|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director George Small, Engineering Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager |
|
SUBJECT: |
Chapel Watch Village - Application for Special Use Permit |
|
|
(File No. 9870-87-1493) |
|
DATE: |
May 21, 2007 |
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from April 17, 2007 for Chapel Watch Village, a multi-family development proposed to be located on the south side of Eubanks Road, opposite the Eubanks Road Park and Ride lot and adjacent to the Larkspur neighborhood.
Based on the information in the record to date, we believe the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit application. We recommend that the Council adopt Revised Resolution A, approving the application.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
· Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal, discusses key issues raised at the April 17, 2007 Public Hearing, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action and includes resolutions of approval and denial.
· Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, attachments applicable to this memorandum and the April 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum.
We have identified several key issues related to this development: 1) Vehicular connection to the Larkspur neighborhood; 2) Proposed affordable housing component; 3) Energy efficiency; and 4) Other questions raised by Council during the April 17 Public Hearing. Each of these issues is discussed below in greater detail.
During the April 17, 2007 Public Hearing, several questions were raised about the staff’s recommendation to connect the proposed Chapel Watch Village to the Larkspur neighborhood.
The section below is divided into several discussion points on this issue: a) Relationship between the Larkspur development and Chapel Watch Village; b) Town street classifications; c) Traffic calming measures; and d) Options for connectivity between the proposed development and the Larkspur neighborhood.
Relationship between the Larkspur development and Chapel Watch Village: On February 25, 2002 the Town Council approved the 86 lot Larkspur Cluster Subdivision. A point of discussion in the review and approval of Larkspur by staff, Advisory Boards, citizens and the Council was the number of access points into the Larkspur development. In particular, discussion focused on whether to connect to an existing public right-of-way in the adjacent Northwood neighborhood.
Because the final approval of the Larkspur neighborhood did not require a public street connection to Northwood, and discussion related to that decision focused on the future development of the proposed Chapel Watch Village site, a short recap of the staff’s recommendation at that time, as it relates to accessibility, the Larkspur neighborhood and the proposed Chapel Watch Village follows.
Staff Comment: When the Larkspur application was submitted to Town staff in 2001 for presentation to the Town’s Advisory Boards, the application for the proposed subdivision included two points of access to existing public streets: one from Weaver Dairy extension and one from the Northwood neighborhood via Hunter Hill Road. A future point of access was also proposed along the north property line (proposed Chapel Watch Village). In light of the proposed number of lots (86) in Larkspur, town staff recommended that the approval for Larkspur include the two vehicular access points: Hunter Hill Road and Weaver Dairy Road Extension.
Later in 2001, the applicant informed the Planning Board of a revised proposal that would remove the vehicular connection to Hunter Hill Road. As a counter-point to the staff’s recommendation for access into Northwood, the idea of a future connection between Larkspur and Eubanks road was discussed. An excerpt from the February 25, 2002 staff memorandum to the Council discussing a possible connection between Larkspur and Eubanks Road, as an alternate to a full access connection to Northwood is provided as Attachment 2. At the time, the Chapel Hill Watch Village property owner indicated the intent to develop the property and to provide a vehicular connection between Larkspur and Eubanks Road.
Town Street Classification: At the April 17, 2007 Public Hearing, citizens stated that they believe there is inconsistency in applying the Town’s street classifications design standard during the review and approval of developments. Statements were made that although Maywood Way in Larkspur was planned to be a collector street, the spacing between driveways reflects the driveway spacing standards of a local street.
In response to these comment Council members asked staff if they could return with examples in town of “local” streets built to “collector” standards, with driveway spacing that reflect local street standards. The Council also requested that the staff provide volume comparisons to other neighborhoods with similar connector roads.
Staff Comment: Local streets are intended to provide access to each lot on that street. Traffic volume on a local street is expected to be 1,000 vehicles per day or fewer. The Traffic Impact Analysis estimates 704 total daily trips for Chapel Watch Village project. We believe, based on trip generation rates used in the Traffic Impact Statement, that current traffic volume, along Maywood Way and Old Larkspur Way does not exceed 260 vehicles per day. Based on existing and anticipated traffic volumes, as described in the Traffic Impact Analysis, we believe that the design and construction of Maywood Way and Old Larkspur Way as local streets is appropriate, and that it is reasonable for these streets to serve as connectors between Eubanks Road and Weaver Dairy Road Extension.
The streets in Larkspur Subdivision were built in accordance with Council approved street widths, right-of-way, and the sidewalk standards. Attachment 2 includes a copy of the approved street designs as endorsed by the Town Council and noted in the February 25, 2002 Resolution approving the Larkspur development.
With respect to driveway spacing on Town streets, staff refers to the standards in the Town’s Design Manual. Please see Table 4-A-1, Street Standards and Driveway Spacing Analysis (Attachment 4). For example, on a local street, the minimum standard spacing is 50 feet between driveways and 100-foot spacing on a collector street. Design standards are guidelines which the Town staff tries to follow consistently. However, because the final location of a residential driveway is usually determined when a building permit is obtained, and is different on each individual lot depending on building design, topography, etc., driveway spacing on public streets in residential neighborhoods do not always meet the standards. For example, the driveway spacing in the Larkspur neighborhood is typically between 50 and 100 feet. In some cases, on Old Larkspur Way the spacing between driveways does not meet the guidelines for a collector street (Attachment 5).
