AGENDA #7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Bradley Green Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
(File No. 7.17..21)
DATE: January 9, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Bradley Green Subdivision Public Hearing from November 21, 2005, regarding a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 7.0 acres into 8 lots. Adoption of Resolutions A, B, C, D, or E would approve a Preliminary Plat application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution F would deny the request.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
Cover Memorandum: Provides background information on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action.
Attachments: Includes comments on issues raised during the October 19 Public Hearing, an area map, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2005, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 7.0 acres into 8 lots. On November 21, 2005 the Council agreed to continue the Public Hearing to January 9, 2006 to allow additional time for the staff and the applicant to reach an agreement regarding an affordable housing payment-in-lieu.
PROCESS
This is an application for Preliminary Plat approval. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Preliminary Plat application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulation of the Land Use Management Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on October 19 we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.
We note that review of subdivision proposals differs from review of Special Use Permits in that the question of compliance with regulations and standards is the basis for approval or denial, rather than the four findings of fact listed in Section 4.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. However, the Council’s review and action on a subdivision is quasi-judicial, with sworn testimony and evidence entered into the record.
The standard of review and approval of a Preliminary Plat application involves comparing the application with the regulations and standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The review typically focuses on vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, traffic impact, public improvements, lot standards, and recreation area.
Information regarding this application was presented at the October 19 Public Hearing. The Land Use Management Ordinance directs that if, after consideration of the information, the Council decides that the application meets all the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements, the application must be approved. If the Council decides that the application does not meet all the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements, the application accordingly must be denied.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
Evaluation of this application centers on compliance with the subdivision regulations and standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. We have attached a checklist of the Town’s subdivision regulations (see Attachment 2 of attached Public Hearing Memorandum). The checklist indicates which of the Town’s regulations are satisfied by the applicant’s proposal, and recommended conditions.
The Council may find that the proposal meets the subdivision regulations and other pertinent Town regulations, or may find that the proposal does not meet the regulations.
KEY ISSUES
We believe that the key issues raised during the October 19 Public Hearing focused on 1) Housing Floor Area Restrictions; 2) Improvements to Ginger Road; 3) Construction Traffic Management; 4) Traffic Calming; 5) Stormwater Detention Ponds; and 6) Pedestrian Connectivity to Ginger Road. We offer additional information on these issues below.
1. Housing Floor Area Restrictions: The Ordinance requires major subdivisions, with five or more lots, to provide floor area restricted dwelling units. Floor area restrictions require that 25 percent of the lots contain dwelling units with no greater than 1,350 square feet of floor area for the 30 months following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Ordinance also provides two alternatives to the floor area restrictions: Provision of affordable housing or provision of a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable dwelling units in the subdivision.
Prior to the October 19 Public Hearing the developer offered to provide a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing instead of complying with the floor area restrictions. The applicant offered to satisfy a portion of the payment-in-lieu with an in-kind payment associated with a proposal to pave Ginger Road and a proposal to provide gravity sanitary sewer service to the Habitat for Humanity property to the north.
The applicant’s proposal to provide a payment-in-kind does not satisfy the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements. The Land Use Management Ordinance does not offer in-kind payments as an alternative to the floor area restriction requirement. Subsequently, at the October 19 Public Hearing, the applicant proposed to meet the Town’s housing floor area restrictions by providing two lots with units containing no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area each. The application before the Council tonight continues to propose two floor area restricted lots.
During the Public Hearing, several Council Members stated that they were not in favor of size restricted houses on this property and would prefer some type of payment-in-lieu. In response to a comment by the Town Attorney that the applicant’s proposal to provide a payment-in-kind is not an option available under the current Ordinance, the Council directed staff to meet with the applicant and representative for Habitat for Humanity to develop an agreement or contract to examine how the proposed payment-in-kind associated with the sewer and roadway improvements could happen.
During the last several weeks, Town staff, the applicant, and representatives from the adjoining property met on a number of occasions and discussed the issue. As the result of those meetings the applicant has offered three proposals. Each is described below.
A. Applicant’s Proposal: Tonight’s Application
The application before the Council tonight proposes two lots with no more that 1,350 square feet of floor area. This proposal fulfills the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Tonight’s application also includes a proposal by the applicant to provide gravity sanitary sewer service to the Habitat for Humanity property to the north. The construction of a sanitary sewer line to the Habitat property at a depth sufficient avoid a sewer pump station is an infrastructure improvement beyond what is required to serve the proposed subdivision, however the applicant has voluntarily agreed to provide this improvement and comply with the housing floor area restrictions on two lots.
