|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director George Small, P.E., Engineering Director Bill Webster, Interim Parks and Recreation Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Fairway Hill Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 9798-67-4341) |
|
|
|
|
DATE: |
November 20, 2006 |
Tonight, the Council continues the Fairway Hill Subdivision Public Hearing from October 18, 2006, regarding a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 5.1 acres into four lots. Adoption of Resolutions A, B, or C would approve a Preliminary Plat application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution D would deny the request.
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the Preliminary Plat with conditions.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
On October 18, 2006, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 5.1 acres into four lots. The Council recessed the Public Hearing to November 20 , 2006.
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 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 October 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.
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 the 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.
We believe the key issues raised during the October 18 Public Hearing focused on the location of the proposed internal subdivision street and the proposed recreation area.
Subdivision Street Location: The applicant is proposing to locate the new subdivision roadway intersection on Pinehurst Drive, approximately at the same location as the existing driveway. The applicant’s proposed alignment would enter the site in the middle and then curve to the southern portion of the site. This roadway alignment is the same design the applicant presented to the Town’s advisory boards. The alignment was also presented to the Council during the October 18 Public Hearing.
During the Public Hearing, a citizen requested that the Council approve the proposed development with a roadway alignment as shown on Attachment 1. The street alignment shown on Attachment 1 was initially proposed by the applicant during the Concept Plan review process and identifies the new public street through the middle of the site, more closely aligned with the existing driveway. The Council asked the staff to return with an alternate Resolution that the Council could consider that would approved the proposed development with the roadway in the middle.
Subsequent to the Public Hearing the applicant has submitted a revised site plan (Attachment 2). The revised plan continues to propose the applicant’s street alignment and recreation area as previously presented to the Council. However, the revised plan also includes the follow minor changes; 1) the internal sidewalk has been relocated to the north side of the roadway; and 2) the relationship between the proposed location of the pedestrian path to the soccer field and the stormwater easement is shown in greater detail. A full-size copy of the revised plan is attached to this memorandum.
The applicant’s current proposal, Attachment 2, to curve the road near the southern property line and the alternate alignment as shown on Attachment 1, through the middle of the site, are discussed below:
Applicant’s Proposed Subdivision Street Location: The applicant is proposing that the new subdivision road intersect with Pinehurst Drive at approximately the same location as the existing driveway. The proposed alignment would enter the site in the middle and then curve to the southern portion of the site as shown by Attachment 2. This proposed roadway design provides room to accommodate stormwater management between the roadway and the adjoining properties to the north and south. The alignment also creates an open area (approximately 13,000 square feet) within the subdivision that is proposed by the applicant as recreation area.
Comment: We believe that the applicant’s proposed roadway design, proposed as Attachment 2, including the intersection on Pinehurst Drive and internal roadway alignment, complies with the subdivision regulations and standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The following comments discuss: 1) the roadway alignment; and 2) the recreation area created by this proposed alignment.
1) The Applicant’s Proposed Roadway Alignment (Attachment 2): With respect to the intersection on Pinehurst Drive, we believe that based on the Town’s Engineering Department sight distance study on Pinehurst Drive, the proposed location for the street intersection meets the required safety standards. We believe that this location will provide adequate sight time (7.2 seconds; a minimum of 7.0 seconds is acceptable) based on the Town’s Engineering Department sight distance study. Revised Resolution A would approve the Preliminary Plat with the road intersection and alignment as proposed by the applicant (Attachment 2).
2) The Applicant’s Proposed Recreation Area (Attachment 2): The required recreation area for this subdivision is 16,591 square feet. The applicant is proposing that a portion of the required recreation area be satisfied by approximately 13,000 square feet of recreation area (identified as open space on Attachment 2) between the internal roadway and the north property line. The applicant is also proposing that the remainder of the required recreation area be satisfied by the recreation area associated with the pedestrian path to the Aquabella development and to the Meadowmont soccer field.
