HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-17-2001-9h.~
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2001
Action Age d
Item No.
SUBJECT: .High Rock Farms Phase One -Preliminary Plan
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1) Resolution of Approval Eddie Kirk
2) Application Extension 2582
3) Vicinity Map TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
4) Agency Comments Hillsborough 732-8181
5) Fiscal Impact Analysis Chapel Hill 968.4501
6) Preliminary Plan Durham 688-7331
7) 12-6-00 Draft Planning Board Minutes Mebane (336)227-2031
(Delayed from the March 20, 2001 meetings _
PURPOSE: Consideration of the flexible development Preliminary Plan for High Rock Farms
Phase One Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
Request - PreliminarX, Plan Flexible Development
Applicant: Roger James Construction
• Seventeen (17) residential lots proposed on a 36.07 acre tract .
• Total 55 acres (34%) open space proposed for entire project. This phase will contain 21 acres
of the 55 acres, which represents 38% of the total project open space. As future phases are
proposed the open space component will decrease as a percentage. (Refer to map on pages
12 and 13.)
• Minimum lot size is 40,000 sq. ft.
• Average lot size - 41,120 sq. ft. (95,083 sq. ft. gross lot size)
• Cluster Minimum to actual lot ratio (CMTAR) is 1.02.
• Gross Area lot ratio (GALR) is 2.12.
Location
South side of High Rock•Road in Cheeks Township between Ira Road and Mill Creek Road.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing:
• Current zoning is Rural Residential. (R1) (min. lot size = 40,000 sq. ft.)
• Located in Back Creek Protected Watershed. (Maximum Impervious Surface = 12%)
Physical Features:
• There is one designated stream on the property.
• The site is entirely wooded with mixed hardwoods and pines.
Adjacent Land Use:
• Properties to the west, east and south are medium to large acreage single family residential
lots.
• Aberdeen Downs and Wagon Farm Trails are one acre lot subdivisions to the north across
High Rock Road.
Proposed:
Roads:
• Access is from High Rock Farm Drive, a new public road to be constructed to state standards.
• One'cul-de-sac will extend east from High Rock Farm Drive (High Ground Court).
• All roads are to be constructed to NCDOT standards.
Open SpacelBuffers:
• Open space is property designed for connectivity and buffering
• Type A 30 foot buffer required along High Rock Road.
• 100 foot building setback along perimeter required under flexible development is provided.
Water-Sewer:
• Individual wells.
• Private septic systems.
Recreation:
• Cheeks District Park
• Pocket Park proposed with swing set and 2 park benches in the open space.
• Payment in Lieu = $7,735.00 (17 lots x $455)
• No dedication is warranted because no county recreation area or conservation area has
been identified at this time.
Agency Comments:
• Comments attached from Environmental Health, NCDOT, and Emergency Management.
Development Process. Schedule. and Action
Planning Board:
• First Action: Concept Plan approved by the Planning Board January 5, 2000 with the
following conditions:
1. The intersection and road alignment on the Preliminary Plan shall meet NCDOT
standards.
2. A tum lane and street improvements shall tae constructed on High Rock Road as
recommended by NCDOT.
3. Dedicate a triangular portion of land sufficient to permit alignment of future road with
Maple Avenue to be shown on Preliminary Plan.
4. The secondary means and timing of access provision will be examined with the
Preliminary Plan.
• Preliminary Plan addresses conditions of approval of the Concept Plan that apply to this
Phase. The tum lane on High Rock Road shall be constructed with the construction of
Phase Two. .
• Second Action:
1. The Planning Board in a 5 to 2 vote recommended approval December 6, 2000. The
Board was cancemed about the water pressure availability and was informed that the
resolution provided for Emergency Management to approve the water lines. The
applicant has since agreed to allow individual wells on each lot.
• Third Action: Board of County Commissioners to consider the Preliminary Plan
Options:
1. The Board. shall consider the application within a reasonable. amount of time.
2. During deliberations and consideration of the application the Board may defer
consideration at any point to pursue additional analysis and review.
3. If Preliminary Plan is approved by the County Commissioners the applicant shall
have one (1) year to prepare and file a Final Plat or to request aone-year
extension from the Planning Director.
2
i.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fiscal Impact Analysis included as an attachment.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Staff Approval, in accordance with the attached
Resolution of Approval.
Plannin Board Approval, in accordance with the attached
Resolution of Approval.
Administration
Approval, in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval.
4
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date Aril 17 2001
Name of Subdivision High Rock_Farms_Phase,one
Owner/Applicant ,High Grounds. Inc.
The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves High Rock Farms Phase One subdivision
preliminary plat, dated October 4, 2000 and containing 171ots, subject to the fulfillment of
requirements specified herein.
High Rock Farm Drive and High Ground Court shall be irrevocably dedicated to the general
public and be constructed to standards of the North Cazolina Department of Transportation. The
approval of this resolution authorizes and directs the Orange County Manager to accept for
Orange County and on behalf of the public generally, the offer of dedication of High Rock Farm
Drive and High Ground Court. This acceptance by Orange County of the dedication to the
general public of High Rock Farm Drive and High Ground Court shall be without maintenance
responsibility. These roads shall be maintained by the owner/applicant until such time as it is
accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation or some other
governmental body. Before the Final Plat of High Rock Farms Phase One Subdivision can be
recorded:
A. Sewage Disposal and Water Supply
Each residential. lot shall contain an adequate azea for septic disposal, and repair
azea, approved by the Orange 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
restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. The document shall
also disclose that information regazding the tentative location of septic systems is
available from the Orange County Health Department, Division of Environmental
Health.
3. There can be no connection to Orange-Alamance Water System and each
residential lot shall contain an individual well.
B. Roads and Access
1. High Rock Farm Drive shall be constructed to standards of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, within a 60' right-of--way, and the construction
shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT. High Ground Court shall be
constructed to standards of the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
within a 50' right-of--way with 5 foot utility easements on each side, and the
construction shall be inspected and approved by NCDOT.
OR
A letter of credit or escrow agreement or other security shall be submitted to
secure construction of High Rock Farm Drive and High Ground Court to the
standards of the North Cazolina Department of Transportation. An estimate of the
construction cost must be prepazed by a certified licensed engineer or grading
contractor and submitted to the Planning and Inspections Department. The
construction estimate must include a 10% contingency factor. The financial
guazantee must reflect 110% of that estimate and be issued by an accredited
financial institution licensed to do business in North Carolina.
The document describing development restrictions to be recorded with the Final
Plat shall state that the financial guarantee will not be released until the road
construction has been inspected and approved by NCDOT.
2. All lots shall receive access from the internal subdivision roads. Lots 7 and 17
shall receive access from High Ground Court. No driveways shall be permitted
within 50' of a street intersection.
3. An erosion control plan for construction of the roads shall be submitted by the
applicant to the Orange County Erosion Control Division for review and approval
prior to Planning Department signatures on final plat.
4. Street names shall be approved by Planning Department and shown on final plat.
5. Approved street name signs shall be erected at the intersection of streets as
required in Section N-B-3-c-12 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
Evidence shall be submitted by the applicant that the sign is in place, or a copy of
the receipt for purchase of the sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
Signs to be erected prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
6. Dedicate the triangulaz 0.11 acre pazcel to Orange County at time of the recording
of final plat.
7. Dedicate additional 15' right-of--way along the entire length of High Rock Road at
time of recording of final plat.
8. Record a 5' non vehiculaz access easement along the entire length of High Rock
Road with the exception of intersecting street rights-of--way.
C. Land Use Buffers and Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be installed or preserved as indicated on the approved
landscape plan, and must be inspected and approved by the Planning and
Inspections Department.
