HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-13-1999 - 31
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
`aaatr u •
- P 9
September 30, 1999`
Mayor Horace Johnson
P.O. Box 429
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Corbin Downs
Dear Mayor:
The Board of County Commissioners thanks you and your council for the opportunity to
hear from your staff and the developer regarding the proposed Corbin Downs
development. The level of cooperation regarding the planning and impact of this protect
is sincerely appreciated.
At the September 8, 1999 joint public hearing all participants offered some important and
constructive input concerning the impact of the project. The Board of County
Commissioners and our staff continued research and reviewed additional material on
Corbin Downs at a special work session on September 30, 1999:
Based on information received at the meeting and subsequent material from N.C.
Department of Transportation, Orange County Planning staff has continued their analysis
of project as it relates to Orange County impacts:
We would respectfully request that the additional recommendations and comment by staff
and Commissioners at our work sessions and the October 5, 1999 Board of
Commissioners meeting be incorporated in the public record of your public hearing
process.
Again we thank you for the continued coordination in the review of this project that will
lead to the best possible outcomes for the residents of the Town of Hillsborough and the
citizens of Orange County.
Sincerely,
Alice Gordon, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
gAcra1g\hjohnson110- 5 -99\dg
CORBIN DOWNS
Note: R = Recommendation
- C = Comment
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. TRANSPORTATION
The timing of these improvements should be noted in the Development Order.
OLD NC 86
Rl A four lane divided cross - section with turn lanes should be provided along
Old NC 86 for a distance 300 feet north of the Lafayette Drive/NW
Project Drive entrance to Interstate 40.
RZ Signalization should be required at the Hillsborough Place Parkway
Intersection and the Lafayette Drive/NW Project Drive Intersection on Old
NC 86.
R3 Right and Left turn lanes should be provided on NW Project Drive at the
Intersection with Old NC 86.
R4 A left turn lane should be provided on Hillsborough Place Parkway at the
Intersection with Old NC 86.
R5 Access points along Old NC 86 should be limited by platted non-
vehicular access line. The access drive directly north of Hillsborough
Place Parkway onto Old NC 86 should be controlled by a limited access
median opening (i.e., right in - right out and southbound left -in).
NC 86
R6 An improved four lane divided cross- section with turn lanes should be
provided along NC 86 for a distance 300 feet north and 300 feet south of
the Intersection of Hillsborough Place Parkway, and NC 86.
R7 A left turn lane should be provided on Hillsborough Place Parkway at the
Intersection with NC 86.
R8 Signalization should be required at the Hillsborough Place Parkway and
NC 86 Intersection.
gAcraig \cd- trans \10- 4 -99 \dg 1
CORBIN DOWNS
(continued)
INTERNAL
R9 Access points along Corbin Downs (CD) Parkway and NW project loop
road should be limited and located directly across from each other. Left
and right turn lanes should be considered at these intersections.
Rio A traffic light should be considered at the intersection of Corbin Downs
Parkway and the NW project loop road.
Rif Stubouts should be considered for the lot directly south of the proposed
Hotel and the undeveloped lot directly south of Site Drive.
R12 Also, another stubout should be considered east which could eventually
provide another connection to NC 86. (Use Fletcher Drive and new road
along northern perimeter.)
R13 Park and Ride lots should be indicated and potential Transit stops shown.
i
R14 General -Please see attached letter dated August 26, 1999 from North
Carolina Department of Transportation from Mr. Faulkner to T.J. Dyer.
Orange County concurs with their findings and strongly recommends the
information noted under the category "Other" on page 3.
COMMENTS
C1 The project does not have a center core to promote. a transit - oriented
development and to assist in a pedestrian friendly environment. Suggest
relocating multi- family land uses to a central area surrounded by
townhomes and single family. The central area could include transit stops
and village (neotraditional) greens.
CZ The application does not show if ownership is in place for the NW Project
Drive.
C3 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Parking Management
(PM) aim at getting the best use of existing transportation resources at
least cost.
C4 Other TSM strategies include: preferential parking for carpoolers;
promotions for transit, carpooling, biking, walking and flextime;
designation of Transportation Coordinators at employment sites; and
shuttle service to and from park -and -ride lots.
gAcraig \cd- trans \10- 4 -99 \dg 2
CORBIN DOWNS
(continued)
C5 Communities with spot congestion problems attributable to new
development should consider special permits, and developer agreements
secured by covenants. These instruments may involve less time
consuming review and consensus building with decision makers to gain
passage. They also may require only staff review and negotiations to
carry out. Developer agreements also are more appropriate for securing
specific physical facilities such as bike racks, transit turn outs or parking
areas devoted to, carpoolers.
2. SCHOOL - (DIRECT COUNTY SERVICES)
Rl Developer to purchase a 30 -acre feasible Middle School site that is in a
location acceptable to Orange County and the Orange County School
District. The site must have cost effective access to utilities and major .
transportation routes and be primarily free from environmental
encumbrances.
R2 Developer should agree to $200 above the existing Orange County School
District school impact fee at the time a building permit is. issued.
R3 The developer should complete an affected school capacity analysis over
the residential schedule of the project to determine potential over- capacity
situations and suggest and offer mitigation strategies.
C1 The school impact of the project does not address the full capital needs of
school construction and capacity. The developer should offer capital site
or building improvements for the middle school site in some form to
reduce the overall future costs.
3. BUILDING PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTIONS SERVICES
Ri The Town of Hillsborough and Orange County should sign a formal
agreement for services. Orange County Planning & Inspections
Department Building Inspections Division is responsible for the
enforcement of the NC Building Code in Hillsborough and additional staff
would be required for this project.
4. PARKS AND RECREATION - (DIRECT COUNTY SERVICE)
RI Orange County provides the majority of recreation opportunity within
Hillsborough. There would be an impact on programs and sport field
activities and the need for Active Park space.
gAcraig \cd- trans \104-99 \dg 3
CORBIN DOWNS
(continued)
R2 The active park location should be relocated to provide for community
access, amelioration from sports lighting on residential properties, and
shared working opportunities.
R3 An established standard of active parks and recreation acreage per 1000
population is 5 acres. Therefore, approximately 10 acres should be
dedicated.
5. EROSION CONTROL — (DIRECT COUNTY SERVICE)
Ri The Planning and Inspections Department, Erosion Control Division is
responsible for permitting and inspections. A project of this scale and use
should develop a high intensity erosion control program including full use
of phasing and BMP's.
R2 Additional personnel may be necessary.
R3 A phasing program should be developed to decrease the total amount of
unvegetated areas at any time.
6. PUBLIC TRANSIT - (DIRECT COUNTY SERVICE)
Ri The OPT would be impacted for the variety of uses that are anticipated;
senior citizens, apartment housing, hotel, industry, offices, retail
destinations, and the suggested development of a park and ride lot.
7. LANDFILL - (LOG DIRECT SERVICES)
Ri The construction phase would include a high amount of Construction and
Demolition material with later ongoing garbage generation and recycling
needs. Recycling Center area to be added to the site.
8. PHASING OF PROJECT
Ri The sequence of construction, building use type and infrastructure is
critical to the cost/benefit of the entire proposal. "
g: \craig \cd- trans \10- 4 -99 \dg 4
CORBIN DOWNS
(continued)
9. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (EDD/MTC)
Rl This development is within the County's Economic Development District
of the County's Land Use Element. The project is appropriately located
for non- residential development once adjacent local road improvements
are made to safely connect this project to Interstate I -40 and I -85. This
project would be the anchor of economic development efforts of the
County since it is a prime location. In that regard, the adherence of the
project to the adopted EDD design guidelines and the MTC (Major
Transportation Corridor) rules is paramount to ensure an excellent
precedent for, quality non - residential development in Hillsborough and the
County.
R2 Indications are present within the application, that aesthetics of the entry
feature, site plan concepts and landscaped streetscapes are important to the
developer. The County can assist in developing a prominent entry feature
to an EDD with great potential.
10. OPEN SPACE
Rl Specify percentage required overall and per phase, exclusive of setbacks,
buffers and pedestrian ways;
R2 Differentiate recreational and low- impact open space, and require a mix of
both;
R3 Protection plan for existing vegetaion, especially specimen trees and
significant forest stands;
R4 Can require commercial buildings to go up, not out;
R5 Require buffer along Old 86 by hotel where currently not required to
screen from roadway.
11. COMMUNITY VALUES
Ri Integrate affordable housing into this development, not on separate parcel
unless that can be served by water and sewer;
R2 Prohibit open burning of debris from site clearing as a health and
environmental issue.
R3 Study the impact on downtown Hillsborough.
g: \craig \cd- trans \104-99 \dg 5
CORBIN DOWNS
(continued)
12. TAX REVENUE
General - The project is estimated as revenue neutral at this point assuming full buildout
of projected square footage and assumed taxable values. Any decrease in revenue
variables would create a deficit county fiscal service cost situation.
Rl Developer and/or Town of Hillsborough should reevaluate the project
using county Tax Assessor's criteria. The estimates from the applicant of
propert3*uilding value seem high at this time and should be subject of
further review using comparable and market value vs. tax rate ratios.
C1 The projected property value at project completion is $239,109,467. The
chart below analyses the dwelling unit values, non- residential sq. ft. value
and the value per acre.
YEAR 3`
DWELLINGS $PER UNIT OR AC FAR
OR SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT.
60 $200,000 SF 22.6 $531,000 /AC
54 $140,000 TH 6.77 $1,116,700 /AC
100 $150,000 AL 10.6 $1,415,100 /AC
30 $120,000 R 5.0 _ $720,000 /AC
230 $66,700 MF 19.2 $788,600/AC
100,000 SF $70 SF OFFICE 10 $700,000 /AC .28
50,000 SF $100 SF RETAIL 7.17 $697,000/AC .16
200 $50,000 HOTEL/RM 5.0* $2,000,000 /AC
$70 SF OFFICE 3.0* $1,167,000 /AC .38
*YEAR 2
The projected values noted by the applicant should be considered with the following
caution;
a) The property values are the basis of summary/revenue benefit analysis tax
b) The values appear high for various uses and could. distort the expected
revenue amount.
c) The market values could be further reduced by taxable value assessment
which at times does not fully reflect market value.
d) The actual amount of building square footage is likely to be less after site
plan constraints.
g:\craig \cd- trans \10- 4 -99 \dg 6
■
TABLE 1. EXPENDITURES
Expenditures
1999 -00 Manager
Percentage
Per Capita @ 110,000
Per Capita @ 45,000
NOTE
Per Capita Per Capita Non-
Recommendation
Serv. Pop, Mix Resident
Community Maintenance Total
$ 1,139,006'
1.13
10.35
$25.31
$10.35
General Administration Total
$ 3,584,887
3.56
32.5
$79.66
$32.59
Taxation and Records Total
$ 2,305,096
2.29
20.6
$51.22
$20.96
Community Planning Total
$ 2,099,527
2.09
- $19.09
46 6
25 %'
$11.67
11.67
Human Service Total
$22,112,944-
21.98'
$201.93
$491.40
$201.03
Social Services Total
- $12,280,575
12.20
$111.64
$272.90
Health Total
$ 4,757,088
4.73
$43.25
$105.71
Other (Aging, Library,
$ 5,075,281
5.04
$46.14
$112.78
101YV
11.28.
P &R, etc.)
Public Safety Total
$ 8,992,764.
8.94
$81.75
$199.84
a
651Y91
$129.89
Public Works Total
$ 3,431,552
3.41
$31.20
$76.26
$76.26
Education Total
$36,580,779
36.35
$322.55
$812.91
$812.91
Non - Departmental Total
$20,374,947
20.25
$185.23
$452.78
40°/a'
$185.23
dal Expenditures
$100,621,562
100
$914.74
$2,236.03
$1,293.49
122.87
Resident Population
iderline = applicable service population
Type
NO. PPH
TOTAL
c share of county (im is somio«) wsts relates to building inspectim mvieaa,
Single Family
180 x 3.5 _
630
rdination with mgimv piing rd owmadc development a ndmd
'te«
Town house
91 x 2.5 =
228
ix Share of County (Rem 6 Somas) wsa refaces to partial Sheriff impacts, and wmpb;ts
MF Apts
'W X 2.0 =
920
S bnpacts.
Y. share of Courdyaondept costs males to padlid hnpads to outside egenoy fmrdina, debt service
Assisted Living
100 x 1.0 =
100
-Ws, w gvAde buildings, ao.):
Retirement
60 x 1.0 =
60
TOTAL
1,938
Y. Share of Countyfor the availability of day dm mviees such as library , brn, parr er tee
Subtotal Cost to provide Services to Resident Pop = (1,293.49 x 1,938)
_ $2,506,784.00
Non- Resident Population
Trips/Day
-
Employeest 4,632
9,264
Patrons 13,052
26,103
TOTAL 17,684
35,367
(179684+4)
= 4,421 x $122.87
_ $543,208.27
GT
$3,049,992.27
3d
wC2 C�cd
TABLE 2
REVIENU
1999 -00 Manager Recommendation Percentage
A.
Total Property Tax
$64,872,798 64.47
B.
Total Sales tax :
$13,948,795 13:86
C.
Total Licenses and permits
$ : 907,900 ...90
D.
Total intergovernmental
$11,677,669 11.61
E.
Total Charges Service
$ 4,938,837 4.91
F.
Total Miscellaneous
$ 4,275,503 4.25_
G.
Total Revenue
$100,621,502 100
$243,000,000
(Estimated Value of Project) "
.00917
(County Tax Rate
$ 2,228,310
A 64.47% Property Tax
479,206
B 13.86% Sales Tax
345.635
X 10% (Mix of C, D, E, F) Misc. Revenue
$ 3,053,15E
88.33% (Less than 100% Because all Revenue Sources
are not Completely applicable)
I
RaECEIVEL..
3
SEP 2 L I
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION C DEPT. OFTRANSPOpT.4 1G �
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS • itn D1111
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA�IT i • ==':
James B. Hunt Jr. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611- 5201 David McCoy
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 26, 1999
In reply refer to
File No. SC -99 -123
MEMORANDUM
TO: T.J. Dyer, P.E., District Engineer
(Attention: M. Venable)
FROM: G.C. Faulkner, Design Review Engineer
Congestion Management Section
SUBJECT: Proposed Hillsborough Assemblage Access onto NC 86, SR 1009
Orange County
Per your request, the Access Review Squad of the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch has
completed a preliminary review of the subject site. Based on our analysis of the site plan and the
submitted portion of the TIA performed by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. with consideration
to its impacts on the adjacent traffic facilities, we offer the following comments:
Background
SR 1006 (Old NC 86) is a two -lane major thoroughfare with a 1997 ADT value of 13,700
vehicles per day. NC 86 is a two -lane major thoroughfare, with a 1997 ADT of 11,500 vehicles
per day and a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. SR 1224 is a service road which connects
to Old NC 86 from the west approximately 1,400 feet north of the westbound ramp terminal of
the I-40 / Old NC 86 interchange.'
Proposed Development
The multi -use development is proposed to be located between NC 86 and Old NC 86, north of
I-40, and is proposed to include single - family homes, townhouses, apartments, a hotel, an
assisted living community, a day care facility, a fire station, and extensive retail and office
development. Requested access to the site is includes a full movement access connection onto
Old NC 86 opposite Lafayette Drive, a full movement access onto Old NC 86 between the I-40 /
Old NC 86 interchange and SR 1224, and a full movement access onto NC 86.
T.J. Dyer
August 26, 1999
Page 2
Thoroughfare Plan
The 1997 Transportation Plan for the Town of Hillsborough indicates the need for NC 86 and ;
Old NC 86 to be widened to multi -lane facilities within the project vicinity.
Trip Generation
Based on the methodology of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition), the proposed
development is expected to generate approximately 35,367 trips per average weekday. The
breakdown of entering and exiting traffic at peak hours is listed below.
observations/Recommendations
Given the magnitude of this development and its proximity to I40 and I -85, we recommend a
complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be performed which identifies current land use proposals
within the site, and addresses the capacity of the 1-40 / Old NC 86 interchange as it stands to be
affected by the proposed development. Given the limited information available addressing land
use, the location of the proposed driveway connections, and the lane geometry of these
connections, it should be noted that the following traffic related comments are preliminary.
Old NC 86 Access, Southern Drive
Given the high traffic volumes expected on Old NC 86 and the function of Old NC 86 as a
major north -south connector between 1-40 and the Town of Hillsborough, it appears a multi-
lane _lan_e divided type facility is appropriate for Old NC 86 in the vicinity of the project. In order
to provide full movement access onto Old NC 86 it will be necessary to comply-with the
current Median Crossover Guidelines (June, 1998), should a divided type facility be
implemented. With a 55 mile per hour speed limit posting, a minimum of 1,500 feet is
required between median openings; with a 45 mile per hour speed limit posting, a minimum .
of 1,000 feet is required between median openingi. This criterion should be considered when
determining the final location of the proposed driveway connection onto Old NC 86.
• We recommend the existing service road located approximately 1,400 feet north of the I -40 L
Old NC 86 interchange and the proposed driveway be aligned.
• Given the high traffic volumes associated with the site and its southernmost access
connection, a multilane facility should be constructed (as a minimum) between the southern
I-40 / Old NC 86 ramp terminal and the main development entrance.
Old NC 86 Access, Northern Drive
• We concur with the proposed location of the driveway located opposite Lafayette Drive.
• We recommend providing a northbound right -turn lane on Old NC 86 to remove turning
vehicles from the through movement.
• We concur with the proposed southbound left -turn lane on Old NC 86.
4
T.J. Dyer
August 26, 1999
Page 3
NC 86 Access
We concur with the proposed southbound right -tum lane and northbound left -tum lane at this
driveway.
Other
• The traffic information provided did not address any traffic impacts this development will
have on the critical I40 / Old NC 86 interchange area. We strongly recommend traffic
impacts to this interchange .be determined and addressed before any access connections to
this development are considered.
• We have concerns with the proposed new internal road connecting NC 86 to Old NC 86
through the site. This new facility would function as a major connector between these roads
and is expected to serve a significant volume of traffic not associated with the proposed
development. It appears from the current development sketch plan that this new road is
ro 0
p p sed as a two -lane divided facility with many closely spaced median breaks, which could
pose operational and safety problems. If the developer anticipates adding or petitioning for
addition to the State System, all roads should be designed and constructed in conformance
with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation design and construction
guidelines.
• We also have concerns with the impact this development will have on the I -85 / Old NC 86
interchange. Although there is considerable distance between this interchange and the
northernmost development driveway, much of the traffic entering and exiting the site is
expected to utilize the I -85 / Old NC 86 interchange. Consideration should be given to
including capacity analysis for this interchange as part of the recommended TIA.
Closing
In addition to the above recommendations, reference should also be made to the information
included in the General Recommendations Attachment. If we can provide further assistance:
please contact G.C. Faulkner or myself at 250-4151.
GCF/RWS/MAD:md
Attachment
cc: J.W. Watkins, P.E. (Attention: V.E. Barham)
J.F. Permar, P.E.
T.A. Peoples, P.E. (Attention: E.Y. Stafford P.E.)
T.M. Hopkins, P.E.