MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT:	Purefoy Drive Development – Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing Application (File No. 9870-54-7219)
DATE:	November 19, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 17, 2007 for the Purefoy Drive Special Use Permit Planned Development-Housing Application proposed to be located on the north side of Purefoy Drive, between Rogers Road and the Greene Tract.

KEY ISSUES

Several key issues were raised at the October 17, 2007 Public Hearing including: 1) Stormwater Management; 2) Street stub-out signage; 3) Speed limit on Purefoy Dr.; 4) Notification of annexation; and 5) Additional site plan maps and information.   

1. Stormater Issues:  During the Public Hearing the following issues associated with stormwater management were raised: a) Potential for flooding neighboring properties; b) Individual lot stormwater controls and swales to reduce the size of the Best Management Practice (BMP) facility; and c) Stormwater conveyed to culvert under Edgar Road.

1. Potential for flooding to neighboring properties:  An adjacent property owner expressed concern that the proposed development could result in increased stormwater runoff onto his property and potential flooding.  Another resident had previously voiced concerns about the proposed stormwater facility for the Purefoy Drive Subdivision.  Specifically, the citizen stated concerns over the size and location of the proposed BMP facility, the amount of runoff draining to it, and stormwater impacts on Edgar Street.

Comment:  Staff agrees with the response from the applicant’s engineer made during the Public Hearing that the pre- and post-development peak runoff rates and volumes associated with stormwater runoff experienced by the resident will remain approximately the same or less from present conditions.  There is no requirement that an applicant provide stormwater controls in the exact same location as the existing drainage pattern.  This site generally drains east to west and the applicant has proposed a drainage conveyance system, comprised of curb and gutter and a storm drainage system, that conveys runoff to the western portion of the site where a stormwater management structure is to be located.  For the Special Use Permit application, the applicant is required to provide pre-development and post-development hydrologic calculations and to identify the location(s) of stormwater management structure(s) that will be used to provide compliance with the water quality, peak rate, and volume requirements. 

The applicant has provided this information in as much detail as is required at this stage of the development review process.  Detailed stormwater design calculations and plans are submitted as part of the Final Plan Zoning Compliance Permit (ZCP) application. At that time, a detailed and comprehensive review of the calculations and designs will be conducted to ensure that they comply with the stormwater management requirements contained in the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance, the Town’s Design Manual, and applicable State criteria.

b. Individual lot stormwater controls and swales to reduce the size of the Best Management Practice (BMP) facility:  Several Council members questioned whether some level of stormwater management controls could be included on each lot in order to reduce the size of the BMP facility proposed for the northwest corner.  Others suggested diverting runoff to swales instead of toward the curb and gutter system.

Comment:  Excluding the three largest lots (Lots 7, 8, and 14), the average size of the remaining lots in the subdivision is 8,256 square feet.  After construction of a house, driveway, and sidewalk on each lot, we believe there is little area remaining to construct effective stormwater management controls. 

The applicant can help to improve the post-development condition by “disconnecting the impervious surfaces” on each lot to the degree possible, as indicated by the applicant’s engineer at the public hearing.  An example of this would be allowing the runoff from roof drains to flow, in a diffuse manner, over the lawn area instead of piping it directly to the drainage system.

Further, in accordance with the stormwater management requirements contained in Section 5.4 of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance, all constructed stormwater management facilities require the following:

• Deed recordation of an easement that encompasses the facility and reserves it from any development which would obstruct or constrict the effective management, control, and conveyance of stormwater, other than the approved design and operation functions.
• A maintenance covenant (“Operations and Maintenance Plan”), signed by the property owner and recorded by the County Register of Deeds, for the stormwater management facility(ies).
• Certified as-built plans, signed and sealed by a North Carolina-registered Professional Land Surveyor, showing building footprints, driveways, stormwater drainage/conveyance piping, stormwater management structures, and all other impervious surfaces. 
• Certification, signed and sealed by a North Carolina-registered Professional Engineer, that the stormwater management facility(ies) was/were constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

With engineered stormwater structures on each lot, the burden of these requirements and the responsibility for maintenance would be placed on each individual lot owner.  The applicant has proposed a stormwater plan approach that would manage the runoff from the entire development.  Maintenance of the stormwater management facility(ies) will become the responsibility of the homeowner’s association.  Given these factors, the subdivision-level stormwater management plan proposed by the applicant is the more practical, feasible, and sustainable method for the proposed development.

c. Stormwater conveyed to culvert under Edgar Road: A Council member noted there appears to be the perception of more runoff being conveyed to the Edgar Street culvert.

Comment:  Some of the new lots along proposed Road B on the eastern side of the development will drain south toward Purefoy Drive and then to the Edgar Street culvert, following the existing drainage pattern.  After the houses and road are constructed, there will be more runoff due to the increase in impervious area.  However, the applicant will have to demonstrate that this increase in runoff complies with the stormwater management water quality, peak rate, and volume requirements in accordance with the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance, the Town’s Design Manual, and any applicable State criteria.

In conclusion, the applicant has indicated that they will comply fully with the Town’s stormwater management requirements.  Staff anticipates that there may be adjustments made to the final stormwater plan in response to the staff’s review of the Final Plans ZCP submittal.

2. Street stub-out signage:  The Council asked the staff to return with a proposal for a program for Council’s consideration that would require the Town's involvement in maintaining certain stub-out road signage that have typically been installed and maintained by a homeowners association.

Comment:   The Engineering and Planning Departments are currently preparing a map identifying the location of signs informing neighbors of future connector roads (stub-out roads).  We anticipate returning to the Council with additional information on this program.

3. Speed limit on Purefoy Drive:    A citizen asked the Council if the Town would contact NCDOT to change the speed limit to 25 mph on Purefoy Drive.

Comment:  Currently, there are no posted speed limit signs on Purefoy Drive.  By State law, the current speed limit on Purefoy Drive is 35 mph.  In response to this request, NCDOT staff will investigate the request for decreasing the speed limit to 25 mph.  We have asked NDCOT to report back to Town staff.  Once we receive this report from NCDOT, we will forward the information to the individual who requested the reduced speed limit.

4. Notification of annexation:  A Council member asked the staff to consider a notification process whereby a prospective buyer of land would be informed that a property is subject to annexation by the Town.

Comment:  Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring the applicant to provide language on the recorded plat and homeowners association document notifying potential property owners of the possibility of annexation by the Town.

5. Copies of site plan maps and citizen handout:   A Council member requested that the following maps and information be provided: a) a site plan clearly outlining the boundary of the proposed Special Use Permit; b) Town of Chapel Hill stream determination area map; 3) a readable copy of the handout from Ms. Jones; and 4) stormwater drainage plans from the applicant’s PowerPoint presentation.

Comment:  These items are attached to the memorandum.   A copy of the Executive Summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis is also attached to the memorandum as this item was inadvertently missing from the October 17^th Public Hearing attachments.

6. Protecting trees in two proposed tot lots:   A Council member asked the applicant to consider designing the two tot-lots around the significant trees in order to minimize damage to the tree’s root zones.

Comment: The applicant has agreed to develop the areas, between lots 27 and 28, and north of lot 41, in a manner that will minimize damage to the tree’s root system.  The applicant does not plan to develop these lots as tot-lots.  We have included a stipulation in Revised Resolution A that requires the Town Manager to approve the recreational use of these lots, in a manner that minimizes damaging the root systems of the significant trees.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS

The applicant is requesting that the Council modify the landscape bufferyard requirements.  The staff is also recommending that the Council modify the setback regulations.  Each is discussed below:

1. Landscape Bufferyards:  Because the applicant is proposing a Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing, the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a 10-foot wide Type “B” buffer around the perimeter of the site.  As proposed, 45 of the 51 lots are adjacent to the perimeter of the site.  The applicant is proposing to provide the required bufferyard along 15 of the 45 perimeter lots.  The applicant is proposing 30 of the perimeter lots without bufferyards.

Comment: We recommend this modification of the regulations.  We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case.  We believe it is reasonable to reduce the required buffer standards for this application.  The applicant is proposing buffers adjacent to a lot with an existing residential development.  If this application was as a conventional subdivision, no perimeter buffer would be required.  We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is providing 51 affordable single-family dwelling units.

2. Interior Setbacks: Because staff is recommending that the proposed bufferyard on 15 of the 51 lots be deeded as common area owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, the applicant is concerned that the reduction in lot depth, created by the dedication of 10 feet to the Homeowners Association, would negatively impact the available building area. Recognizing the applicant’s concern, we recommend that the Council modify the setback regulations and reduce the interior setback, adjacent to the bufferyard, from 14-feet to 4-feet.

Comment:  We recommend this modification of the regulations.  We believe that the Council could modify the setback regulations in this case. Although the modification would reduce the setback adjacent to the buffers from 14-feet to 4-feet, the actually impact would not result in moving the building closer to the adjoining properties.  The 10-foot wide common area would effectively create an additional setback width of 10 feet and thereby maintain the 14-foot setback from the outer boundary of the development.  We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is providing 51 affordable single-family dwelling units.

The Town Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.  We believe that the Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. The Council may deny one or more of the proposed modifications from regulations at its discretion. If the Council chooses to deny a request for modification to regulations, the applicant’s alternatives are to comply with regulations or request a variance from regulations.

  EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.  We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Finding #1:  That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“The subdivision…will further extend sanitary sewer from its current terminus in Rush Hollow…the extension will serve current low-income residents of the community and result in many more opportunities for quality, affordable housing in Chapel Hill.”

[Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition:  During the Public Hearing, the Council received information expressing concern about the storm water management system for this proposed development.  For additional information on this issue, please refer to the Key Issue section of this memorandum.

Finding #2:  That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“The proposed subdivision will comply with the required regulations and standards…” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition:  During the Public Hearing, the Council received information expressing concern about the storm water management system for this proposed development.  For additional information on this issue, please refer to the Key Issue section of this memorandum.

For discussion on the applicant’s proposed modification to regulations, please refer to the Modifications to Regulations section in this memorandum.

Finding #3:  That the use would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.

“The development will have a positive impact on contiguous properties and on the surrounding Rogers Road neighborhood.  The appraised value of recently built Habitat for Humanity homes in the Rogers Road community are generally higher than the current tax value of adjacent and nearby homes.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: During the Public Hearing, the Council received information expressing concern about the storm water management system for this proposed development.  For additional information on this issue, please refer to the Key Issue section of this memorandum.

Finding #4:  That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.

“This project will further the goal of  the Comprehensive Plan to “Increase the availability of quality housing affordable to all citizens who live and work in Chapel Hill.”

[Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.  Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the four findings.

SUMMARY

We have attached a revised resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application.  With these conditions, we believe that the Council could make the findings regarding health, safety and general welfare, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.  The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations of the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and the Parks and Recreation Commission are include in the October 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum.  A copy of the October 17, 2007 memorandum may be viewed at the following web page link:   http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2007/10/17/1/

Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on October 10, 2007, and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A as attached to the staff report dated October 10, 2007, with the following changes:

• Rogers Road School Bus Stop:  That the staff, NCDOT and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools study the school bus stop, near the Rogers Rd/Purefoy Dr, to determine if the stop should be relocated.

Comment:  In response to a concern expressed by a citizen, the Commission recommended a stipulation concerning the location of a school bus stop at Rogers Road and Purefoy Drive.  Town staff is actively investigating the matter and will contact NCDOT and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools to discuss this issue.  In this case we do not believe that a stipulation is required for staff to begin to study this matter.  Resolution A does not include this recommendation.

• Bus Stop and Shelter: That the $6,500 payment-in-lieu shall be refunded within 5 years if not utilized to provide a bus stop, pad, shelter and associated amenities.

Comment:   Transit service is currently not provided to this area.  As the community develops, we anticipate that the demands for transit service will increase and a bus stop/shelter will be necessary.  We believe that before refunding the payment, as recommended by the Community Design Commission, that a portion of the proposed development (25 homes) should be occupied for a period of five years. We recommend that the transit impacts of this development be analyzed after a percentage of the homes have been constructed and occupied.  Therefore, Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that, upon request by the applicant, the payment shall be returned if the improvements are not completed within 5 years after the issuance of the 25^th certificate of occupancy.

• Duke Energy Easement Vegetation: Require that the homeowner’s association be responsible for maintaining the vegetative cover within the Duke Energy easement in a manner that minimizes the use of herbicides by Duke Energy.