;~
2. Provisions for protection of existing trees as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be included in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepazed by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
3. A Type A Land Use Buffer shall be provided along High Rock Road. The buffer
shall be 30 feet in width and provide sufficient vegetation to meet the standazds of
Section 1V-B-8-e of The Subdivision Regulations. Said buffer shall be so noted on
the plat, and described in a document describing development restrictions and
requirements to be prepazed by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently with the
Final Plat.
D. Drainage
1. Impervious surface data, as pursuant to Article 6.23.3c.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance shall be included in a document describing development restrictions
and requirements tv be prepazed by Planning Staff and recorded concurrently
with the Final Plat. The imperviaus surface limitations for each lot shall indicate
whether the impervious surface includes or excludes one-half (1/2) of the road
width in the calculations.
2. Locate drainage easements on final plat as required following review and approval
of the Erasion Control Plan.
3. Stream buffers shall be contained entirely within the open space areas as indicated
on the preliminary plan.
4. Drainage culverts shall be sized and located as required by NCDOT and the
Orange County Erosion Control Officer.
E. Parkland
1. Cash in the amount of $7,735.00 (171ots x $455) shall be paid to Orange County
as payment in lieu of pazkland dedication prior to recordation of final plat.
2. The entirety of the open space to be shown on the Final Plats shall be irrevocably
dedicated to the homeowners association far recreation/open space use by
residents of the subdivision. Two 10' access easements shall be provided to the
common area- one between lots 9 and 10 and one between lots 14 and 15.
3. A packet pazk with a swing set and pazk benches shall be constructed in the open
space as indicated on the Preliminary Plan prior to issuance of the first certificate
of occupancy.
4. Pedestrian connectivity shall be provided from this phase to future phases.
F. Miscellaneous
1. The Final Plat shall contain a title block and vicinity map in accordance with
Section V-D-2 and V-D-3 of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations.
7
2. The following easements shall be shown on the plat:
a. drainage easements as required by D.2. above.
b. two 10' access easements to the common azea -one between lots 9 and 10
and one between lots 14 and 15.
c. 5' non vehiculaz access easement along High Rock Road with the
exception of intersecting street rights-of=way.
3. Minimum building setbacks shall be as indicated on the Preliminary Plan. The
setback requirements shall be stated on the plat, and in a document describing
development restrictions and requirements to be prepared by Planning Staff and
recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
4. If any condition of this Resolution shall be determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or void, then this Resolution is void in its entirety and
of no effect and the Preliminary Plat approval granted herein is rescinded.
G. Certifications
A Certificate of Survey and Accuracy signed by a registered Land Surveyor shall
be notarized on the face of the Final Plat.
2. A Certificate of Declazation and Maintenance in the form provided in Section
V-D-6-b of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations signed by the landowner
and developer shall be on the face of the plat and included in a document
describing development restrictions to be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat.
3. The North Cazolina Department of Transportation shall certify that High Rock
Farm Drive and High Ground Court have been constructed to State standards or
that construction plans have been approved prior to Planning Department
signatures on final plat.
4. A Certificate of Approval signed by the Orange County Planning and Inspections
Department.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Boazd of Orange County Commissioners
that the Preliminary Plan for High Rack Farms Phase One Subdivision is approved in accordance
with the above mentioned conditions and attached Preliminary Plat dated Mazch 20, 2001.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner ,
the foregoing resolution was adapted this the day of , 2001.
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,
North Cazolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the
proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2001 as relates in any way to the
adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the
minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2001.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
8/93
ORANG COUNTY
- pATI=: 10/4/00
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT (INK ONLY)
SUBDIVISION NAME: High Rock Farms (Phase One )
LocATION: 5600 Hi h Rock Road Efland NC 27243
OWNER/pEVELOPER: High Grounds, Inc. / Roger James Development Corp.
ApORESS: 507 North First Street TELEPHONE NO
: 91 9-563-21 42
e one, .
AGENT/CONTACT: TELEPHONE No.: 1 - 63-0555
A. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Orange County Tex Map 2 Black - Lotls)1 O
"
'
- & 1 Z Township Cheeks
Zoning District(s): R-1~
a
Ck P4T
~
Total Number of Acres: 4 0 . 0 4 Acres Phases:
Total Number of Lots:. 1 7 Average Lot Size:4 1 1 2 7 $FMinimum lot Size: 4 0 0 0 7 SF
Number/Type of Structures: (existing)
(proposed)
Lineal Feet in Streets: '~ ,~-,~~ ~ F' a m i 1 v
~ Acres in Open Space: 21
05 Acres
Water Supply _ Public (specify) "
Communit
y
Wastewater Dis asel:
p ~~ Public Ispecify) Individual
Community
_ ~_ Individual
School District: _ }~~~~~~~` Fire District: E f ]
and
General Land Uses in Arae; ,
Critical Areas: stream/drainegeways
ac c - PW
flood prone areas
watershed Ispecify) One historic sites
other (explain)
Is the property to be subdivided currently under "farm use value taxation'? Yes
Na
If "yes"
l
_
_.
,
p
ease contact the Orange County Tex Office. $ubdivision of the property may require pa
me
t
f
deferred taxes under "term use value taxation". y
n
o
B. All plots must be submitted an sheet no smaller than one in ch equals two-hundred feet 11 " ~ 200') a
d
n
no larger than one inch equals twenty feet (1' X20') and must contain the following'infarmaiion:
_~ !' subdivision name X
~_ •'` name & address of ownerls) zoning of tract and adjacent
.~~ " name & address of subdivider ~~ properties
building setback lines by Horatia
lif other then owner) n
,~
~
X name of surveyor, engineer,
X
l or typical let layout
location and width of existing end
a andscape afchlteCl p- architect, proposed easements (drainage
ai
address, registration ~ end seal
X (title) preliminary Plan ,
utilities, roads, etc.)
~
~_ `` stele, north arrow existing, proposed end adjoining
y v
,~ dots lincludinp revision dates) rights-of-way including dimensions
~ ~
_~ '` township, tax map-block-lot and street names end state road
~ G
references numbers. Lineal feet of road
~~ '>: Parent Parcel Identification p centerlines and approximate
w
~L deed book end page rr of property acreage of new street rights-of-
~
~ ~
to be subdivided X
~ boundary described with bearin
s way
existing and proposed utilities,
E G. g
end distances including type, sizes, hydrants,
G ~
v
_ ~ total acreage of the tract end ~ X valves, manholes
~
ac ~
acreage of Tots, including and existing end proposed curbs,
~ ~
excluding arse within rights-of- ~ putters end culverts, including
~ ~
way . sizes and grades
`
~ ~ NA
~ ' control corner '' location and width of alleys,
sidewalks, bike lanes, transit
(please complete reverse si systems, end bus stops
de)
prc.,.oaed I~t lines with dimensions
~~ lat & block numbers
_ X ~`''-,~ phasing lines
a ~~ 3i topography at ten foot (10)
'~
C intervals
O X water 6adies, streams, flaodwey
N and floodplains
~ ~~ '~ stream buffers '
~ X location and size of parcels
m ~ dedicated for public use,
~ t'-~ recreational use or reserved in
~w
•~ ~ common, with purpose noted
'p ~, impervious surface data (if located
~ yO,~ in water supply watershed)
~ X vicinity map showing general
~
~ ~ location of subdivision with streets
~ ca and roads identified by State road
~ number and name
U ~ X ?? landscaping and buffer
~ ~ requirements
U f~7 ~~L '' township, corporate and extra-
territorial planning jurisdiction lines
which crass the property
C. OTHER SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
~ typical street cross-sections and
intersection details including
design end width of travelway and
shoulders
X horizontal alignment and general
curve data (public roads)
_}L • centerline radius on all proposed
streets
X ~ permanent features such as
buildings, cemeteries, historic
landmarks
X '~~~~~ adjoining lot layout namae of
adjoining property owners. If
' subdivided, subdivision plat name,
plat book & page number, end
perimeter lot numbers.
