AGENDA #3b
MEMORANDUM |
|
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Homestead Twin Towns – Special Use Permit-Planned Development-Housing Application (File No. 9870-64-8194) |
|
DATE: |
April 16, 2007 |
Attached for your consideration is a request for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development-Housing for a multi-family development which proposes 72 units and 139 parking spaces. The 21.5-acre site is located on the south side of Homestead Road, just west of Seawell School Road. The Special Use Permit application also includes a proposal to subdivide an existing one-acre lot on Rogers Road and relocate two houses, located on the Homestead Road site, to the proposed subdivided lots. Both sites are located outside the Town of Chapel Hill’s corporate limits and in the Town’s Northern Joint Planning Transition Area (JPA).
Associated with this application is a proposal to rezone the Homestead Road site from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C). Prior to approval of the Homestead Twin Town Special Use Permit application, it is necessary that the Council and the Orange County Commissioners take action on the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for additional information on the proposed rezoning.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
This memorandum includes an evaluation of the Special Use Permit application with the assumption that the accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment application will be enacted.
In 2004, the Community Design Commission and the Town Council reviewed a Concept Plan. In 2005, the applicant submitted a revised Concept Plan proposal. Summaries and minutes of Concept Plan Reviews are attached for the most recent Concept Plan Reviews by the Community Design Commission and Council, respectively (Attachments 6 and 7).
The applicant proposes to construct 36 buildings with 72 dwelling units on the Homestead Road site. The townhome-style dwelling units would range in size from 1,000 to 2,500 square feet and would be a mix of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The applicant is proposing that 20 percent of the 72 units (15 units) would be permanently affordable dwelling units, available for private ownership in cooperation with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.
The applicant is proposing a recreation area and 139 parking spaces, of which 57 would be garage spaces. The applicant is also proposing a detention pond located in the western part of the site. Access to the Homestead Road site would be provided at two access points, one on Homestead Road and one on Seawell School Road. The applicant is proposing that the internal street network be constructed to Town public streets standards and be dedicated as public right-of-way.
As part of the application, the applicant has proposed a land swap with an adjoining property owner. We understand the land swap is proposed to limit the impact on the Resource Conservation District. A proposed future driveway, as on Seawell School Road on a portion of the adjoining property (as shown on Sheet 5), is not part of this proposed Special Use Permit application.
Rogers Road Site: For the portion of the development located on Rogers Road, the applicant is proposing to relocate the two existing single-family homes from the Homestead Road site to the Rogers Road site. As part of the application, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot on Rogers Road into two lots.
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit 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 against Town standards; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows below). Evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, 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.
We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Based on our evaluation, our preliminary conclusion is that, if the rezoning ordinance is adopted, the application as submitted complies with the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, with the conditions included in Resolution A.
Tonight the Council receives our attached evaluation and information submitted by the applicant and citizens. The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum. All information that is submitted at the hearing will be included in the record of the hearing.
Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit.
The four findings are:
Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.
We have identified four key issues: 1) Homestead Road improvements: curb and gutter vs. grass swale; 2) Refuse collection: curbside vs. bulk collection; 3) Affordable housing and homeowner association dues; 4) Energy efficiency.
1. Homestead Road improvements (curb and gutter vs. grass swale): The proposed project includes frontage along the south side of Homestead Road. We recommend that the applicant improve this portion of Homestead Road as described below:
That the Homestead Road frontage be improved to provide 12-foot wide travel lanes plus a 12-foot-wide left turn lane, and 4-foot-wide bicycle lane, curb and gutter, and a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk to be located a minimum of three feet behind the curb along the site frontage.
During the Planning Board meeting the applicant objected to the recommendation for curb and gutter improvements along Homestead Road. The applicant stated that other portions of Homestead Road in this area do not include curb and gutter.
Staff Comment: It is the Town’s practice to require new developments to upgrade the street frontage of a site to meet Town standards. Curb and gutter is the standard for streets in Chapel Hill. Besides efficiently conveying stormwater it also provides a suitable location for the installation of sidewalk without the extensive clearing and grading necessary to install a sidewalk behind the ditch when a shoulder and ditch section is provided along a street instead of curb & gutter. (Standard curb & gutter is 2½ feet wide versus a typical shoulder width of six to eight feet, plus the additional width necessary to provide a drainage ditch.) Curb & gutter is also preferred as it requires less routine maintenance, whereas, a ditch requires routine mowing and removal of debris and leaf litter.
Our preliminary recommendation is that the applicant’s improvements to Homestead Road include curb and gutter. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
2. Refuse collection: curbside vs. bulk collection: During the Planning Board meeting the applicant objected to the staff’s recommendation for bulk refuse collection. The applicant indicated that staff’s recommendation is based on an incorrect interpretation of Town Code (8-35 Bulk containers for multiple residential units).
Staff Comment: Our recommendation for bulk refuse collection is based on the Town Code 8-35 (copied below – bold/italic added for emphasis)
“Sec. 8-35. Bulk containers for multiple residential units.
(a) All new multiple residential developments of six (6) or more units per zoning lot shall provide bulk containers; provided, however, the Manager may waive such requirement in those cases where the Manager determines on the basis of evidence satisfactory to the Manager that:
(1) a. The six (6) or more units are an addition of not greater than fifty (50) per cent to a multiple residential complex existing prior to the date of original enactment of this ordinance (March 5, 1973), and
b. That such waiver would not be contrary to the intent of this ordinance of providing for efficient garbage collection services; or
(2) That each practical location of such dumpster or dumpsters could reasonably create concern for safety or health considerations that, in the opinion of the manager, outweigh the concern and intent of this article for efficient garbage collection services.