In response to Council’s request for additional information from staff concerning neighborhoods with street design and driveway spaces similar to Larkspur, please refer to the attached street list and map (Attachment 3). This map includes examples of residential connector streets between neighborhoods. The streets on this exhibit function and provide vehicular and pedestrian connections between adjoining neighborhoods. Some of these connector streets are designed as local and some are collectors. Of the streets that are designed as collectors, most do not meet the driveway spacing standards of a collector street. We anticipate that the staff-recommended connector street, between Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village would function in a manner similar to the existing connector street highlighted on the attached map.
Traffic Calming Measures: The Council asked the staff to provide additional information on potential traffic calming measures that could be implemented in the proposed development and the Larkspur neighborhood in order to manage and control traffic flow between the neighborhoods.
Staff Comment: Historically, traffic calming devices have been constructed after a development is completed or after a neighborhood submits a request to the Town for traffic control measures. Retrofitting traffic calming into an existing street design into an existing neighborhood is usually limited to speed bumps, speed tables, and raised pedestrian crosswalks. In situations where an existing street includes a wide cross-section, Pinehurst Drive in the Oaks for example, other features such as traffic circles and mid-block planted medians are an option. Installing stop signs and other traffic control signs, such as “No Thru Commercial Traffic,” in an existing neighborhood is another option available for traffic control.
When traffic calming devices are planned and incorporated during the preliminary design of a street network, a variety of options beyond the typical “speed bump” exist. Such options include neck-downs, bulb-outs, and chicanes, one-way traffic, traffic circles, street trees and median islands. For additional information and details on some of these traffic calming features please refer to Attachment 5. Staff recommendations concerning traffic calming as it relates to the proposed development are discussed in the following section.
Full access connection to Larkspur neighborhood (Staff recommendation): Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis and studies of connectivity, we believe that providing a connection between Chapel Watch Village and Maywood Way would allow for greater access for the two neighborhoods. We believe that providing street connections between neighborhoods diffuses traffic throughout the Town, reducing congestion, and the demand for the widening of arterials. In addition to supporting the broader Town wide goals for access and mobility, connectivity provides a more efficient means for provision of services such as mail delivery, fire, police, and public works. Also, providing another access point for the Larkspur neighborhood would provide another point of access if there were a blockage of the one existing access for regular motorists (such as a traffic accident or tree down).
The Traffic Impact Analysis estimates 704 total daily trips for Chapel Watch Village projected volumes, and predicts that “site-related traffic will primarily use Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd (sic) and Eubanks Road for local and regional connectivity.” The analysis is based on a vehicular connection to the Larkspur neighborhood as well as a previous design for Chapel Watch Village that includes a local street with no on-street parking and a four-legged single lane roundabout. The TIA also analyzed the issue of “cut-through” traffic and concluded that based on field time studies and travel time benefit, “the amount of cut through traffic would be expected to be less than 10 vehicles total during a peak hour.”
Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis and studies of connectivity, we believe that providing a public vehicular connection between Chapel Watch Village and Maywood Way would allow for greater access for the two neighborhoods, as well as better connectivity. We believe that the volume of cut-through traffic can be minimized and the speeds can be controlled through traffic calming measures such as those described in Attachment 5.
We recommend that the Council approve the application with a public vehicular connection to the Larkspur neighborhood, as described in the following stipulation:
· Public Street to Town Standards: That the internal street between Eubanks Road and the Larkspur neighborhood be designed and constructed as a full access publicly-dedicated right-of-way street, connecting to the Maywood Way stub-out, in the Larkspur neighborhood.
We also recommend that the applicant design the streets in Chapel Watch Village and install traffic calming measures on streets in the Larkspur neighborhood in a manner that incorporates traffic calming features intended to discourage through traffic and reduce vehicular speeds, with traffic calming measures to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.
We recommend that the traffic calming measures be chosen from among those whose primary function is to reduce “cut-through” traffic, with the following stipulation:
· Traffic Calming: That the applicant shall construct traffic calming devices or similar traffic control features on the internal street between Eubanks Road and the Larkspur neighborhood. That the applicant shall also construct traffic calming devices within the Larkspur neighborhood. The location, number and type of traffic calming devices installed shall be subject to the approval of the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That in place of construction of the traffic calming devices, the Town Manager may require that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Such payment-in-lieu must be used for traffic calming devices in the Chapel Watch Village neighborhood and the Larkspur neighborhood, and must be installed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Chapel Watch Village.
Limited access to connection to Larkspur neighborhood (applicant’s recommendation): For Council’s consideration we offer the option recommended by the Planning Board and the applicant:
Comment: If the Council determines to approve the Chapel Watch Village proposals with limited access as described above, we recommend the following changes to Revised Resolution A:
· Replace Public Street Connection to Maywood Way (stipulation #8 in the attached Revised Resolution A) with the following stipulation:
Emergency access only (within a dedicated public right-of-way): That the portion of the internal street between Eubanks Road and the Larkspur neighborhood, beyond the southernmost units, be designed as emergency/ pedestrian/bicycle access only. That the design shall include two sets of bollards with one set located at the north end of Maywood Way. That a portion of the emergency/pedestrian/bicycle access lane may also function a part of the Horace Williams Trail connection between Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village.