~~;~ location and size of Iota of
restricted development potential
- end notation on plat regarding
same
X stormwater detention and/or
retention sites and undisturbed
areas for infiltration purposes (if
located in water s,~pply
• watershed)
1. Twenty-five 125) copies' of the preliminary plat.
2. One full size copy of an Orange County Tax map (with tax parcels involved clearly marked in
pencil).
3. Where municipal or OWASA sewer is not available, a copy of the Preliminary Plat indicating
Health Department sails analysis approval/denial for each lot shown thereon.
4. Where a private road is proposed a written statement by the applicant or hislher authorized
representative which sets forth the justification for a private road (see Section IV-B-3-d•1 of the
Orange County Subdivision Regulatiansl.
5. Auxiliary documents, in draft form, prepared in accordance with Section Vt of. this Ordinance
which assure completion and/or maintenance of improvements required by this Ordinance.
Such documents may include, but net be limited to, a private road maintenance agreement, and
articles of incorporation and restrictive covenants pertaining to a homeowner's association.
These documents may be required as necessary as evidence that the ordinance requirements
are being met.
f3. Fae - 5350.00 plus 55.00 per Ict (1 fee for preliminary and final plat).
7. If the subdivision contains 10 lots ar more the following information shall be submitted with the
application:
a. Number of years to buildout.
b, Number of houses to be built during each year to buildout.
c. Average price of houses including lots For each year to buildout. •
~o
I, the applicant, hereby certify that the foreaaing applicatioh is complete end accurate.
A PLI ANT' IGNATURE Q ER'S SIGNATURE
~o-~-oo io-~-oo
oa,rE oarE
_ _ \
r ~1 _ ~. 1
f - 1~~ = . - r r r
` _ ~
_ - _ ~ ; ~ HIGH ROCK FARM
r ` r~' - • APPlicant: RQgcr Jarr.
= Zoning: R-1, Back-P
~~ ~
_.. ~
_ ~ _ n
_ , _ - ~.
~ ~ 1 -- - ~• ~. -
_. ~ ' , _ -
~ P1+Ase or+e `
i
~ - _-
i -
i
i _
____ - -
i
i _
_ ~ _ ~ _
_ ~~ ~ ;__
~ ` -~ V \ ~
_ ~ ~ ~ I
_ ' ~ . '
r . +'+ r I
_ •~
r ~ W
i
.k~~ -
~ ~.
,1 O ~~
~ ~ v .~
~t~ `,, .%
~~.~~~
.~~~ ~. .
~. • r~
\` ~~
'~ ~
,1
~ I i ~'
1 ~ j +, `
j
4 , °
~ ~~ r .
A ~~ i f
'~
~ 'l .l ~ ~, 1 .b
<< '~_
V ~ f
IE~ I ~~ rr j 7 .`~~~
l q /
~~f~/ .`'~\ . : ~ ~(/nom • ` ~ ~ i ~
,fr~j f I
~-- _ 114 R ~ i f s ' ~.i0 •~.. I
qq ! + ~ ~ r
~... '~~ '
r + ` ~ r ~` f
^ .~
r a' !
•. ~~~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~n.i:iies~
~ ~ ~ N
~fffff ~~ f
_~' sj a v`~,~~a~a~r ~ f~ s
• •t i
1 ,
.Q ^ :~ f.u r ~ r r r m
.~
4 f f
ff~,<<ff faiffff' ,`; ,ssniiiiii:i~ ~ "~ ~;~
v ~~~ ~ ~
q,~ ~~
,a ~..
C C"~' F~ + S~ ~~ ~ f=i~"~ Q I iyyir~
ei.~ ~ ~~ a ` CF BSS ~ Y•L~3 llfl< ~ ~_ _
{
~ R ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ 1
$~ R ~ ~i ~~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ '~1 _ ~~
:: ~ ' 0° a s ~If ~1
~ . ~~~
i3 fl ~ • ~~i
~ l ~~,I,~'i' IC ~~ ~ _n `~~~ HICH ROCK FARMS suBD1V1510N
l u~+~ 1 (rlLx~[ o[vc~orr[~r ~ ea~s[n~.nw-ctus~l avnor,!
h+ ~ i i1+i!';' I ~~ oRANGR COUN71. NaRTH CAROLINA
I ~~ ;!t!. , PRELIMINARY SUBpIVI510N PLAN
12
{~~~p
!!3"~
~~i~
%'~
!~
a\
]~
P
_~ ~.
~~
~~
1~
l~
~~ ~$
~CIViL CONSULTAh'TS.~
w
W Ow~~C~~
~Mai~ww.r r~•ara~Kr+w
~a~;
9
+~~!{
~~~~;
~;
iv ~ I u!!~i~
1 ~ I~~ ~
~ ~ ~ I~~I~Ii~
z
.a
02 ~
1+1m)~
N
~~~
~o~"
a
o;~o
a'r1'
N$o~
^'!^; a
+r a
~rNr~e
~ C p
~rSiO
n~
RICH ROCK FaRNS SUBQ[VISION
~nEnei,[ of~liawEr.r ~ cowscav~nc«_cwsr[rt crno»~ =C(V[L CONSLR.TA.VT$ x
ORA8ICL COUdTY. I+ORTN C~ROWM~ ~+~+
V Ow~~~ww~
Nov-10-00 12:41P Colraman ~l~dFlill Hargraves 919 732 7997 ~ 14
tAw ur~c~
CQLEMP-N, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE
A PSIC]F&ti•5K)NAL Cf3A1'ORATION
129 E. TRYON STEIEFT
P. t). ~pA9VER 1529
WLLSnt)ROUGH, Nt)ATH GIAOIJNA 21276
FRUM THE DESK OF
919.732.1196
FAX 919 77Z•7991 [-iP~RMc?NY VV~-L11~e,N
~VEBSTTE W1VVIl.CGANDII.t°A)M
Novcinber 1 U, 20UU
V1A FAC:SIMTLE
Eddie Kirk, Planner ii
Oran$a Coultty Plannins Departniunt
P.4. Bax 8181
Hi1lsUorough, NC 2727$
Re: ,Preliminary Plan for High Rock farms Subdivision, Yhase 1
Lear Eddie:
1 have reviewed the above referenced project per your pctoher l z, 2000 Request
for Review. 1 have no conuncnts at this time.
Sincerely,
COLEMAN, G[,EDHiLL & HARGR.AYb;, Y.C.
Harmony Whal~:n
h~ghru~kprClun.pUhw
Orange-Alamance Water System Inc.
POST OFFICE BOX 187 MEBANE. NORTH CARQLINA 27302 TELEPHONE: (919] 563-6212
January 5, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
At the regular monthly meeting held on September 30, 1999, the Board of Directors of
Orange-Alamance Water System, Inc. approved to accept an offer made by Roger James
of Roger James Development, Inc. regarding High Rock Farms Subdivision in Orange
County. Mr. James proposed to build 97 homes that would be constructed in six phases.
He further proposed to dig deep wells, provide all piping to hook into Orange-Alamance
Water, chlorinating equipment, and any other necessary appurtenances to hook into our
water system. Upon completion of above, the system would be turned over to Orange-
Alamance far ownership.
