Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-05-1999 - 9hORANGE COUNTY. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 5, 1999 i Action Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Corbin Downs DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): None INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, ext 2585 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham . 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss BOCC recommendations regarding the proposed Corbin Downs development. BACKGROUND: The BOCC is slated to discuss the Corbin Downs project during its September 30 work session. Additional materials related to this topic for the October 5 meeting will be developed following that work session. FINANCIAL IMPACT: To be determined. RECOMMENDATION(S): To be determined. 10f05f1999 @4:08 9196443002 OR. CTY. PLANNING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD QF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date; October 5, 1999 PAGE 02f14 1 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: CORBIN DOWNS IMPACT REPORT DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENTS}: 1. Letter to the Town of Hillsborough 2. Corbin Downs Impact Report PUBLIC HEARING: {YIN) No INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 TELEPHQNE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4509 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336}22T-2031 PURPOSE: To forward letter and recommendations to the Town of Hillsborough regarding Corbin bowns. BACKC3ROUND: As a follow-up to the September 8, 1999, Joint Public Hearing and the September 34, 1999, Board of County Commissioners work sessions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: A preliminary fiscal impact statistical report is attached. The tables note expenditures (Table 1) and revenues (Table 2)_ RECOMMENDATION{S}: To receive as a report and forward letter to the Town of Hillsborough. 10f05f1999 04:0$ 9196443002 OR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 03f14 ORANGE COUN~~'" PLANNE\TG DEEARTMENT 3061 REVEL ROAD HILLSBOROUGH,1vORTH CARQL~NA 27278 September 30, 1999 Mayor Horace Johnsozt p.0. Bax 429 Hillsborough, NC 27278 lte: Corbin Downs Dear Mayor: ~~~nR er e ~i Y ~ a u w~ r t~sc~~ P ~- O The Board of County Commissioners thanks you and your council for the opportunity to hear fram your staff anal the developer regarding the proposed Corbin Dawns development. The level of cooperation regarding the planning and impact of this project is sincerely appreciated. At the September 8, 1999 joint public hearing all participants offered some important and eonstzuctive input concerning the impact of the project. The Board of County Commissioners and our staff continued reseazch and reviewed additional material on Corbin Downs at a special work session on September 34, 1999, Based on information received at the meeting and subsequent material from N.C. Departxxi.ent of Transportation, Orange County Planning staff has continued their atzalysis of the project as it zelates 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 S, 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 g:ScraiglhJohnson110-5-99k1g 10!05/1999 04:08 9196443002 OR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 04/14 CURBIN ~QWNS Note: R = Recozxxcxxendation C =Comment RECQMMENDA.~'~ONS l.. 'TRANSP0~2TA'x'TON 'flee timing of these improvements should be noted ixl the Development Order. OLD NC 86 Rl A four lane divided cross-section with turn lanes should be provided along Old NC $6 for a distance 300 feet north of the Lafayette Dxive/N W Project Drive ezttrance to Interstate 40. R2 Signalization should be required at the Hillsborough Place Parkway Intersection and the Lafayette DrivelNW Project Drive Intersection an Old NC 86. R3 Right and left turn lanes should be provided on NW Project Drive at the Intersection with Old NC 86. Ra A left turn lane should be provided on Hillsborough Place Parkway at the Intersection with (}ld NC 86. RS Access points along Qld NC 86 should be limited by a platted non- vehicular access line. The access drive directly north of Hillsborough Flare Parkway onto Old NC 86 should be controlled by a limited access median opening (i.e., right irr -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 fox a distance 300 feet north and 300 feet south of the Intersection of Hillsborough Place Parkway and NC 86. R~ A left turn lane should be provided on Hillsboxough Place Parkway at the Intersection with NC $6. R$ Signalizaxion should be required at the Hillsborough Place Parkway and NC $6 Intersection. g:\craiglcd-trans110-4-99~dg 101@511999 ®4:08 9196443002 QR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE @5/14 COR,BIN DOWNS (continued) l[NTERNAL R9 Access points along Corbin Downs (CD) Parkway and NW project loop road should be limited and located directly across frozxt each other. Left and right turn lanes should be considered at these intezsections. Rxp A traffic light should be considered at the intezsection of Corbin Downs Parkway and the NW project loop road. R, ~ Stubouts should be considered for the lot directly south of the proposed Hotel and the undeveloped lot directly south o£ Site Drive. R12 Also, anothez stubout should be considered east which could eventually provide another coxu~ection to NC 86. (Use Pletcher Drive and new zvad along northern perimeter.) R~3 Park and Ride lots should be indicated and potential Tzansit stops shown. Rta Genexal -Please see attached letter dated August 26, 1999 from North Carolina Department o£Txansportation from Mr. Faulkner to T.J. Dyer. Orange County concurs with their ftndings and strongly zecozz~ends the information noted under the category "Other" vo. page 3. COM1VxEN'~'S C~ The project does not have a center core to promote a txausit-oziezxted development axtd to assist in a pedestrian friendly environment. Suggest relocating multi-family land uses to a central area surrounded by towzthozxtes and single family. The central area could include transit stops and village (neotraditivnal) greens. C2 The application does not show i£ownership is in place £ax the NW Project Drive. C3 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Parking Managezaaent (FM) aim at getting the best use of existing transportation resources at least cost. Ca Other TSM strategies include: preferential parl~ing £or carpooIers; prozx~.otions for transit, carpooling, biking, walking and flextime; designation v£ Transportation Coozdix~ators at employment sites; and shuttle sezvice to and from pazk-and-tide lots. g:\craig\cd-trans110.4-99~dg 2 10f05f1999 04:08 9196443002 OR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 06/14 CORBIN DOWNS (coptizrued) Cs Communities with spot congestion pzoblems attributable to new development should consider special permits, and developer agreements secured by covenants. These instruments may involve less tune 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 mote appropriate for securing specific physical facilities such as bike racks, transit turn outs or parking areas devoted to carpoolers. Z. SCHOOL - (DIRECT COUNTY SERVICES) R~ Developer to purchase a 30-acre feasible Middle School site that is in a location acceptable to Orange County anal 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 ezcisting Orange County School District school impact fee at the tune a building permit is issued. R3 The developer should complete an affected school capacity analysis aver the residential schedule of the project to determine potential over-capacity situations and suggest azzd offer mitigation strategies- Ca 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 Borne form to reduce the overall future costs. 3. BUILDING PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTIONS SERVICES R~ 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. PAINS AND RECREATION - (IaIRECT COUNTY SERVICE) R~ Oran;ge County provides the majority of recreation opportunity within Hillsborough. There would be an immpact on programs anal sport field activities and the need far Active Park space. g:lcraiglcd-trans110-4-99~dg 10f05f1999 04:08 9196443002 OR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 07f14 CO~BIN DOWNS (continued) Ra The active park location should be relocated to provide for community access, amelioration from sports lighting on residential properkies, and shared working opportunities. R3 An established standard of active parks and recreation acreage per 1004 population is 5 acres. Therefore, approximately 10 acres should be dedicated. 5. ERASION CONTROL - (DIRECT COUNTY SERVICE) R1 The Plazuiing and Inspections Department, Erosion Control Division is responsible for permitting and inspections. A project of this scale -and use should develop a high itatensity erosion control program including full use of phasing and BMP's. ZZ,2 Additional persoztnel may be necessary. R3 A phasing prograzaa should be developed to decrease the total- amount of unvegetated areas at any one time. 6. PUBLIC ~'~:A-NSIT' - (DIRECT COUNTX SERVICE) Ri The QPT 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 pazk and ride lot. 7. LANDFILL - (LOG IJIItECT SERVICES) R~ The construction phase would include a high amount of Construction and Demolition t~-aterial with later ongoing garbage generation and recycling needs. Recycling Center area to be added to the site. $. PHASING OF PROTECT 12.1 The sequence o!f construction, buildzng use type and infrastructure is critical to the cost(benefit of the entire proposal. g:lcraig\cd-txan~s~ I Oy4-99\dg 1@f05f1999 @4:@8 9196443@@2 OR. GTY. PLANNING PAGE @8f 14 C~RB~N DOWNS (continued} 9. ECONOMIC DEVEI,,OPMENT - (EDDIMTC) 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. 'his project would be the anchor of ecozzomic developzx~ent 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 fax quality non-residemial development in Hallsboxough and the County. R2 Indications are present within the application, that aesthetics of the entry feature, site plan concepts and landscaped streetseapes are important to the developer. The County can assist in developing a prominent entry feature to an EDD with great potential. 10. OPEN SPACE Ri Specify percentage required overall and per phase, exclusive of setbacks, buffers and pedestrian ways; Rz Differentiate recreational and low-impact open space, and require a mix of both; R3 Protection plan for existing vegetaion, especially specimen trees and sigxtihcant forest stands; Ito Can require cormzzzexcial buildings to go up, not out; Rs Require buffer along Qld 86 by hotel where currently not required to screen from roadway. I1. COMMUNITY VALUES Ri Integrate affordable housiatg into this development, not on separate parcel unless that can be served by water arld sewer; Rz Prohibit open burxiing of debris from site clearing as a health and environmental issue. R3 Study the impact on downtown Hillsborough. g:\craiglcd-transll U-4-991dg 10f05/1999 04:08 9196443002 OR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 09f14 CORBIN nowNs (continued) 1.2. TAX REVENUE Genexal -The project is estimated as revenue neutral at this paiwt assuming full buildvut of projected square footage and assuzx~ed taxable values. Any decrease in revenue vaziables would create a de~.cit county fiscal service cast situation. R~ Developer and/or Town of Hillsborough should reevaluate the project using county Tax Assessor's criteria. The esti~onates from the applicant of property/building value seem. high at this tirzte 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. Tlae chart below analyses the dwelling uxtit values, non-residential scl. ft. value and the value per acre. YEAR 3 DWELLINGS SPEIt UNIT OR AG FAR UR SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. 60 $2oo,aoo SF 22.6 $s31,0ooJAc s4 $140,000 TH 6.77 $1,116,700/AC 100 $150,000 AL 10.6 $1,415,100/AC 30 $120,OOOIt. 5.0 $720,000/AC 230 $65,700 MF 19.2 $788,6041AC 100,000 SF $70 SF OFFICE 10 $700,000/AC .28 50,000 SF $100 SF RETAIL 7.17 $697,000JAC .16 200 $60,000 HOTELJRiVI s.0* $2,000,000/AC $70 SF OFFICE 3.0* $1,167,OOOlAC .38 *XEAR 2 The projected values noted by the applicant should be considered with the following caution,; a} The property values are the basis of summaryJxevenue 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 squaze footage is likely to be less after site plan constraints. g:lcraiglcd-tzans\10-4-99~dg 6 1. Community Maintenance Total 2. General Adrainistrasion Total 3. Taxation and Records Total 4. Cornrnunity Planning Tool 5. Nurnan Service Total Social Services Total Health Total Othef {Aging, Iabrary, PBcR, etc.) 5. Public Safety Total 7. Public WorlCS Total 8. Educaition Total 9. Non-Departmental Total Total Expenditures Expenditures ' 1999-00 Manager Percentage Per Capita ~ 110,004 Per Capita Q 4S,000 NOTE Per Capita Reconomendatioa ' 5erv. Pop. Mix $ 1,139,006 I.13 14 $25.31 $I0 35 S 3,584,887 3.56 532.59 $79.6b . $32 59 S 2,305,096 2.29 0. b $51.22 . $20 96 S2,099,527 2.09 $19.09 4.66 25"/,' . $11.67 522,112,944 21.98' Ol. 3 $491.40 $201.03 $12,280,575 12.20 S 111.64 5272.90 $ 4,757,088 4.73 $43.25 $105.71 $ 5,075,281 5.04 S46.14 ~ $112.78 10°/,~ $ 8,992.764 8.94 $81.75 99.84 65°/d $129.89 $ 3,431,552 3.41 $31.20 $76.26 576 26 $36,580,779 36.35 $322.55 $812.91 . $812 91 $20,374,947 20.25 18 3 $452.78 40°14 $185.23 $100,621,502 100 $914.74 $2,236.03 51,293.49 Realdent Pepulat5ion Type NO. PPH TOTAL. Underline=applicable service population ti?Sfi Share o(Gow~ty tieamL swieeo) aooe~eelso eo bodldiu~ impeeNoa aerviea, mondoualon witlf n~ionalkangiurttlfbe PlmniaS and seoamode @cabpaient auoaieEeA aerv6uct '~sSSS shoe of C:aen~ ¢mm s setvl°se) ooeO raYla b ytgl s6a~smy.N.,na ooru~lo0e ix(s ~. '-~G share e(Gouat7 °cadept o°+a edaroe lap W at ioepaero m oehGde sgety Sodine,dsDt servlea (ao6oa6, ooontyNideAuitdl~t,e~e.) ~-lost share olCaanty for rhle avaifolipry of nay (iae x~niaea sow r library > bm, pr(o k gee Single Family 180 x 3.5 630 Town house 91 x 2.5 = 228 ~ Alns ~~ ~ x 2.0 920 Assisted Living 100 x 1.0 = 100 Retirement 60 x 1.0 = 60 TOTAL, 1,938 SubWtal Cast to provide Services to Resident Pop = (],,293.44 x 1,938) Non-Rexident Population Trips/Day Employees` 4,632 9,264 Patrons 13,052 26,103 TOTAL 17,684 35,367 {17,bE4 ~ 4) = 4,421 Per Capita Non- Itesident 11.6? >Z~ 99.92 122.87 _$2,506,784.00 x $122.87 $543,208.27 GT $3,049,992.27 10/05/1999 04:08 9196443002 OR. CTY. PLANNING TABLE REVENUE I999-00 Maaager Recommendation Percentage A. Total Property Tax $64,872,798 64 47 8. Total Sales tax $13,948,795 . 13 86 C. Total Licenses and permits $ . gQ7,400 . 90 D. Total. intergovernmental $11 677 669 1 I 61 E. Total Charges Service $ 4,938 837 . 4 91 F. Total Miscellaneous $ 4,275,503 . 4 25 G. Total Revenue $100,621,502 . 1Q0 PA $243,000,000 (Estimated Value of Project) .00917 (County Tax Raie) $ 2,22$,310 A 64.47% prnperty Tax 479,206 B 13.86% Sales Tax 345.b35 X 10% {Mix of C, D, E, F) Misc. Revenue $ 3,053,151 88.33% (Less than 100% Because all Revenue Sources are not Completely applicable) 10i05f1999 @4:08 9196443002 t]R. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 12f14 f o ~ ~~~ ~..--._ ~. _. s SEP 2 ~9° ~-~~~, ~ STATE Ot+ NORTkI CAROLINA ~ ~' ~~~ ~ TRAN.SPORf~~lO>i DlV1Si4i~ OF HIGHWAYS ~ 1in ~ ~~~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA~~ 1 ~ ~'°~:"_~:s -. .~. Jaynes B. Hunt Jr. ~.o. Box zszat, RALEIGH, tv.c. 27b1 t-5201 David McCoy CiaVERNOR SECRETARY August 26, 1999 MEMORANDUM In reply refer to File No. SC-99-123 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 Stanch has corripleted a preliminary review of the subject site. Based an our analysis of the site plan and the submitted portion of the TIA performed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. w-th consideration to its impacts on the adjacent traffic facilities, we offer the following cana.ments: Background SR 1006 (Old NC 8b) is a two-lane major thoroughfare with a 1997 ADT value of 1 x,700 vehicles per day. NC $6 is a two-lane major thoroughfare, with a 1947 ADT of 11,500 vehicles per day and a posted speed limit of 45 miles per Dour. SR 1224 is a service road which connects to Old NC 86 from the west approximately 1,400 feet north of the westbound rarzzp terminal of the I-40 t Old NC 86 interchange. Proposed Development The multi-use development is proposed to be located between NC 8t5 anal Old NC 86, north of I-40, and is proposed to include single-family homes, towtaltouses, 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 Odd NC 86 opposite Lafayette Drive, a full movement access onto Old NC 8d between the I"40 / Old NC 86 interchange and SR 1224, and a full movement access onto NC 86. 10!05!1999 04:08 9196443002 DR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 13!14 T.J. Dyer August 26, 1999 Page 2 Thoroughfare Pign The 1997 Transportation Flan for the Town of Hillsborough indicates the zteed for NC $6 and Old NC $6 to be widened to multi-lane facilities within the project vicinity. Trip Generation Based on the methodology of the ITE Trip Generation Manual {6th i;dition), the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 35,36? trips per average weekday. The breakdown of entering and exiting traffic at peak hours is listed below. PEAK HOUR ENTER E.X,j1T .~~ , A.M 1,450 835 PM 1,SZ0 2.008 ObservationslReeommendatio~as Given the rnafznitude of this development anal its proximity to I-40 and l-$5, 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 I-40 I 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 caztnections, and the lane geometry of these connections, it should be noted that the following traffic related eonnxnents are preliminary. Old NC 86 Access. Southern Drive Given, the high traffic volumes expected on Old NC 86 and the function of Old NC $6 as a major north-south connector between I-40 and the Town of Hillsborough, it appears a multi- lane divided t ~~ _ _ ype.facility is appropriate for Old NC 86 in the vicinity of the project. In order to provide ~fuIl moveizaent access onto Oid NC 86 it will be necessary to eompIy with the current t1~Iedian Crossover Guidelines {June, 1998}, should a divided type facility be implemented. With a 55 mile per hoax speed limit postine, a minimum of 1,500 feet is required between median openings; with a 45 mile per hour speed limit pasting, a minimum of 1,000 feet is required between median openings. This criterion should be considered when determining the final location of the proposed driveway connection onto OId NC 8b. • We recommend the existing service road Located approximately 1,400 feet north of the I-~0 / 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 rzainimum) betweexx the southern I-40 !Old NC 86 ramp terminal and the main development entrance. OId 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 renaot-e turning vehicles from the through ctzavement. • We concur with the proposed Southbound left-turn lane on Old NC 86. 10!05!1999 04:08 9196443002 DR. CTY. PLANNING PAGE 14/14 T.J. Dyer August 26, 1999 Page 3 NC 86 Access We concur with the proposed southbound right-turn lane and northbound lefr-turn lane at this driveway. Other • The traffic information provided did rat address any traffic impacts this development will have on the critical 1-40 /Old NC 8b 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 8b to Old NC 8b 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 proposed as a two-lane divided facility with many closely spaced median breaks, which could pose operational and safety problems. If the developer anticipates addins~ or petitioning? for addition to the State System, all roads should be designed and constructed in conformance with, the eurzent 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 8b 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 1-85 !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 25~-41ST . CrCFlRWSlMAD: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.