURE _,-'~ ~ xl\~J----~ 221 Providence Road
ADDRESS
ADDRESS 221 Providence Road Chanel Ail1 NC 27514
Chapel Hill NC 27514 Phone No 919-9290886 ,M1'tT^,ccc
AUTHORIZED AGENT
COMPANY
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS phone No.
NAME
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
gpPLICATION RECEIVED BY DISTRICT ENGINEER
L
APPLICATION APPROVED 8Y LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY (when required)
TITLE DATE
SIGNATURE
APPLICATION APPROVED BY DISTRICT ENGINEER
} -rl
INSPECTION BY NCDOT
TITLE DATE
SIGNATURE
COMMENTS:
,
.
f
"'~~WAYF~ERMIT - '~
,
~~~~
;~,
..
. _ ...... ..y
~~ ~~ii'
i ~;i i Yi'? J:
r..
~
Ii ' u
. r c~,, . s
~,
le( 3~(0 ~.
tea
a,. snrF„
~~w.d
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL. F'.EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 30, 2006
ORANGE COUNTY
Jamie Collings
Ballentine Associates, P.A
221 Providence Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
L.YNDO 7IPPL-TT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Final Plan Review: The Orchard Subdivision Located on Jones Feny Road (SR 1942)
Dear Mr. Collings:
This office has completed its review of the subject's proposed final plans for compliance with current
Department of Transportation minimum subdivision construction standards. We wish to advise that the
final plans received at this office are approved. Pursuant to this approval, this office will require you to
make the owner/developer aware of the Following requirements before starting any construction.
l .. The driveway permits for this subdivision was previously approved. (D-06-30-06-0-1 ).
2. Certification of Pavement Conformance (Forms QMS-MV2 and QMS-MVl) must he filled out
and returned to the District Office thirty (.30) days prior to the installution of asphalt materials.
3. The NPDES Stormwater Permit Compliance Certification and the Verification of Compliance
with Environmental Regulations forms must be filled out and returned to the District Office.
4 During the construction phase, the owner/developer will contact the Graham District Office before
each of the following phases: (A) Drainage, (B) Grading, (C) Placement of base, (D) Paving, and (EJ
Seeding.. Failure to notify this office before each phase of construction mayjustify verification
certified and signed by a professional engineer.
5. A mandatory Preconstruction conference is to be scheduled with this office prior to any
construction. Contact Shawn Smith, Transportation Technician III, at.336-570-68.3:3 to
scheduled this meeting.
6 When working within the State's right of way, the owner/developer will contact the Graham District
Office before each of the following phases: (A) Drainage, (B) Grading, (C) Placement of base, (D)
Paving, and (E) Seeding, Failure to notify this office before each phase ofconstruction mayjustify
verification certified and signed by a professional engineer.
P. O 130X 766 GRAHAM, NC 27253
t'1 b
7 In accordance with the General Statute 1.36-102.2, new roads are not eligible for the State
Maintenance system unless certain requirements are met. An explanation of these requirements can
be found on pages 13, 14, and I S of'the current (January 2000) NCDOT Subdivision Roads Manual.
Particular attention should be placed on items 2 (petition for addition), 5, 6, and 7 (occupied housing
requirement), 10, 11, 12, and 13. (Please note that the subject road is not eligible for addition as a
private road..)
8 Any area within the State's right of way and/or easements disturbed during the construction and/or
maintenance shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the District Engineer or his representative.
9. Before planting any landscape within the right of way, the encroaching party shall submit an
application for a planting permit to this office. The permit must be approved prior to installing any
plants.
0 It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide a copy of this letter and the above-referenced
documents to the owner/developer so they may be fully informed.
If you have any questions, feel free to call Nanette Fogleman or' me at (336) 570-6833.
Sincerely r`
-, ~ ~'~
~~ ~
C. N. Edwards, Jr: P.E.
District Engineer
Attachments
cc: 1. M. Mills, P. E, Division Engineer
Orange County Planning Department
CNL-MDF/ndP
SFA060630 The Orchard
is
Glen Bowles
Sent: Fri 4/7J2006 10:15 AM
From: Reynolds Ivins
To: Glen Bowles
Cc:
Subject: The proposed Orchard subdivision
Attachments: - - ___.: _ - - -
Glenn, (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 7. (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%20Orchazd%20subdivision.EML... 04/07/2006
19
CARRBORO FIRE DEPARTMENT ~ ~ ®{ ~~
CARRBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
June 13, 2006
To: Glen Bowles, Orange County Planning Department
From; Travis L. Crabtree, Deputy Fire C >ef
Carrboro Fire Department ~-~
Re: The Orchard Subdivision
The fire suppression request that I made to the Orange County Fire
Marshall, Mike Tapp, in regard to The Orchard Subdivision review is
being inet. A pond has been located in the Deerfield Subdivision within
1-1/2 miles from The Orchard and the owners of the pond have
given the Town of Carrboro permission to use their pond for fire
suppression. They do not want a pipe intake installed but leave agreed
to allow us to install a sign. The developer of The Orchard is
having this sign prepared (plus an additional sign for another pond)
and the Town of Carrboro Fire Department will have it installed.
We have no further review comments in regard to The Orchard
Subdivision.
cc. Mike Tapp, Orange County Fire Marshal
301 West Main street, Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 Phone (919) 9l 8-7349 Fax (919) 932-5359
An Equal Opportunity Employer
~.
20
Glen Bowles
From: Mike Tapp Sent: Tue 6/13/2006 9:49
To: Glen Bowles
Cc:
Subject: The Orchard Subdivision
Attachments:
Glen,
I have been in contact with Deputy Chief Crabtree at the Carrboro Fire
Department and have had several discussions in regards to the water supply
requests for the Orchard Subdivision. We are satisfied with the water supply
arrangements for the subdivision. If you need additional infox~rnation, please
contact xne.
Mike Tapp
Deputy Director/Fire Marshal
Orange County Emergency Management
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
phone: 919-968-2050
fax: 919-968-4066
pager: 919-216-9580
https://10,253.0,7/exchange/GBowles/Inbox/The%200rchazd%20Subdivision.EML?Cmd=open 06/13/2006
~i
MEMORANDUM /-~
Date: March 16, 2006 ,
To: Glen Bowles, Orange County Planning ,,~~//
Ma Roupe, and Members of Planning Department Staff;' ,
From -tY
Subject: Courtesy Review Comments
Project: The Orchard (Feb. 23, 2006 transmittal)
The purl,ose cif 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 RNV to the boundary. In addition
connectivity to Sesame Rd. to the North could be 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
required open space or stream buffers.
PAGE 1 OF 1
lot areas be platted outside of any
OC COURTESY REV THE ORCHARD 0316D6
as
QRANGE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Glen Bowles, Current P/anner
From: Rich Shaw, ERCCJ 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 on 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.
Mon ept Plan (dated 1/16/05) a d~ERCD's comprehensve resource database on of the
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
PO Box 8181 / 306-A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245-2590
23
Orange Soil and Water Conservation
P.Q. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2750
Mazch 1, 2006
To: Glenn Bowles
Orange County Planning Dept. ,,
From: Gail Hughes ~~ t~f-'
Orange Soil and Water Coation District
RE: The Orchard
According to the Orange County 5oi1 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.
24
EL ~III~L-
.~ ~P~~~BORCJ
/~t_:~~ CITY SCHOOLS
To: Neil Pedersen
Superintendent
From: Steve Seraggs
Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Re: Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)
Daze: Mazeh 6, 2006
Ballentine Associates has requested that a Certificate of Adequate Public Schools be issued for
the Orchazd 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 for
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 year,
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 year, additional high school capacity will be
available at high school #3.
Resolution: Be it, therefore, resolved that the Board of Education awards a Certificate of
Adequate Public Schools to The Orchard, for 18 housing units, as described
above. Be it, fu.tther resolved, that the Board of Education directs the
administration to sign and authorize all appropriate documents related to the
above-mentioned request.
Llncc0i Center, 7S0 5. 69erritt Idlll Road ^ Chapel Nill. NC 2!575-2678 ^ (919) 967-8217 o vdww.chccs,k72ne.us
Mazch 3,' 'S
ORANGE COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Rosemary L Summers,
MPH, DrPH
Health Director
Richard E Whiffed Human
Serurces Center
30D WestTryon Street
post Office Box 8161
Hillsborough, NC 27276
Phohe:(919) 245-2411
Fax: (919) 64430D7
ivww m ordnoe nc us/health
Animal Control Services
Central Admirifstrative
services
Dental Health Services
Environmental Health Services
Health Promotion and
Education Services
Personal Health Services
f
SOIL/SITE Evaluation Summary for:
The Orchard Subdivision
Chapel Hill Township, Map 117, Lot 10
Map Date Revised February 24, 2006
Lot # DESIGN-~'
1 600 gpd
u
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l~
14
15
16
17
18
z
v
3D6{ Revere Road =
P O Box 8181 ,..