If any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely
ORANGE-ALAMANCE WATER SYSTEM, INC.
rvl9A-- `..~Q,U~-~.rr~
( .) James E. Covington,
President
JEC/sfrrl
1~
..~• d; o„~iv .
~, (t9rnng~ Lnunt~ }i~ttlt~ ~~~nrtm~n~ a
~r ~ loanthon E. Klein, Charc Rosemary I.. ~urrirCterB, I1+CPH, DrPH fanee H. $auherlnnd, Vice Chug o
~ I~ ~ ~ Orange County Board o(Hedlth Health Director Orange County Board ar Health
'~ti eu•u•
I.WJJ,WJ,~
Mr1. C~.Yr hMi
Environmental Health Division
Ron Hold~wry, Division Director
306-C Ravere Rana, P.O. Box 3131 Phone: (919) 733.3191, u2360 Fr~..`C: (919) 6~h
Hillsborough. NC 27278 Betty Borland Barbara Patterson Chapel Hill Durham blebs
~~L.~~••~'~~.~~ .~ ,n•.u. ~~ u~~n rnrl~lrh Adminiscrariver~.csist~nt Office;>~sisranr (91919613.1.501 19191683.7331 (91912:
November 17, 2000 •
SOIL /SITE Evaluation Summary for:
HIGH ROCK FARMS
CHEEKS Township Nlap 2 Lot 10
iVCap Revised Date October 27, 2000
LOT # DESIGN FLOW TYPE SYSTEM
1 480 GPD CONVENTIONAL
2 480 GPD CONVENTIONAL
3 480 GPD CONVENTIONAL w/PUN[P
4 480 GPD CONVENTIONAL w/PUMP
~ 480 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL
6 430 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL
7 360 GPD ULTRA-SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUN[P
8 480 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUMP
9 360 GPD ULTRA-SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUMP
10 480 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUNIP
11 480 GPD ~ SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUMP
1? 480 GPD CONVENTIONAL w/PUNiF
l3 480 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUMP
14 480 GPD CONVENTIONAL
15 480 GPD CONVENTIONAL
16 430 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUMP
17 480 GPD SHALLOW TRENCH CONVENTIONAL w/PUIVIP
NOTES:
17
The design flow is based upon the number of bedrooms applied for by the property owner or developer. The design flow for a bedr
120 gallons/day (GPD). (e. g, d$0 GPD = ~ bedrooms)
Proposed house locations are provided by the property owner or developer as required by 1~A NCAC 18A .1900 - .1969. (The Law
Rules for Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems)
The design Clow, type system, and pump requirement are subject to change based upon the application and site plan or plat submittec
the Construction Authorization.
The blocked areas on the accompanying plat are the limits of the provisionally suitable soils as evaluated by the Orange County Hea
Department.
It should be noted that all lots having aconventional-type drain field with pump are reviewed at a minimum of every five years by tl
health department as required by 1~ A NCAC 18A .1961 (iVtaintenance of Sewage Systems).
Ultra Shallow Trench Conventional Systems are placed in areas with 24 inches or more of provisionally suitable characteristics and
inch soil cap is placed over the trenches.
Shallow Trench Conventional Systems are placed in areas with 30 inches or more of provisionally suitable characteristics.
Conventional Systems are placed in areas with 36 inches or more of provisionally suitable characteristics.
The a roved se tic areas should be ke t free of vehicular traffic to in radio and com actin activities. It is the respon
of the property owner or developer to maintain the integrity of the septic areas prior to system construction and installation. No park
cutting, or filling shall be allowed.
This report is for planning purposes only and does not constitute any approval. Lot approval is granted only in the form of an Impro
Permit.
~ ?`~J?~F ~ ~~ i, ~ C D ~ .} 10'x70' SIGiiT TfiIANGI.ES
~.\ ~ ~- ~`\~\ ~ i ~ ~JIfiM[hl f TO BE DEDICATED TO NCDOT ~
~~. \ \ i (TYP. 80Th SIDES)
\ ~~~` ~~ ~ ` i rM-Y AC[8s5 -ro S-ril'~ MArN~iN ~d 18
~'~«, t7raN~
J' ~1 '1~ ~W ~gQu 1 lt~s Tl{ E "i'r~/ ~.~.a~Plllt
~T~ ' • ,/ .~ \\ ~~'\ ~ ` -i'p 3ECt.tK.E A "DIG vSWAy 'pt.KMt~
x1 ) ~?y \
r/ ~ ~ ~ `. ~ ~ ~ rtrFs 4a~t'rY.D ~rr11lp TA
,~b~ ' \ ``\~ ~` ~ ~ ~ W ~QwtR~ AN ~1CIZOAGI N EaJr
~~
. {\, \ ~\ w~ •~ \
~ \
'~ \
.` \~
._
~ ~ ~ /
r ~'
`ham ~a~~~ 10 ~'~
~ ~
3
~g~l 1$~I > / ~tio AG .~
~.. r~. .tea: 1 / ~~ ~ ,~D~+S I
~~ ~ ^~ F ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ f i
_ _ * _ ~
r~
i ~ ~I ~,~~ i ~ < ~ . ~ae~'~'~ . J ~ JAMES J. f
.. ZONED
I i ~ I ~ ~ '` ~ . (RESIDENTI,
J ~ 15 - I ~ ~ ~\ 1
_ ~ ~ ~ I~NI ~ ~ 12 I 3
I ~j
Orange County Emergency Management
P.O. Box $181
Hillsborough
North Carolina
2727$
9-1-1 Communications Emergency Medical Services
24 Hour Warning Point ,..~e « •
Fire Marshal
919-732-8161 •933-2600 `
'
,;~ ' ; Disaster Response
. '
Hazardous Materials
~ ~
24-Hour Fax Machine 919-644-3030. 968-2050
919-967-9026
~~~
`~'
`~ °"~~
Administrative Fax Machine
919-968-4066
TO: EDDIE KIK, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM: MIKE TAPP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR/FIRE MARSHAL
RE: HIGH ROCK FARMS SUBDIVISION, PHASE ONE
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000
We have reviewed the preliminary plan of High Rock Farms Subdivision and offer the
following comments:
1. We would ask for more information an projected water availability for fire protection.
Plans indicate the extension of an eight inch water line from an existing six inch waterline
from the Orange-Alamance Water System. Low water supplies that currently exist in the
Fieldview Subdivision will be extended into the High Rock Farms Subdivision based on
information provided on the preliminary plans. Our intent is not to delay the approval
process, but to insure that adequate water supplies are made available for fire suppression
purposes. I talked to Mr. Alan Miles of Civil Consultants today and his indication is that a
plan will be developed, within a reasonable time, to address these issues.
1c
If you need additional information, please contact us.
2
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR HIGH ROCK FARMS PHASE ONE
RESIDENTIAL SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
Prepared by
The Orange County Planning Department
November, 2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HIGH ROCK FARMS PHASE ONE subdivision contains 17 buildable lots and is
located in Cheeks Township. The lots are accessed by new public roads which will
intersect with High Rock Road. The current zoning is RB -Rural Buffer. The average
lot size is approximately 2.18 acres including open space. Lots will. be served by
Orange-Alamance water and individual septic systems.
Project build-out is estimated at two years. Housing units will be constructed,
beginning in 2001, with completion of the project scheduled for 2002. Units will
consist of detached single-family homes, and the applicant estimates the average sales
price to be $180,000 including the lot.
METHODOLOGY
Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and
revenues associated with residential and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in
which the growth is taking place. Fiscal impact analysis considers only direct impact
in that it projects only the primary casts. that will be incurred and the immediate
revenues that will be generated. It calculates the financial effect of a planned
development or new subdivision by considering the current costs and revenues such a
development would generate if it were completed and occupied today. Fiscal impact
analysis does not consider the private costs of public action. It is concerned only with
public (governmental) costs and revenues.
The method used in preparing the fiscal impact analysis, is the Service Standard
Approach. While only gross expenditures by service category are derived from the Per
Capita Method, the Service Standard method determines the total number of
additional employees by service function that will be required as a result of growth.
This method employs average county government costs per person, average school
costs per pupil, an employee to population ratio, and average operating expenses per
employee for each service category and school district. The number of new employees
are projected and multiplied times the average operating expenses (includes
personnel, operating and capital costs) per employee. These average costs are then
weighed against per capita and per pupil revenues to project the total net fiscal impact
of the development.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SERVICE STANDARD APPROACH
PROJECT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Section 1 -Project Data
Project Name, Township, School District
Beginning Year, Ending Year, Inflation
Characteristics of Households
Construction Schedule/Cost Data
Section 2 -Local Government and School District Data
Budget Year
Per Capita Revenues
Per Capita Expenditures
Per Student Expenditures
School District Per Employee Expenditures
Employees Per 1000 Population
County Per Employee Expenditure
Other Data
Other Model Constants
School District Data
Section 3 -Demographic Projections Based On Project Data
Total Housing
Total Population
School Children
Additional County Employees
Total
School District Additional Employees
Section 4 -Projected Net Fiscal Impact on County
Tax Base
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 5 -Projected Net Fiscal Impact on School District
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
Section 6 -Summary of Projected Impacts
Additional Housing
Additional Population
Additional School Children
Tax Base
County Government Balance
School District Balance
Total Net Fiscal Impact
Section 7 -Summary of Projected Public School Capacity Impacts
zz
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES
SECTION 1 -PROJECT DATA
Project data includes information about the specific development project. Much,
if not all, of the information is supplied by the applicant. Data inputs include:
Project Name: Name of the project.
Township: Township in which the project is located.
School District: School district in which the project is located.
Beginning Year: The first year of the project in which dwelling units are completed and
occupied. -
Ending Year: The last year in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. The
template is set to calculate fiscal impacts for aten-year period. -
Inflation Rate: Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal
impacts based on constant dollars. Since the inflation rate changes frequently, the
Finance Department must be contacted for the most recent figure.
Persons/Household: The estimated average number of persons/household (dwelling
unit) based on 1990 Census data and studies of the number of students per
household for the school district in which the project is located. The most recent
studies include A Study of Housing Characteristics and Student Generation Rates for Orange
County, N. C. (1995) and Technical Report: Calculation of Proportionate Share Impact Fees
for Financing Public School Capital Needs, Orange County, N.C. (1996).
Children/Household: The estimated average number of school age
children/household (dwelling unit) based on studies of the number of students per
household for the school district in which the project is located. The most recent study
is A Study of Housing Characteristics and Student Generation Rates for Orange County, N. C.
(1995).
Non-Elderly: N.C. General Statutes permit an $11,000 exemption to the elderly and
disabled who meet certain income criteria. In the-event that elderly units are part ofi
the, project, the percentage of eligible non-elderly units is entered. The tax base will
automatically be adjusted to reflect the exemption.
Number of Homes: The number of dwelling units to be constructed in the project in
each year.
z~
Average Sales Price: The average sales price of all dwelling units based on the
number and sales price of dwelling unit types to be constructed in each year.
SECTION 2 -LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
Local government data includes information regarding expenditures required to
provide County services and revenues received based on the approved Orange County
budget for the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All
information derived from the approved budget remains constant throughout a fiscal
year (July-June) and is changed only with the approval of a new budget.
Local government revenue and expenditure information is compiled on a per
capita (per person) basis. Per capita figures are derived by dividing the total
expenditures for a particular service function or revenue source by the estimated
population of Orange County for the year in which the project is considered for
approval. Populations estimates are prepared by the Planning Department.
Data inputs include the following:
Budget Year; The current fiscal year; i.e., 1996-97.
Per Capita Revenues: The sources of revenue by major category are as follows:
Taxes -Other Than Property: Revenues from taxes other than property taxes include
those from sales and use taxes, franchise taxes, and animal taxes.
Intergovernmental Aid: Revenues from this source, in the form of categorical aid or
shared-tax revenues, are provided through State and federal assistance programs.
Service Charges: Service (or user) charges support numerous functions and are
charged to those who voluntarily receive governmental services or use governmental
facilities.
Miscellaneous: Miscellaneous revenues include interest earnings on investments,
proceeds from license and permit fees, and all other revenues.
Per Capita Expenditures: Expenditures by major category are as follows:
General Government: Services related to the legislative, administrative, financial, and
legal functions of government.
Public Safety: Law enforcement services and emergency medical services.
Public Works: Efforts related to the maintenance of County-owned property and the
provision of sanitation (solid waste disposal) services.
24
Human Services: Departments responsible for the provision of health, social, and
recreation-related services.
Education: Orange County supports two Schaal units, the Orange County school
system and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system. This category includes
appropriations made to the designated Schaal system far Recurring Capital items.
Recurring Capital funds are used for general maintenance, purchase of new
equipmentlfurnishings and vehicle maintenance.
Non»Departmentai: Contributions to agencies providing cultural and social services
outside the formal structure of county government. Other expenditures include
equipment replacement and contingency funds. Although there are no employees
generated by this category, it has been included as an operating expenditure. It will be
included in Section 4, "Total Annual County Expenditure." These expenditures will be
calculated on a per capita basis as opposed to .a per employee basis.
Per Student Expenditures: Information regarding expenditures required to provide
educational services and revenues received are based on the appraved school system
budgets for the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All
information derived from the approved budgets remains constant throughout a fiscal
year (July-June) and is changed only with the approval of new budgets.
Expenditure information is compiled on a per student basis for County Government
Current Expense, School District and State appropriations. County Government
Current Expense funds are used for general operation purposes including Instruction
and Support Services. Federal revenues and expenditures and other local revenues
such as Fund Balance have not been included since they are not directly growth
related. Per student figures are derived by dividing the total appropriation for
educational purposes from a particular source by the estimated number of students to
be enrolled in the applicable school system for the year in which the project is
considered far approval. Student enrollments are obtained from the approved school
system budgets.
County Government: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations to the
school systems by Orange County for Current Expense. The minimum level of per
student appropriation is determined by the State Board of Education.
School District: Expenditures in this category are unique to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
school system and are based on the level of expenditures possible through assessment
of a supplementary school tax.
State: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations from the State Board
of Education.
z~
School District Per Employee Expenditure: Expenditures per employee based an
County, School District and State appropriations, and the total number of school
district employees.
Employees Per 1000 Popula#ion: The number of employees in a particular service
category per 1000 population.
County Per Employee Expenditure: The average operating and capital expenses per
employee in a particular service category. Total expenses in each category includes
personnel, operating and capital costs.
26
Other Data:
County Government Tax Rate: The County tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation.
Since the per capita method focuses only on operating expenditures, the tax rate is
reduced by an amount equal to the debt service payments from property taxes for
capital projects.
School District Tax Rate: The supplementary tax assessed on behalf of the Chapel
Hill-Carrboro school system.
Assessment Ratio: The ratio of market (sales) value to assessed value based on
information supplied by the Tax Office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market
value to assessed value for the purpose of computing the tax base.
Other Model Constants
Elderly Exemption: For projects developed partially or exclusively for elderly (65 and
older) or disabled individuals whose annual income does not exceed $12,000, an
$11,000 tax exemption is used in projecting the tax base.
School District Employees Per Student: The number of employees per student in a
specific school district.
SECTION 3 -DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA
Demographic projections provide information about the number of new residents and
school children anticipated in Orange County resulting from project development.
Projections also provide the number of additional employees required per service
function and school district as a result of the new development.
Total Housing Units: The cumulative total of new housing units added each year by
project development.
Total Population: The total population added each year by a project derived by
multiplying the number of homes to be constructed by the number of persons per
household (see Section 1).
School Population: The total number of school children added each year by a project
derived by multiplying the number of homes constructed by the number of children
per household (see Section 1).
Additional County Employees: The number of additional employees required per
service category based on project development.
Total: Total of all additional county employees required based on project development.
z
School District Additional Employees: The number of additional employees required
per school district based on the project development.
SECTION 4 -PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON COUNTY
Tax Base: The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected
each year resulting from project development. The values shown are in $1,000's and
are derived from a formula which includes the number and sales price of homes, and
the assessment ratio. Where applicable, the percentage of non-elderly units and elderly
exemption are also used.
Revenues: All revenues are derived from a formula which multiplies the per capita
revenues (Section 2) times. the projected population (Section 3). The exception to this
is the property tax which multiplies the tax base times the county government tax rate.
Expenditures: All expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies the per
employee expenditure (Section 2) times the number of additional employees (Section
3).
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures
and projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs Orange County
more to provide services to a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net
balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project.
Positive net balances in one project may thus be used to offset negative balances in
another.
SECTION 5 -PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
Revenues: The County contribution is derived by transferring education expenditures
by County government (Section 4). Revenues derived from the school district tax are
derived by multiplying the school district tax times the tax base. State revenues are
derived by multiplying the per student expenditure figure times the total projected
number of school children (Section 3).
Expenditures: Expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies each per
student expenditure (Section 2) times the total projected number of school children
(Section 3) and adding the results.
Net Fiscal Impact: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures
and projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs the school
system more to provide educational services for children in a project than it receives in
revenues. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it
costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one project may thus be used to offset
negative balances in another.
SECTION 6 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED IMPACTS
28
SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT TEMPLATE: SERVICE STANDARD METHOD
Bureau of Economic 8~ Business Research -University of Florida
Modified 4/15/97 -Orange County, NC Planning Department
SECTION 1 -PROJECT DATA: ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT:
z
PROJECT: High Rock Farms Phase One Subdivision
TOWNSHIP: Cheeks
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD:
Beginning Year: 201
Ending Year: 201
Inflation Rate: 2.50
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS:
Persons/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 2.~
Children/House: ENTER "1" BESIDE APPLICABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT BELOW. 0.;
Non-Elderly: 100.00'
HOME SALES DATA:
Average Distribution
Number of Sales Price of Units
Year Homes ($) by Year
2001 8 180,000 47.06'
2002 9 180,000 52.94
2003 0 0 0.00
2004 0 0 0.00
2005 0 0 0.00
2006 0 0 0.00
zoo? 0 0 0.00
2008 0 0 0.00
2009 0 0 0.00
2010 0 0 0.00
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA: ENTER "1" IN ( )BESIDE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN WHICH PROJECT 15 TO BE
LOCATED TO GENERATE STUDENT DISTRIBUTION BY SCHOOL TYPE.
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County ( 1) Elementary School 64
Middle School 17
Chapel Hill-Carrboro ( 0) High School 19
SECTION 2 -LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA
30
BUDGET YEAR:
COUNTY POPULATION:
SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT POPULATION:
COUNTY EMPLOYMENT:
POSITIONS
1996-9'
10589
568C
PER CAPITA
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Services
Education (School District)
SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT:
Total
POSITIONS PER STUDENT
818.00 0.1440
COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES ($): REVENUES PER CAPITA
Taxes -Other Than property 4653250 43.94
Intergovernmental 9007481 85.06
Service Charges ~ 3388055 31.99
Miscellaneous 1738939 16.42
COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA
General Government 6804231 64.25
Public Safety 7274334 68.69
Public Works 2871690 27.12
Human Services 17112641 161.50
Education (Recurring Capital) 750000 7.08
Non-Departmental 3163481 29.87
COUNTY PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURE ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
General Government 6804231 62654.06
Public Safety 7274334 50887,26
Public Works 2871690 57433.$0
Human Services 17112641 64803.43
Education (Recurring Capital) 750000 916.87
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER STUDENT
County Government 10121760 1782.00
School District 0 0.00
~~ State 21523177 3789.29
SCHOOL DISTRICT PER EMPLOYEE EXPENDITURES ($): EXPENDITURE PER EMPLOYEE
County Government 10121760 12373.79
School District 0 O.OC
State 21523177 26311.95
TAX DATA: ENTER APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT RATIO AND ELDERLY EXEMPTION:
County Tax Rate ($) 0.9190 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
School District lax Rate ($) 0.0000 Per $100 Assessed Valuation
Assessment Ratio 100.00
Elderly Exemptiori 0 $11,000 Where Applicable
108.60 0.0010
142.95 0.0013
50.00 0.0005
264.07 0.0025
818.00 0.0077
i
SECTION 3 -DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON.PROJECT DATA
,-
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 20a
HOUSING UNITS 8 17 17 17 1'
'POPULATION 20 42 42 42 4;
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 2 4 4 4
Middle 0 1 1 1
High School ~ 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 3 6 fi fi
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0.02 ~ 0.04 0.04 0.04 O.C
Public Safety 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 O.C
Public Works 0.01 ~ 0.02 0.02 0.02 O.C
Human Services 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.1
TOTAL 0.11 0.22 0.22 .0.22 0.e
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.32 p.;
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
MOUSING UNITS 17 17 17 17 1
POPULATION 42 42 42 42 4
SCHOOL CHILDREN.
Elementary 4 4 4 4
Middle 1 1 1 1
High School 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 6 6 6 fi
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
General Government 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.(
Public Safety 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.(
Public Works 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.(
Human Services 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.'
TOTAL 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.;
SCHOOL DISTRICT 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.:
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES
SECTION 4 - PROJECTEp FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON COUNTY GOVERNMENT
3;
YEAR
TAX BASE ($1000)
REVENUES ($)
property Tax
Other Taxes
Intergovernmental
Service Charges
Miscellaneous
TOTAL ($)
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Human Services
Education
Non-Departmental
TOTAL ($)
NET FISCAL IMPACT
2001 2002 zoo3 2ooa 201
1440 3096 3173 3253 333
13234 28452 29164 29893 3064
868 1$91 1938 1987 203
1681 3661 3752 3846 394:
632 1377 1411 1447 148.
324 707 724 743 76
16739 36088 36990 37915 3886:
1270 2765 2835 2905 297;
1357 2956 3030 3106 318
536 11 Ei7 1196 1226 125'
3193 Ei955 7129 7307 7491
4844 10552 1081 E3 11086 1136;
590 1286 1318 1351 138!
11791 25682 26324 26982 2765E
4949 10407 10667 10933 11201
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 .2009 201
TAX BASE ($1000) 3417 3503 3590 3680 377:
REVENUES ($)
Property Tax 31406 32191 32996 33821 3466E
Other Taxes 2088 2140 2193 2248 230
Intergovernmental 4041 4142 4245 4352 446(
Service Charges 1520 1558 1597 1637 167E
Miscellaneous 780 800 820 840 86
TOTAL ($) 39834 40830 41851 x2897 4397(
EXPENDITURES ($)
General Government 3053 3129 3207 3287 3365
Public Safety 3263 3345 3429 3514 360:
Public Works 1288 1321 1354 1387 142;
Human Services 7677 7869 8066 8267 847
Education 11647 11938 12237 12543 1285E
Non-Departmental 1419 1455 1491 1528 156'
TOTAL ($) 28348. 29056 29783 30527 31291
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 11487 11774 12068 12370 1267
r
SECTION 5 -PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF PROJECT ON SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 200
REVENUES ($)
County 4844 10552 10816 11086 1136:
School District 0 0 0 0
State 10004 21789 22334 22892 2346:
TOTAL ($) 14$48 32341 33150 33978 34828
EXPENDITURES ($)
County 4844 10552 10816 11086 1136
School District 0 0 0 0 ~
State 10004 21789 22334 22892 23465
TOTAL ($) 1484$ 32341 33150 33978 34828
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 0 0 0 0 ~
YEAR 2005 2007 200$ 2009 201
REVENUES ($)
County 11647 11938 12237 12543 1285E
School District 0 0 0 0 ~
State 24051 24653 25269 25901 2654E
TOTAL ($) 35699 36591 37506 38443 39405
EXPENDITURES ($)
County 11647 11938 12237 12543 1285E
School District 0 0 0 0
State 24051 24653 25269 25901 2654E
TOTAL ($) 35699 36591 37506 38443 39405
NET FISCAL IMPACT ($) 0 0 0 0 ~
SECTION 6 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHIC/FISCAL IMPACTS
3~
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 200
HOUSING UNITS 8 17 17 17 1;
POPULATION 20 42 42 42 4;
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 2 4 4 4
Middle 0 1 1 1
High School 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 3 6 6 6 ~
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.2
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.3
TAX BASE (51000) 1440 3096 3173 3253 3334
COUNTY BUDGET ($)
Revenues 16739 36088 36990 37915 38863
Expenditures 11791 25682 26324 26982 27656
BALANCE 4949 10407 10667 10933 11207
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET (~)
Revenues 14848 32341 33150 33978 34828
Expenditures 14848 32341 33150 33978 34828
BALANCE 0 0 0 0 I
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 31587 68429 70140 71893 73691
Expenditures 26639 58023 59473 60960 62484
BALANCE 4949 10407 10667 10933 11207
YEAR 2D06 2007 2008 2009 201C
HOUSING UNITS 17 17 17 17 1
POPULATION 42 42 42 42 4:
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 4 4 4 4
Middle 1 1 1 1
High School 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 6 6 6 6 ~
COUNTY EMPLOYEES 0.22 0.22 0.22 D.22 0.2
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.3
TAX BASE (51000) 3417 3503 3590 3680 377'e
COUNTY BUDGET (S)
Revenues 39834 40830 41851 42$97 4397C
Expenditures 28348 29056 29783 30527 3129C
BALANCE 11487 11774 12068 12370 12679
SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET (5)
Revenues 35699 36591 37506 38443 3940@
Expenditures 35699 36591 37506 ,38443 3940E
BALANCE 0 0 0 0
COMBINED BUDGETS ($)
Revenues 75533 77421 79357 81341 8337
Expenditures 64046 65647 67289 68971 7069:
BALANCE 11487 11774 12068 12370 1267E
SECTION 7 -SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPACITY IMPACTS
SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA:
3~
School District: School Attendance:
Orange County YES ) Elementary School 64
Middle School 17
Chapel Hill-Carrboro NO ) High School 19~
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 20a
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 2 4 4 4
Middle 0 1 1 1
High School 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 3 6 6 6
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
SCHOOL CHILDREN
Elementary 4 4 4 4
Middle 1 -~ 1 1 1
High School 1 1 1 1
TOTAL fi 6 6 G
SCHOOL CAPACITIES -ALL SCHOOLS
Elementary
Middle
High School
TOTAL
CURRENT ENROLLMENT -ALL SCHOOLS
3328 Elementary 282.
1522 Middle 124(
1520 High School 145.
6370 TOTAL
551
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 200
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2824 2826 2826 2826 282E
Middle 1240 1241 1241 1241 124'
High School 1458 1458 1458 1458 145E
TOTAL 5522 5525 5525 5525 552;
YEAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 201
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
Elementary 2826 2826 2826 2826
IVliddle - 1241 1241 1241 1241
High School 1458 1458 1458 1458
TOTAL 5525 5525 5525 5525
282E
124'
145E
552:
12-6-DO DRAFT PLANNING 80ARD MINUTES 36
1 MOTION: Gooding-Ray moved approval of the Conservation Cluster Flexible Concept
2 Plan for Gold Mine Property as recommended by the staff with the change
3 in the fifth condition as stated above. Seconded by Selkirk.
4 VOTE: Unanimous
6 b. Preliminary Plans
7 (1) High Rock Farms Phase I
8 (Cheeks Township 17 Lots Flexible Development)
9
10 Kirk made the presentation.
11
PURPOSE:
Consideration of the Preliminary Plan for High Rock Farms Phase One Subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
Request -Preliminary Plan
Applicant: Roger James Construction
• Seventeen (17) residential lots proposed on a 36.07-acre tract.
• Minimum lot size is 40,000 sq. ft. --
~ Average lot size - 41,120 sq. ft. (95,083 sq. ft. gross lot size)
• Minimum to actual lot ratio (MTAR) is 1.02.
Location
South side of High Rack Road in Cheeks Township between Ira Road and Mill Creek Road.
Existing and Proposed Conditions
Existing:
• Current zoning is Rural Residential (R1) (min. lot size = 40,000 sq. ft.)
• Located in Back Creek Protected Watershed. (Maximum Impervious Surface = 12%)
Physical Features:
• There is one designated stream on the property.
• The site is entirely wooded with mixed hardwoods and pines.
Adjacent Land Use:
• Properties to the west, east and south are medium to large acreage single family residential lots.
• Aberdeen Downs and Wagon Farm Trails are one-acre lot subdivisions to the north across High Rock Road,
Proposed:
Roads:
• Access is from High Rock Farm Drive, a new public road to be constructed to state standards.
• One cul-de-sac will extend east from High Rock Farm Drive (High Ground Court).
• All roads are to be constructed to NCDOT standards.
Open Space/Buffers:
• 21 acres (58%) open space proposed. Open space is property designed for connectivity and buffering
• Type A 30-foot buffer required along High Rock Road.
• 100-foot building setback required under flexible development is provided.
Water-Sewer:
• Orange-Alamance Water system.
• Private septic systems. .
Recreation:
• Cheeks District Park
• Pocket Park proposed with swing set and 2 park benches in the open space.
• Payment in Lieu = $7,735.00 (171ots x $455)
• No dedication is warranted because no county recreation area or conservation area has been identified at thi
37
time.
~ency Comments:
• Comments attached from Environmental Health, NCDOT, and Emergency Management.
DeveloQment Process. Schedule. and Action
Planning Board:
• First Action: Concept Plan approved by the Planning Board 7anuary 5, 2000 with the following condition
1. The intersection and road alignment on the Preliminary Plan shall meet NCDOT standards.
2. A turn lane and street improvements shall be constructed on High Rock Road as recommended by NCD~
3. Dedicate a triangular portion of land sufficient to permit alignment of future road with Maple Avenue to
shown on Preliminary Plan.
4. The secondary means and timing of access provision will be examined with the Preliminary Plan.
• Second Action:
1. Action within two regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings, or extension thereof;
2. If the Flanning Board fails to act within the specified time period, application forwarded to BOCC with
Planning Board minutes and Planning Staff recommendations and conditions.
Preliminary Plan addresses conditions of approval of the Concept Plan that apply to this Phase.
The turn lane on High Rock Road shall be constructed with the construction of Phase Two.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Fiscal Impact Analysis included as an attachment.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Staff
Approval, in accordance with the attached Resolution of Approval.
l The developers have agreed, since the concept plan stage, to include a pocket park, which is in the open
2 space land.
3
4 There was a comment in a memo from Mike Tapp, (Orange County Fire Marshall), expressing concern about
S the water pressure. The concerns have been addressed in the Resolution of Approval for the construction
6 plans which require Orange County Emergency Management approval. The construction of the water lines
7 will be approved by the state, Orange-Alamance Water, NCDOT, and Orange County Emergency
8 Management.
9
10 The recommended turn lane will be constructed during Phase [I.
11
12 Several questions about the road connectivity were answered by the staff.
13
14 Holtkamp said that this was the third Cheeks development that was close to the EDD. She said that there
1S should be signage alerting homebuyers that the property was within a mile of the EDD, which is in transition.
16 She asked about sidewalks.
17
18 Benedict said that there were few different ways to accommodate sidewalks. He said that sidewalks increase
19 the impervious area in private roads. If it is a public road, NCDOT is not interested in maintaining a
20 sidewalk, especially within rural areas. He said that sidewalks could be put on private property if a
21 Homeowners Association is willing to maintain it and accept the liability for it in front of each person's lot.
22 Within the public road right-of--way, it is not a likely option for rural roadway corridors. Another option
23 would be the widening of the road, which could have a dual purpose, such as bicycles or walking.
24
25 Gooding-Ray asked if liability was the issue for sidewalks. Benedict said that the road design for
26 subdivisions of this size was intended to be "loops and lollipops", which is loop roads and cul-de-sacs. The
27 idea is that people would not have to walk on the major local road, which in this case would be Frazier Road.
28
29 Gooding=Ray said that the only way for people to get to the pocket park would be to walk on Frazier Road.
30
38
Rick Perry said that it was almost impossible to put a sidewalk on the outside of the state's right-of--way
because of the slopes and the ditches.
Davis said that the best bet for pedestrians in this case would be wider pavement on each side for shoulders.
Gooding-Ray is concerned about the children playing on the road and the fast traffic going through the
subdivision. Benedict said that they were going to try to put some curves in the road in order to slow the
traffic down.
9 Preston asked if there could be a plan to add a pedestrian path to go through the open space as the phases are
10 being built. Benedict said that this should be considered.
11
12 Tony Whitaker, with Civil Consultants, is representing Roger James. He said that early on Mr. James
13 identified the opportunity to extend the Orange-Alamance Water system into this area. There was an
14 agreement that Mr. James would provide a new deep well for Orange-Alamance Water on this property. He
15 has dedicated land for this well on the property that meets all of the state criteria for setbacks, etc. However,
16 Orange-Alamance has decided that they might want the well somewhere else in the area. Orange-Alamance
l7 has begun to investigate the possibility of drilling their own well and having a cost sharing arrangement with
18 Mr. James so that the money he would have spent here is being spent aranother location of Orange-
19 Alamance's choice. There is an obligation that Mr. James has to supplement Orange-Alamance's system in a
20 way that would be adequate for the additional homes caused by this subdivision. In addition to that, Mr.
21 James has offered on that same piece of property to provide space if Orange-Alamance wants to build an
22 elevated water storage tank to supplement the pressure. This is an ongoing issue between Mr. James and
23 Orange-Alamance and has not yet been resolved.
24
25 Regarding the street issues, Tony Whitaker said that NCDOT had a policy against "Children at Play" signs.
26 NCDOT believes that if they allow the pasting of those signs in their right-of--way, that they are sanctioning
27 children playing in the street. He said that NCDOT might allow some sort of signage that would be helpful
28 in slowing the traffic down. He said that it was more in the public interest to have NCDOT standard public
29 streets as the standard.
30
31 Holtkamp asked about the cost of sidewalks. Whitaker said that to add a sidewalk, depending on the design
32 and the width, it could cost about $20 per linear foot.
33
34 Preston made reference to the open burning ordinance and said that she has seen piles of natural vegetation
35 and piles of garbage and building materials being burned. She said that it should be part of the developer's
36 responsibility to enforce the ordinances such as tree protection, open burning, and erosion control,
37
38 Whitaker said that this project could be an opportunity to explore those ideas. He said that Mr. James does
39 want to have ahands-on approach. Regarding the open burning, he said that the developer was obligated to
40 follow those rules. He said that this subdivision could be an opportunity to work on some language or some
41 covenants to try to address the enforcement of the ordinances.
42
43 Rick Perry is a builder and he said that when he started building a subdivision in Mebane, the Fire Marshall
44 stopped in and told him what could be burned and what could not be burned. He said that the Fire Marshall
45 rides through the subdivision three times 'a week.
46
47 John Edwards pointed out that there was a lot of development in this area.
4$
49 Discussion ensued about the difference between a public and a private park. In this case, the County is not
50 taking land for park requirements, but a private park is being required.
S1
52 Preston asked if the old model was being used for the Fiscal Impact Analysis because there were .33 students
53 per household. Benedict said that this was the standard that must be used until it is officially changed. The
39
results from the student generation rate study should be available within two months and can be plugged into
the fiscal impact model.
4 Holtkamp said that she was concerned about the impact of this subdivision on the school system and the
5 surrounding community. Benedict said that the software that the County presently has does not provide this
6 information.
8 Chair Allison asked if the Planning Board could discuss the student generation study when the results were
9 available. Benedict said that there would be an informal public presentation given to the Schools and Land
10 Use Council in January and the Planning Board could be involved in some way.
I1
12 MOTION: Preston moved to delay the decision about High Rock Farms until the water
13 table information is received. Seconded by Holtkamp.
14
15 Benedict said that there was a draft hydrological study out that ERCD is reviewing..This study is for projects
16 that are either using independent wells or a community well system. This subdivision is proposing a
17 community well that would offer its share of water to Orange-Alamance, so it would be a different type of
18 system.
19
20 Whitaker said that he is concerned about delaying the decision because there would probably not be any
21 resolution to the hydrological issue in another month. Regarding the school impact issue, the impact fees are
22 not determined until the building permit stage. He urged the board to make a decision tonight.
23
24 Katz asked about the water system for this subdivision and if it affected the water table differently than
25 individual wells. Whitaker said that this was an issue that was raised in the concept plan stage and Orange-
26 Alamance wants the well that would serve this subdivision in a remote location elsewhere. He said that, as a
27 rule, it is better to have single-point discharges from deep wells.
2$
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Holtkamp asked Whitaker if he was saying that the board should ignore the concerns from EMS about water
pressure and fire protection. Whitaker said that there were two different components of water supply -basic
daily water needs and fire protection. He said that he was not proposing that the fire hydrants be installed
immediately because there is a concern about water pressure.
Chair Allison said that this subdivision meets all of the requirements in the standards. He said that the
Planning Board did not have the authority to set up a moratorium on development. He suggested moving
ahead with this subdivision.
Holtkamp said that~the Planning Board was entitled to have the information needed in order to make the right
decision. She is very concerned about the issue of low water supply identified by Mike Tapp.
voTE:
Ayes, 3; Noes, 4
MOTION: McAdams moved to approve the Preliminary Plan for High Rock Farms
Phase One, in accordance with the Resolution of Approval, which is
incorporated herein by reference. Seconded by Selkirk. This motion
includes the recommendation for pedestrian connectivity from this phase to
future phases.
VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 2
(2) Ashwick
(Cheeks Township - 58 Lots)