(b) Determinations by the manager under this section may be appealed to the council, and the council may make such determination and grant such exemption as if finds appropriate under the evidence presented.
(c) No person shall place cardboard in any bulk container being provided for the disposal of solid waste at a multiple residential unit location under this section.
(Ord. of 10-26-70, § 2(m); Ord. No. O-73-6, § 1, 3-5-73; Ord. No. O-82-39, § 3, 6-14-82; Ord. No. 96-3-25/O-2, § 6)
Sec. 8-36. Reserved.
Editor’s note: Ord. No. 2001-02-26/O-2, § 6, repealed § 8-36, which pertained to collection procedures--established. See the Code Comparative Table.“
Because this proposed development is a multi-family project with 72 units on a single (21.5 acres) zoning lot, the Town Code requires bulk containers for refuse collection instead of curb side collection. In order for this proposed development to be considered other than a multi-family development, we suggested to the applicant that they revise their application and propose a development (either a Subdivision or Special Use Permit creating separate lots) that would create 36 individual lots intended for duplex construction.
If the application is revised in this manner, a proposal creating individual lots for the type of residential structures proposed by the applicant would be subject to the Land Use Management Ordinance duplex standards. The standards would restrict floor area to 3,000 square feet per building. We understand that the applicant is not interested in proposing a development that would be subject to the floor area limitations for duplex units.
Our preliminary recommendation is that, in conformance with Town Code 8-35, that the proposed development provides bulk refuse collection facilities. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
We are also concerned that the applicant’s submitted site plans do not provide information on potential locations for a bulk refuse collection facility. In light of this fact, Resolution A includes a stipulation indicting that, unless the applicant provides adequate information on potential refuse collection areas prior to Council action, final plan approval may required the elimination of residential units in order accommodate bulk refuse facilities that comply with Town standards.
3. Affordable housing and homeowners association dues: The applicant objected to the staff’s initial recommendation that monies collected from a transfer fee associated with the sale/resale of properties are to be placed in a fund for the specific purposes of paying homeowners association dues for persons who acquire affordable housing.
Staff Comment: This stipulation was most recently applied to two condominiums projects (Greenbridge and East 54). Based on recent discussions with a representative from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, we understand that the transfer fee mechanism is more appropriate for condominium developments as opposed a “townhouse” project. During the Planning Board meeting the applicant briefly mentioned an alternative to the transfer fee stipulation. We have asked the applicant to provide information on this proposed alternative at tonight’s Public Hearing.
4. Energy Efficiency: The staff’s recommendation to the advisory boards included a stipulation that requires the applicant to submit energy models showing a minimum energy efficiency savings of 20 percent relative to ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) Standard 90.1-2004. The applicant has stated that this standard is more applicable to multi-story structures (three or more stories) and requested that the stipulation be amended in order to be applicable to this proposed townhouse development.
Staff Comment: Subsequent to the writing of this memorandum, the Town Council was scheduled to discuss adopting an updated policy, during it’s April 11, 2007 meeting, specifying the Council’s expectations for energy efficiency and an energy management plan for applicants seeking approval of conditional use rezoning applications. This proposed development includes an application for a conditional rezoning to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C).
As a preliminary recommendation, we have incorporated the following stipulation into Resolution A:
That the applicant will incorporate a “20 percent energy efficient” feature into their plans, relative to the energy efficient standard of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), or other comparable standards generally recognized as applicable to building energy consumption, applicable at the time of application.
We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, our preliminary recommendation is that the Council could make the four findings necessary in order to approve the application. Our recommendation, Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
Planning Board: The Planning Board met on April 3, 2007 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, and adopt the attached Resolution A with the following changes:
1. Percentage of affordable housing units: That the applicant provides a minimum of 20 percent affordable housing units.
Comment: The applicant’s proposal includes providing 20 percent affordable units. The staff report incorrectly noted the affordable housing percentage as 15 percent. This correction has been incorporated into Resolution A.
2. Affordable housing and homeowner association dues: That the recommendation for a one percent transfer fee is deleted from the resolution.
Comment: Please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum for additional discussion on this recommendation
3. Refuse collection-curbside vs. bulk collection: That the development may be served by curbside refuse/recycling collection.
Comment: Please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum for additional discussion on this recommendation.
4. Energy Efficiency: That the applicant will incorporate a 20 percent more energy efficient feature or other comparable standards, into their plans.
Comment: Please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum for additional discussion on this recommendation.
5. Wetlands Verification: During the Planning Board meeting, the staff recommended a new stipulation that required the applicant to identify any wetland during final plan review.
Comment: The Planning Board agreed with staff. A stipulation requiring that the applicant submit Final Plans which show the location of State or federally regulated wetlands on the site has been incorporated into Resolution A.
A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on April 12, 2007. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Transportation Board Action when it is available.
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission will meet on April 18, 2007. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Community Design Commission Action when it is available.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board will meet on April 24, 2007. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action when it is available.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on April 18, 2007. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Parks and Recreation Commission Action when it is available.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the request for a Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution A.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. If the Council makes the required findings for approval of the Homestead Twin Towns Special Use Permit, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.
Resolution B would deny the application.
|
ISSUES |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
|
Provide 20% affordable housing units
|
Yes |
Yes |
|
One percent transfer fee to supplement homeowner association fees for affordable units
|
No
|
No |
|
Curbside collection of refuse and recyclables
|
No (bulk collection per Town Code)
|
Yes |
|
Energy efficiency 20 percent more efficient or other comparable standard
|
Yes |
Yes |