Comment: Tonight’s proposal by the applicant fulfills the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance as it pertains to the housing floor area restrictions. Resolution A, the Manager’s Recommendation, stipulates two floor area restricted dwelling units. Resolution A also includes a stipulation requiring that the applicant provide gravity sanitary sewer service to the Habitat for Humanity property, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Applicant’s Proposal: Affordable Housing
In response to the Council’s discussion regarding acceptance of the applicant’s proposal for an affordable housing payment-in-kind, and in light of the Town Attorney’s comment that a payment-in-kind is not an option available under the current Ordinance, the Bradley Green developer has submitted an application to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance.
We believe that the intent of the developer’s application to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance is to allow affordable housing in-kind payments as an alternative to a cash payment-in-lieu. We believe that the intentions of the applicant’s proposed amendment is to authorize the Council to accept infrastructure improvements, such as those offered by the applicant, as in-kind payment toward affordable housing, at the Council’s discretion.
The developer has requested that a condition of approval be included in Resolution A that would allow the text amendment to be retroactively applied to this subdivision, if the proposed text amendment is enacted.
Comment: We anticipate returning to the Council as early as March 20 with language for the Council to consider to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The Council could add the following stipulation if it wished to do so.
Affordable Housing: Payment-In-Kind: That at such time that an amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance allows an in-kind payment in-lieu of providing floor area restricted dwelling units or affordable housing units, the applicant may improve Ginger Road to include two 11-foot paved travel lanes, shoulders, ditch, and a sidewalk along one side between Amesbury Drive and Sunrise Road. Unless specifically prohibited by the enacted amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance, this improvement, along with the installation of a gravity sanitary sewer line to the Habitat for Humanity property, may be used to satisfy all or some portion of the in-kind-payment alternative to the floor area restricted requirements for major subdivisions, as then authorized by the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The final design and construction standards for the improved roadway shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the seventh dwelling unit in Bradley Green, the improvement must be complete. Until such time as the area is annexed into the town limits, the Homeowners Association or the North Carolina Department of Transportation shall be responsible for the maintenance of the improved portion of Ginger Road. A copy of the maintenance agreement with NCDOT or the Homeowners Association document shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Inclusion of the above stipulation would continue to allow the applicant to
move ahead with the Bradley Green subdivision, including two floor area
restricted dwellings and, depending upon Council action on the proposed text
amendment, may also permit the applicant to pursue the payment-in-kind option
at a future date with possible early release from the 30 month floor area
restrictions.
C. Applicant’s Proposal: Submit a Special Use Permit Application in Cooperation with Adjoining Property Owner, Habitat for Humanity
The applicant’s proposal also references an alternate proposal to submit a Special Use Permit applicant that would encumber the approved Bradley Green Subdivision and the adjacent Habitat for Humanity property.
Under this scenario the Bradley Green development would move ahead (as recommended in Resolution A, including the payment-in-kind stipulation as suggested immediately above), and begin construction, while the two property owners submit a Special Use Permit application. As described by the applicant in the attached statement (Attachment 9), the Special Use Permit application would include a mix of units which would satisfy the 15 percent affordable unit requirements. The proposal also indicates that Ginger Road would be paved with two travel lanes at the expense of the Bradley Green developer. We have not received an application for this proposal.
Comment: This approach anticipates the submission of a Special Use Permit application that would require the cooperation of two property owners. We believe that the potential for disagreements could jeopardize the success of both projects. One owner’s failure in inability to proceed would prevent the other from being able to proceed. We do not recommend this approach.
2. Ginger Road Improvements: The applicant proposes to make improvements to Ginger Road (widening to 12’ of gravel) prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in the development.
Comment: We do not believe that there is a legal basis to require the paving of Ginger Road. However, we believe that it is reasonable to require that this applicant make improvements to Ginger Road. We recommend that the applicant improve Ginger Road from the existing 10-foot gravel surface to a minimum width of 12-feet of gravel surface with shoulders, and ditches between Amesbury Drive and Sunrise Road in order to provide adequate access for emergency service vehicles.
