AGENDA #9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator
George Small, Engineering Director
SUBJECT: Aquabella Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
(File No. 9798-67-1484)
DATE: October 9, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Tonight, the Council continues the Aquabella Subdivision Public Hearing from September 18, 2006, regarding a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 4.7 acres into four lots. Adoption of Resolutions A, B, or C would approve a Preliminary Plat application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution D would refer the applicant to the Special Use Permit process. Adoption of Resolution E would deny the request.
OPTIONS
|
Approve the preliminary plat application for the proposed subdivision with the adoption of Resolution A
|
Refer the applicant to the Special Use Permit process and Right-of-Way abandonment process with the adoption of Resolution D |
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the Preliminary Plat with conditions. We also recommend that the Council adopt Resolution D and refer the applicant to meet with staff and discuss the Special Use Permit process in order to explore options regarding placement of stormwater improvements.
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 2005, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 4.7 acres into four lots. The Council recessed the Public Hearing to October 9, 2006. A key discussion at the meeting involved the applicant’s proposal to locate stormwater management facilities in the Pinehurst Drive right-of-way.
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 September 18 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 September 18 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.
REGULATORY OPTIONS
During the September Public Hearing Council Members expressed interest in exploring regulatory options that would permit the applicant to construct the proposed private bio-retention facilities off-site and adjacent to Pinehurst Drive. The Council directed staff to revisit the applicant’s proposal and provide options that would allow the construction of the proposed stormwater management facilities as proposed by the applicant. This memorandum provides options for consideration.
The applicant’s subdivision proposal does not comply with the stormwater requirements in the Land Use Management Ordinance. In order for the Council to be able to consider approve of the development as proposed, it will be necessary for the applicant to convert it to a Special Use Permit application. We believe that in this particular case, the viable option available to the applicant is the Special Use Permit process.
Further discussion of the Special Use Permit process, as it relates to this proposal, is described below.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS
As currently proposed, the applicant’s Preliminary Plat application does not comply with the Land Use Management Ordinance. The applicant’s proposal to locate stormwater management facilities outside the boundary of the proposed subdivision is in direct conflict with Section 5.4.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Section 5.4.6 states:
(b) “The stormwater runoff volume leaving the site post-development shall not exceed the stormwater runoff volume leaving the site pre-development …”
(c) “The stormwater runoff rate leaving the site post-development shall not exceed the stormwater runoff rate leaving the site post-development shall not exceed the stormwater rate leaving the site pre-development …”
Because the proposed development includes stormwater management facilities within the public right-of-way, the project does not comply with the Land Use Management Ordinance. In order to comply with the Land Use Management Ordinance, the stormwater facilities required to control runoff volume and rate, must be located within the boundary of the proposed development.
For the Council to consider a development proposal that is not in accord with regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance, the Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 in the Land Use Management Ordinance, in the context of a Special Use Permit, as follows:
“Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Chapter, but the Town Council makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Town Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case. Any modification of regulations shall be explicitly indicated in the Special Use Permit or Modification of Special Use Permit.”
If the applicant desires to proceed with a development proposal that does not comply with the Land Use Management Ordinance, we recommend that the applicant submit a Special Use Permit application. Based on our initial evaluation of this alternate approval process we have identified two possible development scenarios the applicant may pursue under the Special Use Permit application. Further discussion of each scenario is provided as Attachment 1 to this memorandum.
KEY ISSUES
The following additional issues were discussed during the September 18, 2006 Public Hearing.
Stormwater Management
1. Low-Impact Design and Land Use Management Ordinance: A Council Member asked the staff to comment on whether the stormwater management regulations in Land Use Management Ordinance allow adequate flexibility for an applicant to incorporate Low Impact Design features into their stormwater management program.
Comment: Please refer to the September 28 memorandum from the Engineering Department for discussion on this issue (Attachment 2).
2. Best Management Practices (aka “rain gardens”) and stormwater regulations: Several Council Members asked if the applicant’s proposed stormwater management plans, and in particular the use of “rain gardens,” comply with the Land Use Management Ordinance stormwater regulations.
Comment: Please refer to the September 28 memorandum from the Engineering Department for discussion on this issue (Attachment 2).
Landscape Bufferyards
3. Landscape bufferyard adjacent to the Chapel Hill Country Club: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires a landscape buffer between the proposed subdivision and the Chapel Hill Country Club. A Council Member asked staff to return with a proposal that would offer the applicant alternatives to providing the bufferyard along this property line.
Comment: In response to the Council Member’s request, staff offers the following two alternatives:
Resolution A includes a stipulation that the applicant provide either the full width buffer, either on site or on the adjoining property, or an alternate buffer as approved by the Community Design Commission, along this property line.
4. Bufferyards and Homeowners’ Association: The applicant asked the Council to delete the requirement that the homeowners’ association acquire ownership of the bufferyard adjacent to the Chapel Hill Country Club property.
Comment: The landscape buffer requirement for this subdivision is proposed on an existing single family lot. We have included a revised stipulation in Resolution A that the bufferyard along the Chapel Hill Country Club frontage be allowed on private property. Resolution A also requires that the applicant provide the homeowners’ association with a landscape easement.
5. Bufferyards adjacent to existing Residential properties: An adjoining property owner expressed concern that the Land Use Management Ordinance does not require a landscape buffer between the proposed development and the existing residential property to the north. The citizen asked that Council to require this applicant to provide a buffer between the proposed development and the existing development.
Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance does not require a buffer between residentially zoned properties within the context of a Preliminary Plat. However, if the applicant voluntarily agrees to provide and maintain a bufferyard in this area, the Council can stipulation this condition as an approval of the Preliminary Plat application. We understand that the applicant is not willing to provide this bufferyard.
Pedestrian Path to Adjoining Property, Recreation Payment-in-Lieu
6. Location of the proposed pedestrian path: Council Members asked the staff to return with a map that identifies the proposed location of the pedestrian path between the proposed development and the adjacent Rayfield property.
Comment: Please see map of proposed path location (Attachment 3). The adjacent subdivision application (proposed as Fairway Hill Subdivision) to the south will be presented at a Public Hearing on October 18, 2006. We recommend that the final location of the pedestrian paths linking the two proposed subdivisions be determined during final plan review. A condition in Resolution A requires that the final location and design of the path be approved during Final Plans prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
7. Pedestrian Path Width and Bicycles: A Council Member asked that the stipulation for the proposed pedestrian path require a path that is at least five feet in width. Recognizing that a five-foot wide path can not safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle use at the same time, the Council Member asked that the public easement granted to the Town for the use of this path does not prohibit someone from walking upon the path with a bicycle.
Comment: Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring that the applicant construct a five-foot wide improved path between the proposed development and the adjacent Rayfield property. Bicycle use would not be prohibited.
8. Recreation Area and Payment-in-Lieu: The applicant asked that the Council consider the proposed pedestrian path to the Aquabella Subdivision as improved recreation area and reduce the required recreation payment-in-lieu by a proportional amount.
Comment: Resolution A includes a stipulation that the pedestrian path be included in the recreation area for the purposes of calculating a payment-in-lieu.
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 June 6, 2006 and voted 9-0 to recommend that that Council approve Resolution C with conditions. A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to the September 18 Public Hearing item.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on September 14, 2006, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on June 23, 2006, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution B. A copy of the Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action is attached to the September 18 Public Hearing memorandum.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on June 27, 2006, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution B. A copy of the Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to the September 18 Public Hearing memorandum.
Staff’s Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve this Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Revised Resolution A.
Revised Resolution A includes the following:
Resolution D would refer the applicant to a Special Use Permit Process.
Resolution E would deny the application.
ATTACHMENTS