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-?361 a~i
PAX: (919) 6443006 ~
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
600 gpd
SXSTEM TYPE
Shallow Trench Conventional
Ultra Shallow Innovative Trench
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
Shallow Trench Conventional
C.onventianal
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
25
0
y
c
w
NOTES: 26
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 - .1964 (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 aeeas an 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 aze reviewed at a
minunum of`every five yeazs by the health department as required by 15A NCAC 18A ,1961
(Maintenance of Sewage Systems).
Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional Systems are placed in aeeas with 24 inches or more of
provisionally suitable soiUsite characteristics and a 6-10" soil cap is placed over the trenches.
Shallow Trench Conventional Systems aze placed in areas with 30 inches or more of provisionally
suitable soiUsite characteristics.
Conventional Trench Systems aze placed in areas with .36" inches or more of provisionally
suitable soiUsite characteristics,
Innovative Trench Systems can be used in areas with 24-36 "of provisionally suitable soiUsite
characteristics.
The a roved septic areas should be kept free of vehicular traffic logging, grading, and
compacting activities. It is the responsrbrhty of the property owner or developer to mamtam the
integrity of the septic areas prior to system construction and installation. No pazking, cutting or
filling shall be allowed in or around the drain field aeeas.
Drainage ways and easements should be utilized to convey storm water run-off to the storm water
retention aeeas. These conveyances should not be located through designated septic drain field
areas,
This report is for planning purposes only and does not constitute any approval, L,ot 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 4115197 ~~ Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 -PROJECT DATA:
Middle School
ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
2--
23%
SECTION 2 -LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
Intergovernmental
14192353
1 17.,33
Miscellaneous 1287758 10.65
-_
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( )BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT IS TO
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($): REVENUES PER CAPITA
zB
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA
General Services, Governing, and Management, 17352989 143.45
Public Safety 13925289 115 12
Community & Environment + Culture & Recreation 6560300 54.23
Human Services 32 t 29721 265 61
Education (Recurring Capital) 2290258 18.93
Non-Departmental 27617021 228.31
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
General Sarvices, Governing, and Management 17352989 99075A2
Public Safety 13925289 68766 86
Community & Environment+ Culture & Recreation 6560300 ` 83432.53
Human Services 32129721 109225 32
Education (Recurring Capital) 2290258 1266.66.
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
County Government 49981296 455826..
School District 30372967 2769 99
State ` ` 26787400 2442.99
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($): 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 $100. Assessed Valuation
School DistrictTax Rate ($) includes 0.3028 from O. C, 0 1843 Per $100 Assessed 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 t1NITS 6 12 18
POPt1LATION 15 : 31 46 !
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 0.951 190 2.85
Middle 0,50' 0 99 1.49.
High School 0.69! 1 38 2.07~I
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
SECTION 4 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT Z~ a
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 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 20081
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 i ¢9028
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 1757: 3645 5670
SECTION 6 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHICIFISCAL IMPACTS
Zit b
YEAR 2006! 2007" ' 20081
HOUSING UNITS 6 ' 12 18 '
POPULATION 15 ' 31 46 '
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 1 ' 2 3
Middle 0 ' 1 1 '
Nigh School 1 ; 1 2
TOTAL 2' 4 6--.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.10" 0,19 0.29
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.23' 0.45 ~ 0.68
TAX BASE ($1000) ' 4200 8711 ' 13550
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
Revenues `" 42207'1 87537 136166';
Expenditures 22528 ; 46723 '.72677
BALANCE 19679 40814 `.63488 ,
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET ($)
Revenues 23154? 48022 '74698.
Expenditures ' 21397' 44377 69028 '
BALANCE 1757 ' 3645 5670
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 65361"' 135559 210864-
Expenditures 43925 ': 91100 141706
BALANCE ' 21436 ' 44459 69159
SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
School District: School. Attendance:
Middle School 23%~
IYPGR 2006 2007 2008 I
SCHOOL CHILDREN t'I
Elementary 1= 2 3 5 5
Middle 0' 1 1 3 3
High School 1 ' 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 3514E
TOTAL 10796 TOTAL 10965
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 5012 5177 5296 ! 5385 5518
Middle 2653 ! 2676 2749 ' 2840 2921
High School 3553 !: 3628 + 3687 ; 3732 3789
TOTAL ` 11218 ! 11481 11732 11957 12228
30
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY il, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel 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 Johnson Quinn, Eno Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township at Large;
Theodore (Ted) W.. Triebel (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 II; 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 L1SGS study is
about the minimum infiltration rate/recharge rates in the basin (which is not site specific) uses
about 65 gallonslday/person. Most engineers suggest 100 gallons. The 65 gallon rate is
comparable to Madison, WI. 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 free 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 Kempinslci: 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 know 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 weatc potential on lots 18 and 19,
Sam Lasris: Plus 15-17 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 Kempinski: 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.
L^nvironmental Health doesn't do preliminary testing, Also, having aRight-Gf-Way on the large
pact provides a roadside buffer.
Craufurd Goodwin: If lot 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: L,et's let the developer speak.
Ted Triebel: Just 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 from 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 IS-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 '/n 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
Department 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 Kempinslci: 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 Kempinslci: 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 Kempinski: 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 X600-700,000.
Robert Davis: 3.3% of total land needs to be owned by the Homeowners' Association.
Craig Benedict: You need 3.3% 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 Jones Ferry 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 stream?
Bruce Ballentine: Improvements will be the responsibility of the HOA.
Jay Bryan: Is Staff'recommending approval?
Craig Benedict: If what is heard tonight is correct, the 3.3% 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 .Jeffrey 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; Craufur'd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative;
Michelle Kempinski, Cedar Grove Township at Large; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At
Large; Renee Price-Saunders, Hillsborough Township at Large; Brian Dobyns, Cheeks Township
Representative; Bernadette Pelissier; Bingham Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar C.ttove
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 R, Eddie Kirk, Planner R
Other Attendees: George McFarley, Asst,. Superintendent, Orange County Schools; Michael
Hammersley, Corley, Redfoot and Zack; ICen Redfoot, Corley, Redfoot and Zack; .Jean 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 tract 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 '/~ of the neighboring developed areas, Not all 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, 11, 12 have been reoriented to stay out of steep open areas. Staff
recommends approval of the concept plan.
Jeff' Schmitt: Why is the road extension being proposed?
Glenn Bowles: For future connectivity. It was suggested by the Town of Carrboro to help with
potential future development of adjoining areas.
35
Michelle Kempinski: On page 002 under existing, the appropriate number of tots should be 18.
This is also noted on p. 00.3 at the bottom -there is no reduction of lots with the new design,
Glenn Bowles: If was suggested that the density was transferred from the larger tr'aet, but as you
can see, when the tract was cut off; the density was not really affected under the flexible
development.
Robert Davis: This abstract was prepared before the other property changes were made..
Michelle Kempinski: Is the hatched azea 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 nahu'al 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 reflects that as average.
Ted 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 Kernpinslti: 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 traffio Does this pertain specifically to
this development?
36
Glenn Bowles: Yes, NCDO7 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.
Bruce Ballentine: Regarding the road extensions, they are always desired by municipal areas to
provide access to land-locked areas. The adjoining property has extensive access to Jones 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.
.Jay Bryan: Would any members of the public like to speak?
.Jean 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 600'
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 encroaclunent 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 to
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.
Cluis 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?
~~
Chris Tadevich: There is open parking available along Jones 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~
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MAY .3, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Brian Dobyns, Cheeks
Township Representative; Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough Representative; Michelle Kempinski,
Cedar Grove Township at Large; .Ioel Knight, Little River Representative; Bernadette Pelissier,
Bingham Township; Renee Price-Saunders, Hillsborough Township at Large; Sandra Johnson
Quinn, Eno Township
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township At Large; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar
Grove Township at Large
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Davis, Current Planning Supervisor; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative
Assistant II; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Michael Harvey, Planner II; Glenn Bowles, Planner II
AGENDA ITEM #8: PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR 7HE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION (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 land 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 Carrboro 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 staff?
Bruce Ballentine: The calculations ar'e not only based on density. The underlying density is
based nn 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 Kempinslti: 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 tract 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: 22 lots 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 tract 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 Ue 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
4(~
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 Ballenfine: 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..
.Tay 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 Attomey 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