With respect to recreation area requirements, we recommend that the Council require a payment-in-lieu for a portion of the required 16,591 square feet of recreation area. Section 5.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance offers the Council the option to require an applicant to provide a payment-in-lieu for recreation area when the minimum recreation area required is less than two acres. In this particular case, the required recreation area is 16,591 square feet. We believe that a portion of the recreation area (approximately 3,000 square feet) can be satisfied by recreation area associated with the two pedestrian paths. We recommend that the remainder of the required recreation area (approximately 13,500 square feet) be satisfied with a payment-in-lieu.
We recommend that the Council adopt Revised Resolution A and require that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu of a portion of the recreation area. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that the payment-in-lieu be reduced by a proportional amount based on the recreation area (approximately 3,000 square feet of land area) associated with the two pedestrian/bicycle paths.
Alternatively, the Council could make the determination that the 13,301 square feet of recreation area, as proposed by the applicant and identified as open space on Attachment 2 is appropriate and meets the suitability of land requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The Council could replace the stipulation for a payment-in-lieu with the following stipulation if it wished to do so:
Recreation Requirements: That the applicant shall provide on-site recreation area (a minimum or 16,591 square feet). That the proposed 13,301 square feet of open space between the internal roadway and the north property line, and two pedestrian connections; located between Lots 2 and 3 and between Lots 3 and 4, shall be considered suitable recreation space. The recreation area shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The land shall be identified on the Final Plat and shall be deeded to the Homeowners’ Association when the Final Plat is recorded
Alternate Subdivision Street Location (through the middle of the site-Attachment 1): At the October 18 Public Hearing, the Council directed staff to return with a revised Resolution that would approve the proposed Preliminary Plat with a street alignment as shown on Attachment 1, through the middle of the site.
Comment: Review of a subdivision proposal differs from review of a Special Use Permit 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. The Council’s review and action on a subdivision is quasi-judicial, with sworn testimony and evidence entered into the record. Please see the attached summary of key differences between legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions, prepared by Mr. David Owens of the School of Government (page 59 of the October 18, 2006 Public Hearing item).
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, stormwater management, and recreation area. 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.
We believe that the applicant’s proposed roadway design, provided as Attachment 2, including the intersection on Pinehurst Drive and internal roadway alignment, complies with the subdivision regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
If the Council desires to approve the application with the roadway alignment as shown on Attachment 1, we believe the Council could stipulate this roadway alignment, if the applicant agrees to amend the application. If the applicant agrees to amend the application, with respect to the roadway alignment, we recommend that the Council stipulate approval of the Preliminary Plat with the roadway alignment as shown on Attachment 1.
We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend. With these conditions, we believe that the Council could adopt a resolution to approve. The staff’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: The Planning Board reviewed this subdivision on September 5, 2006 and October 3, 2006. The Board voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B. A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to the October 18 Public Hearing item.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board is scheduled to review this item on November 30, 2006. A copy of the Transportation Board recommendation will be provided as soon as it is available.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on October 24, 2006. The Board voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution C. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this subdivision proposal on September 15, 2006. The Commission voted 10-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution D. A copy of the Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action is attached to the October 18 Public Hearing item.
Town Staff’s Revised Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve this Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Revised Resolution A.
Resolution E would deny the application.
DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS
|
ISSUE |
Staff Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation
|
Parks and Rec Commission Recommendation |
|
Pinehurst Drive Intersection
|
At the existing driveway curb cut |
At the existing driveway curb cut |
* (At the south property line)
|
* (At the south property line) |
|
Internal subdivision street alignment
|
As proposed by the applicant (Attachment 2)
|
Alignment to follow existing driveway (Attachment 1) |
* |
* |
|
Recreation Area |
Proportional payment-in lieu (credit for pedestrian paths)
|
Proportional payment-in lieu (credit for pedestrian paths) |
Proportional payment-in lieu (credit for pedestrian paths) |
Full payment-in-lieu |
|
Alternate Buffer at Chapel Hill Country Club
|
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Pedestrian Path along south property line
|
No (relocate between lots 2 and 3) |
No (relocate between lots 2 and 3) |
* |
No (relocate between lots 2 and 3) |
* Item not discussed at this particular meeting and is therefore not included in the Resolution.