Comment: Questions were raised regarding the use of herbicides by Duke Energy within the power easement and the potential impact on the proposed stormwater facility (which includes vegetative plantings) and on the proposed neighborhood recreation areas. We do not believe that a condition in the Special Use Permit can supersede Duke Energy’s right to maintain their utility easements; therefore this recommendation has not been incorporated in Revised Resolution A.

• Reduced setbacks adjacent to Homeowner’s Association bufferyard:  That if the 10-foot wide landscape bufferyards are platted as homeowner’s association common area, that the Council modify the regulation to permit a reduce backyard setback from 14 feet to 4 feet.

Comment: Revised Resolution A provides for a modification of the setbacks adjacent to the bufferyards.  For additional information, please refer to the section on Modifications to the Regulations in this memorandum. 

• Purefoy Drive Improvement: Clarify that the construction of a sidewalk along Purefoy Dr., between the east and west property line, is only required on the north side of the road.

Comment:  Revised Resolution A includes this recommendation. 

• Internal Connector Streets: Adjust the back of curb to back of curb width from 22-feet to 27-feet

Comment:  Revised Resolution A includes this recommendation.

• Sight Distance Triangle: Add a stipulation requiring that the final plan and final plat include sight distance triangles at the Purefoy Dr/Edgar Rd intersection.

Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated in Revised Resolution A.

• Prohibit Restriction on Solar Collectors: Add a stipulation prohibiting a neighborhood or homeowners association from placing restrictions on solar collectors, including clothes lines.

Comment:  This stipulation has been incorporated in Revised Resolution A.

All of the above recommendations are discussed in greater detail in the October 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum [http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2007/10/17/1/]. The Summary of Community Design Commission Action is attached to this memorandum.

Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A.  Since the Public Hearing, the following revisions have been incorporated into Revised Resolution A:

• Notification of Annexation: That the final plat and Homeowners Association document includes a statement that the property located within the Purefoy Drive development is subject to annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill.

• Minimal disturbance to trees in two open space lots:  That in order to minimize damaging the root systems to the significant trees located between lots 27 and 28, and north of lot 41, the Town Manager shall review and approve the type of recreational activity for this area.

• Stormwater Stipulations: Revised Resolution A includes changes to the language of stormwater stipulations.  These changes are noted with bold text (new language) and strike through text (deleted language) in the revised resolution.  These edits are minor and do not change the intent of the stipulations initially presented to the Council during the October 17, 2007 Public Hearing.

Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, we believe that the proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Revised Resolution A and proposed modification to regulations would comply with the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.

Revised Resolution A would approve the application with conditions. Resolution B would deny the application.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Community Design Commission Summary Comments (p. 24).
2. Special Use Permit boundary map - provided by the applicant (p. 25).
3. Stream determination map - provided by the Town of Chapel Hill (p.  26).
4. Stormwater PowerPoint exhibits - provided by the applicant (p. 28).
• [Existing Water Flow]
• [Proposed Water Flow]
5. Ms. Jones handout (p. 30).
6. Traffic Impact Analysis Executive Summary (begin new page 1).

PUREFOY DRIVE DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING

Differences between Recommendations

ISSUES	Staff Revised	Planning Board, Community  Design Comm	Bicycle & Ped Adv Board	Transportation, Parks & Rec
Purefoy Dr improvements	Continuous sidewalk on north side of Purefoy Dr			*
Internal connector streets	27 feet from back of curb to back of curb			*
Sight distance triangles	At Purefoy/Edgar Rd intersection		*	*
Review  Rogers Rd school bus stop location with CH-C school	Yes		*	*
Permit solar collectors and clothes lines	Yes – allowed in HOA docs		*	*
Control use of herbicides by Duke Energy	No – can not control utility activity in easement	Yes - require HOA to maintain easement	*	*
Time limit on bus stop  payment-in-lieu	Return payment within 5 years of 25 certificate of occupancy	Return payment within 5 years	*	*
Setbacks along landscape buffer	Modify regulation to reduce setback from 14’to 4’		*	*
Notification of annexation	Yes	*
Protect trees in open space lots	Yes

* not discussed at meeting