3. Construction Traffic Management: Council Members expressed concern about construction traffic management.
Comment: During Planning Board review, a citizen expressed concern with construction traffic and its potential impact on the Chandlers Green neighborhood. In response, the Planning Board recommended a construction phasing plan that would prohibit construction traffic through the Chandler Green neighborhood.
We do not concur with this recommendation. Prohibiting construction traffic from Chandlers Green would require that Ginger Road be the only construction access to the proposed development site. We do not believe that Ginger Road could safely handle the anticipated construction traffic associated with the Bradley Green Subdivision even when widen to 12 feet. We believe that the existing paved public street is the preferred route for construction vehicles.
4. Sanitary Sewer Installation: The applicant has offered to install the sanitary sewer at a sufficient depth to allow gravity sewer service for the Habitat for Humanity property to the north without the installation of a sewer pump station or force main.
Comment: We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring the applicant to extend a gravity sanitary sewer service to the Habitat for Humanity property to the north.
5. Traffic Calming Payment-in-lieu: A Council Member asked whether it would be appropriate for the developer to provide a payment-in-lieu for traffic calming for use at such time that changing traffic conditions warrant such devices.
Comment: We have examined the issue and do not believe traffic generated by this development warrants the installation of traffic calming devices in the neighboring development. We do not believe that a payment-in-lieu for off-site traffic calming is proportional or reasonable for this proposed eight lot subdivision.
6. Stormwater Detention Ponds: A Council Member asked that the Town take a closer look at how the engineering and sizing of stormwater ponds is done, noting he believed they were frequently designed too large.
Comment: We believe the current standards are reasonable. The Town’s Design standards require the applicant to submit a Stormwater Management Plan based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms.
7. Pedestrian Connectivity on Ginger Road: Council members asked about providing pedestrian improvements on Ginger Road.
Comment: We do believe that providing a sidewalk along Ginger Road is not proportional or reasonable for the pedestrian needs associated with the proposed eight lot subdivision and therefore cannot be required under relevant law.
SUMMARY
We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on October 4, 2005, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution B with conditions. A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to the October 19 Public Hearing item.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on October 18, 2005, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution C with conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.
The Transportation Board
recommended that the language on the stub-out signage be changed from “may” to
“will”. The sign would read “Future development of the adjoining property may
will include the extension of the stub-out on the north property line.
Comment: We do not recommend adjusting the language of this stipulation. Resolution A does not include this recommendation.
The Transportation Board recommended that the stipulation requiring two floor area restricted housed be deleted and replaced with a stipulation authorizing the Council to accept a payment-in-kind toward infrastructure improvements associated with sewer and roadway improvements.
Comment: Resolution A does not include this recommendation from the Transportation Board. For additional discussion please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on September 21, 2005, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution D with conditions. A copy of the Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action is attached to the October 19 Public Hearing memorandum.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on November 22, 2005, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution E with conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that unless the applicant can construct the Bradley Green sidewalk on the west side of the proposed subdivision street, that the applicant installs a crosswalk on Amesbury Drive.
Comment: Resolution A includes this recommendation from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that if the Bradley Green sidewalk can be constructed on the west side of the proposed subdivision street, that the sidewalk shall extend complete around cul-de-sac.
Comment: The Design Manual specifies the construction of a sidewalk on one side of a local street. We do not believe, that in this particular case there is justification for requiring the construction of sidewalk around the cul-de-sac. Resolution A does not include this recommendation from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Manager’s Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve this Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Resolution A.
Resolution A has been revised to:
· Require the applicant to install crosswalk(s) on Amesbury Drive and/or Ginger Drive if the sidewalk, along the proposed internal subdivision street, is constructed on the east side of the street.
Resolution F would deny the application.
Bradley Green Subdivision
Preliminary Plat
DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS
|
ISSUE |
Manager’s Revised Rec. |
Planning Board Rec. |
Transportation Board Rec. |
Parks and Recreation Commission Rec. |
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec. |
|
Sidewalk on west side of road or crosswalk |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Sidewalk extended around cul-de-sac |
No
|
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Revise text on stub-out sign |
No |
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
In-kind payment |
No
|
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Ginger Road (12’ gravel) |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Prohibit construction traffic from Chancellor’s View |
No
|
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Traffic calming payment in-lieu |
No (not reasonable for a development of this size) |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* Issue was not discussed at this particular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS