HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 042795ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NOR'T'H CAROLINA 27278
it ,_
P
MEMORANDUM
Received
APR 2 11995
Managers offic. c
TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates
PROM: Gene Bell Planner III (;�- -�d
SUBJ: Third Meeting of Planning Group on April 27, 1995
DATE: April 20, 1995
Enclosed are the agenda materials for the third meeting of the Stoney
Creek Basin Planning Group. Included is a Draft Impact Assessment prepared
by the UNC planning students. It is being provided so the Planning Group can
begin to understand some of the impacts of the various development strategies.
The students will be going through the report at our meeting on the 27th. Please
review it beforehand and be prepared to identify areas of concern as well areas
needing more elaboration or documentation. The students can address those
concerns (as well as those of County staff) in the final document.
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
snl� s/
L� O�
b` ♦� +P
� fa.
1
AGENDA
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group - Meeting 3
New Hope Elementary School Auditorium
Thursday, April 27, 1995
7:30 PM
TIME AGENDA ITEM
7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Facilitator
7:31 2. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes from April 6
7:35 3. OPENING COMMENTS - Facilitator
7:40 4. INTRODUCTION - Rick Kos
- Existing Conditions
- Facts
- Design Reminders
7:55 S. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Jeff Bowyer
8:20 6. TRANSPORTATION /AIR QUALITY IMPACTS - Jennifer Clinger
8:45 7. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS - Kaoru Oka
- Schools
- Parks
- Public Safety
- Water and Sewer
9:10 S. FISCAL IMPACTS - Travis Pollack
9:35 9. CONCLUDING COMMENTS /OTHER BUSINESS
9:50 10. ADJOURNMENT (We need to be out of the auditorium by
10:00 so the custodial staff can lock -up)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
61�
kyj I D1 ::�►11Ti1► I
TO: Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group Members and Alternates
/0#4v
FROM: Gene Bell Planner III
SUBJ: Additional Materials for Planning Group Meeting on April 27
DATE: April 25, 1995
Enclosed are the following additional materials for the third meeting of the
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Group:
1. Responses to questions and concerns raised at the April 6 Planning
Group meeting;
2. "Non- Residential Fiscal Impact Assessment" which was not available
when agenda materials were mailed last week; and
3. A revised "Schools" section which is based on an analysis of the
carrying capacity of the schools themselves, e.g., maximum enrollment
capacity. This is being provided because much of the discussion about
schools in Orange County in recent years has focused on the capacity
of schools. While increases in the number of teachers as well as
school facilities would be expected because of demands generated by
new development, these concepts or standards are a little more difficult
to understand than school capacity, i.e., number of students.
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
RAISED AT THE APRIL 61 1995 PLANNING, GROUP MEETING
1. Local ordinances restricting development in environmentally
sensitive areas.
Four key County ordinances come into play here. The Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance restricts development in flood
hazard areas as defined by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Generally no new structures may be built in such areas and
land uses are restricted to such activities as general
farming, pasture, parking areas, golf courses, tennis courts,
parks, and open space and other similar private and public
recreational uses. The Orange County Zoning Ordinance in
conjunction with the Orange County Subdivision Regulations
requires buffers along streams, the protection of existing
trees, and larger lots and limitations on impervious surfaces
in protected watersheds. Finally, the Orange County
Environmental Impact Ordinance, while not restricting
development, does require that measures be identified to
mitigate the impacts of the proposed development.
2. Soil survey and suitability of soils for septic tanks.
The Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina prepared by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
in 1977 identifies 22 primary soil types in the county. A
series of tables in the survey rates soils as to their
suitability for various uses (crop production as well as
development). Table 7 - Sanitary Facilities - lists the
constraints of each soil type for septic tank absorption
fields. Applicable ratings are moderate and severe (there are
no soils in the county rated as good for absorption fields).
The most common constraint listed in the table is "peres
slowly."
3. Clarify distinction between minimum lot size (0.92 acres)
permitted by R -1 zoning and 1.85 acre average lot size.
With the exception of the Rural Buffer area, the majority of
the Stoney Creek Basin is zoned Residential -1 (R -1) . The
minimum required lot size is 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) or
approximately one acre. For residential development to take
place on a lot this size, there has to be a primary as well as
a back -up drainage field for the absorption of septic tank
effluent. In addition, there has to be a suitable separation
(100 feet) between the absorption field(s) and the well site.
Soil characteristics on the site (see question 2) have a
direct impact on how much land is needed for drainage field,
i.e., sites with poor soils require more land for absorption
fields. Thus, even though the ordinance only requires 0.92
acre for a residential lot, soil constraints may result in
additional area (1. 85 acres on average) being required to meet
such standards.
4. Park land acquisition: Methods as well as service area
boundary and specifications on community park.
The Orange County Subdivision Regulations require at least one
thirty -fifth (1/35) of an acre is to be dedicated for each
dwelling unit proposed in a subdivision plan. If the County
Commissioners find that no recreation site has been designated
on the adopted comprehensive plan for the property in
question, then payment -in. -lieu may be made. The payment shall
equal the number of acres required to be dedicated multiplied
by the assessed value of the land to be dedicated.
The Master Recreation and Parks Plan for Orange County has
identified the need for a community park in the vicinity of
Old NC 10 and New Hope Church Road. A community park has a
service radius of 1 -2 miles, is 25 acres in size, and is
designed to serve a population of 10,000 +. A community park
generally contains facilities for active recreation such as
athletic fields, and tennis, basketball, and volleyball
courts. Areas for passive recreation include a lake or some
type of water body, trails, and picnic areas. The break down
of active to passive acreage is a typical community park is
approximately 50% to each type.
S. In an open space development, who maintains the common area?
Who pays taxes on it?
The common area in open space developments can be the
responsibility of the homeowners association or a public or
non - profit agency. If the homeowners association owns the
common area, it is given a value of one dollar ($1.00) to keep
it on the records. The value of the open space is transferred
to individual lots since property owners own a certain
percentage of the undivided interest in open space.
6. For neo- traditional development, what is the density
threshold needed to support transit?
The Triangle Transit Authority's (TTA) Fixed Guideway Study
(FGS) defines transit station areas as areas where additional
residential density would be needed to support transit. Four
levels of development activity for transit stops are defined.
These range from a low of seven units per acre on average to
a high of 30 units per acre on average. The area defined for
the neotraditional development was given a level 2 development
in the TTA study. This translates into an average density of
11 units per acre. However, the overall average residential
density for development in the transit corridor is two and
one -half (2.5) units per acre.
7. What kind of agreement(s) is (are) in place regarding the
future development of this area?
The majority of the area was covered by the C o o p e r a t i v e
Planning Agreement between Orange County and Hillsborough.
However, the Town of Hillsborough withdrew from the
agreement on May 9, 1994 because of deliberations regarding
the possible annexation of the University Station development.
In addition to the Stoney Creek area, the agreement covered
other areas adjacent to Hillsborough. Though no longer in
effect, the agreement defined Transition (future urban areas)
and Open Space Development (rural) Areas and specified that a
land use plan be jointly prepared by the Town and County.
Upon adoption of the plan, Hillsborough zoning would have been
applied in the Transition Areas and development proposals in
both the Transition and Open Space Areas would be coordinated
between the Town and County.
The only other agreement currently affecting any of the Stoney
Creek Basin Area is the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) and it
applies only to a small portion of the Rural Buffer in the
southern tip of the area (see the Land Use Element map of the
Comprehensive Plan mailed after the April 6 meeting for the
location of the Rural Buffer) . The area is governed by a
three -party agreement among Orange County, Chapel Hill, and
Carrboro. The JPA Plan was adopted by all three governments
and amendments to it require the approval of all three. The
applied zoning district, administered by the County, is Rural
Buffer. It is a low- density residential district with a
minimum lot size of two acres.
Non - Residential Fiscal Impact Assessment
Both the Conventional and Neo- Traditional Development options propose non - residential
development. While the Conventional Design only includes a 33 acre (359,370 square feet of
floor area) tract zoned for commercial use, the Neo - Traditional Design proposes the development
of a mixed -use core area containing multi -story office and retail uses totaling 25 acres (650,000
square feet of floor area). In addition, the Neo - Traditional Design includes 15 acres (350,000
square feet of floor area) of office space. The fiscal impact of the approximately 29 acres of
civic. space has not been calculated. The distinct difference in these two types of non - residential
areas and the difference in size makes comparison between the two designs difficult.
Projection of the County government fiscal impacts was conducted using the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research template (The results and explanation of the template inputs
is attached). Analysis of the results indicate that all of the non - residential development in the
Neo - Traditional and Conventional Designs produce a positive balance. The calculations from
the Neo - Traditional Design required further manipulation due to the format of the template,
which calculates the fiscal impact for one retail building. The results were extrapolated for
application to the larger area and the comparison of retail impacts with the Conventional Design.
The total square footage of the retail area in the Conventional Design was used in the analysis
rather than an example building, because this area will most likely be developed as a community
shopping center containing a large chain anchor store and numerous smaller attached retail uses.
Because the developments are proposed rather than existing, using the template
necessitated making several assumptions. To calculate the real property (market) value of the
proposed development, the value of similar uses per square foot in the area were used. The
market values of the Neo - Traditional retail and office uses are based on comparable Chapel Hill
retail and office buildings. The assessed value of Hillsborough Commons in Hillsborough
provided the value per square foot of the likely community retail center in the area zoned
commercial in the Conventional Design. The template also requires an estimated sales per
square foot. This value was obtained for the retail uses in both designs from the Urban Land
Institute's Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers which provides such data for shopping centers
of different types and sizes based on surveys of actual shopping centers. Both retail designs
were given the same sales per square foot value. The fiscal impact of office uses assumes a
sales per square foot of zero. Other values used in the analysis include tax rates, the inflation
rate, and the charges and fees for required inspections and permits.
Tables 1 and 2 below display the results of the analysis. While the retail uses in both
scenarios produce an annual positive net impact for County Government, the Neo- Traditional
Design produces more annual net revenue per square foot ($3.00) than the Conventional Design
($1.00). The office development in the Neo - Traditional Design, according to the analysis,
would produce approximately $1.50 annual net revenue per square foot. The total annual net
revenue for the retail areas in the Neo - Traditional and Conventional Designs is approximately
$1,393,000 and $400,000, respectively. However, due to the difficulty of comparing such
different types of development, especially of different sizes, the most important conclusion to
draw from this analysis is that the retail and office uses in both designs produces a positive net
revenue for the County.
:3 ca il_ Il_
c N �
>Q rn co
a U^ 6
T
.W
O
Z"
- a.
L
O
O
O O
O 00
cy) SS
O
O'
LL O
a)CL
ca
:3 o
U)
cle) CD
LO O
ao6q64
a�
c ca
°O °O
O LO O
O O r,-- LO
RS C � > H-}
CL
E
CO
Z
O
c_ oo
(D O7
m cu
O O
ate,
Ea,�
x
W O'
v/
c�
c
a�
•� a)
c U ' cz
O *�
Z
O C[
N
U)
— c
CZ
.� a
O
E 6
E >
Oo
U—
O C
O
c c
o
�U
Z c
o M c M
N c
M O
cz
a�
E
O �-
U o
N Z
W
J
Q
O O
cz
C a) 0
O U k4
O
Z "
c a
a
o
T
O T
cei
Qo
� o
c �
c ca
> >
°o°
O O co
6 C6
cz LO OccC
v-
' oo
LL
CL c
'O C
O
U
W
>
= W O
a. lz U
Q
(�
O
■ ■
Co
>I
cz
W
�
O
L
Q
C:
O
Z
Qc
co
�
V
Q
.0
cz
"'
-0
c
cz
C
V
O
■s
�_
ca
cz
■
FO-
CIO
0
O
-
cz
a)
V
�
Z
V/
4-j
E
N
O
W
Cl)
O
W
J
Z
Q
I-
:3 ca il_ Il_
c N �
>Q rn co
a U^ 6
T
.W
O
Z"
- a.
L
O
O
O O
O 00
cy) SS
O
O'
LL O
a)CL
ca
:3 o
U)
cle) CD
LO O
ao6q64
a�
c ca
°O °O
O LO O
O O r,-- LO
RS C � > H-}
CL
E
CO
Z
O
c_ oo
(D O7
m cu
O O
ate,
Ea,�
x
W O'
v/
c�
c
a�
•� a)
c U ' cz
O *�
Z
O C[
N
U)
— c
CZ
.� a
O
E 6
E >
Oo
U—
O C
O
c c
o
�U
Z c
o M c M
N c
M O
cz
a�
E
O �-
U o
N Z
W
J
Q
O O
cz
C a) 0
O U k4
O
Z "
c a
a
o
T
O T
cei
Qo
� o
c �
c ca
> >
°o°
O O co
6 C6
cz LO OccC
v-
' oo
LL
CL c
'O C
O
U
W
>
= W O
a. lz U
Schools
Introduction
The Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area is currently served by the New Hope and Cameron Park
Elementary Schools, and Orange High School. The area will be served by the new A.L. Stanback
Middle School, slated to open in the Fall of 1995.
Where school enrollment exceeds capacity, a demand for new school facilities exists. Current school
capacity and enrollment data for the Orange County system is shown below.
Table 6: Current School Capacities and Enrollments
Source: Orange County School Board
The existing A.L. Stanback Middle School houses only sixth graders, so the current enrollment is
artificially low. The Orange County School Board intends to move all current students and teachers to
the new school, along with some from the C.W. Stanford Middle School. However, the School Board
has not yet released the actual number that will begin the 1995 school year at the new school. The new
A.L. Stanback Middle School will have a capacity of 700 students.
Methods
To estimate the impacts produced by each development option on the Orange County school system,
the following steps were taken:
• Determine the number of households.
• Determine the total number of school age children.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page B -14
Over( +) or Under( -)
School
Capacity
Enrollment
Capacity
ELEMENTARY
• G.A. Brown
572
513
-59
• Cameron Park
594
636
+42
• Central
506
539
+33
• Efland Cheeks
572
413
-159
• New Hope
594
666
+72
Total - All Schools
2838
2767
-71
MIDDLE
0 A.L. Stanback
506
346
-160
• C.W. Stanford
726
944
+218
Total - All Schools
1232
1290
+58
ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL
1518
1505
-13
TOTAL - ALL SCHOOLS
1 5588
5562
-26
Source: Orange County School Board
The existing A.L. Stanback Middle School houses only sixth graders, so the current enrollment is
artificially low. The Orange County School Board intends to move all current students and teachers to
the new school, along with some from the C.W. Stanford Middle School. However, the School Board
has not yet released the actual number that will begin the 1995 school year at the new school. The new
A.L. Stanback Middle School will have a capacity of 700 students.
Methods
To estimate the impacts produced by each development option on the Orange County school system,
the following steps were taken:
• Determine the number of households.
• Determine the total number of school age children.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page B -14
• Determine the number of school age children by school type.
• Determine the extent to which current school facilities are capable of handling the projected
number of new students.
The number of households was obtained from Phase I of this report and multiplied by the number of
school age children per household (0.43) . This figure represents the average number of school age
children per household in rural portions of the Stoney Creek Planning Area townships (1990 Census).
To determine which school type these students would attend, the school attendance data from Table 6
was converted to student generation rates as follows:
Household
Percent Student
School Tape Attendance Generation
Elementary 50 % 0.21
Middle 23% 0.10
High School 27% 0.12
Total - All Schools 100% 0.43
By multiplying the student generation rates by the number of households, the projected number of
students, by school type, may be obtained. These projections are summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Student Generation by Development Option
Impacts
Table 8 reveals the impacts of the different development scenarios on the Orange County school system.
Deficits ( +) and surpluses ( -) in overall capacity were determined by simply adding the projected
number of students, by school type, to the current surplus ( -) or deficit ( +). This was done since some
deficiencies in school capacity might be handled through adjustment of school attendance zones.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page B 715
Development Option
Conventional Design
Scenario I
Conventional Design
Scenario II
Density
Neutral
Neo-
Traditional
Households
1,629
879
899
3, 307
Students
700
378
387
1,422
Attendance by School Type
Elementary
348
188
192
708
Middle
162
88
90
330
High School
190
102
105
3844
Impacts
Table 8 reveals the impacts of the different development scenarios on the Orange County school system.
Deficits ( +) and surpluses ( -) in overall capacity were determined by simply adding the projected
number of students, by school type, to the current surplus ( -) or deficit ( +). This was done since some
deficiencies in school capacity might be handled through adjustment of school attendance zones.
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page B 715
However, additional school space will be required for all types of schools under each development
scenario except two. For the Conventional 1.85 -acre Option and the Density - Neutral Option, no
additional middle school space is required.
Some of these impacts could be addressed directly. Currently, the County charges a public school
impact fee of $750 for each new residential dwelling to pay for a portion of the capital cost of
constructing new schools. Studies are currently underway which may result in an increase in this fee
as well as implementation of a sliding scale of fees, based on housing type, dwelling size, number of
bedrooms or dwelling cost. Based on the current fee ($750) and the projected number of dwelling units
in each development option, impact fees as shown below would be obtained.
Development Option
Conventional
Scenario I
Scenario II
Density - Neutral
Neo- Traditional
Projected
Dwelling Projected
Units Impact Fees
1629 $
1, 221, 750
879 $
659,250
899 $
6749250
3307 $
2,4807250
These fees could be used to either acquire land for school expansion or new school sites, or for
construction. Developers also have the option of dedicating land for school expansion or a new school
site. In return for such dedication, the developer receives a credit toward impact fee payment based on
the market value of the property.
Table 8: Impacts on School Capacities
'Includes additional capacity from completion of new A.L. Stanback Middle School (194) less current deficit
(58).
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page B -16
Current
Facilities Over( +) /Under( -) Capacity after Development
Capacity
Schools
Over( +)
Conventional
Density - Neutral
Neo-
Design
Design Scenario II
or
Under(-)
Traditional
Scenario I
Elementary
-71
+277
+117
+121
+637
Middle'
+136
+26
-48
-46
+194
High School
-13
+177
+89
+92
+371
'Includes additional capacity from completion of new A.L. Stanback Middle School (194) less current deficit
(58).
Stoney Creek Basin Area Plan, page B -16