That this internal street shall be located within a 45-foot-wide publicly dedicated right-of-way. That opening the entire roadway to public vehicular access between the Larkspur neighborhood and the proposed development shall require a public hearing process involving notification of all property owners within the Chapel Watch and Larkspur neighborhoods.
And;
· Add a new stipulation concerning the turn-around at the south end of the street in Chapel Watch Village:
Cul-de sac turn-around: That the design of the southern terminus of the Chapel Watch Village street be a cul-de-sac with a 45-foot radius, connected to the emergency/pedestrian/bicycle access. That a set of removable bollards shall be installed between the cul-de-sac and the limited access lane.
And;
· Delete the following stipulations:
Traffic Calming: That the applicant install traffic calming measures in Chapel Watch Village and in the Larkspur neighborhood in a manner that incorporates traffic calming features intended to discourage through traffic and reduce vehicular speeds. That the Town Manager shall review and approve the type, number and location of all with traffic calming measures, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That in place of construction of the traffic calming devices, the Town Manager may require that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Such payment-in-lieu must be used for traffic calming devices in the Chapel Watch Village neighborhood and the Larkspur neighborhood, and must be installed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Chapel Watch Village.
Traffic Impact Analysis and Safety Analysis: That within 24 months of the opening of the roadway, the Town conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis and Safety Analysis for the Larkspur Subdivision and Chapel Watch Village to determine whether the connection should remain open or closed to local traffic.
The applicant’s initial proposal included an offer to provide 15 percent affordable rental units. In light of the Council’s recent discussion concerning the difficulty of providing affordable rental units, the Council asked the applicant to meet with the Council’s Affordable Housing Committee.
Staff Comment: The applicant met with the Council Committee on May 2, May 9, and May 16. Copies of the Quick Reports from the first two meeting are attached (Attachment 6) At the May 2nd meeting, the Committee recommended that the applicant return with a proposal based on costs, and addressed the issue of future potential conversion to condominiums. During the May 9th meeting, the applicant presented two alternatives – one with an initial contribution and no obligation at conversion; the other with a smaller contribution and a donation of four bedrooms at the time of conversion. The applicant also agreed to consider an option in which no initial contribution is made, however a contribution of affordable units and/or payment-in-lieu is made at the time the property is converted to condominiums. The Committee recommended that the applicant provide this option at the May 16th meeting.
As of the writing of this memorandum, the May 16th meeting between the Council Committee and applicant had not yet occurred. Because we have not received a recommendation from the Council Committee, Revised Resolution A includes our original affordable housing stipulation requiring that the applicant include an affordable housing proposal for rental units.
Based on the outcome of the May 16th Committee meeting we anticipate presenting the Council with a revised affordable housing recommendation at tonight’s meeting, with respect to affordable housing.
The staff’s recommendation to the Advisory Boards included a stipulation that required the applicant to submit energy models showing a minimum energy efficiency savings of 20 percent. The applicant objected to this stipulation because the recommended energy standard (20 percent savings) is associated with a Council policy and conditional rezoning applications. Because this proposed development does not require a rezoning, we removed the stipulations from our preliminary recommendation.
Staff Comment: A Council member encouraged the applicant to discuss energy saving with NC GreenPower and consider commitment to use more energy-efficient appliances and work towards 20 percent energy savings. We have requested that the applicant provide evidence of meeting with NC GreenPower and an effort to incorporate energy efficiency into the development. As of the writing of this memorandum, we have not received the additional information from the applicant on this issue. We anticipate that the applicant will be presenting information for the Council’s consideration at tonight’s meeting.
Revised Resolution A does not include a stipulation with respect to Energy Efficiency.
During the Public Hearing the Council asked the staff and applicant to respond to several question including:
1. Amount of proposed land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District associated with stormwater management facilities.
2. Amount of proposed land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District associated with the proposed roadway stub-out to the east.
3. Required signage for proposed roadway stub-out along east property line.
4. Landscape buffers along the east and south property lines.
5. Design options for a vehicle to turn around at the south end of the project if a full vehicular access to Larkspur is not approved.
Comment: Please see Attachment 1 for staff response to other questions that were raised by Council members at the April 17, 2007 Council meeting.
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 site has access to existing water and services provided by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority, as well as the Town of Chapel Hill’s Solid Waste collection services.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.
|
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:
“This proposed development fully complies with the required recreation area component of the Ordinance, and will provide a recreation center with pool, a playground and tot lot and additional open space.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.
|
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 proposed development will enhance the value of the surrounding properties, and blend in well with the surrounding character of existing development. The property to the south (Larkspur Subdivision) is an existing single family residential neighborhood. The two neighborhoods will not be connected by street access and will be separated by existing vegetation and proposed landscape buffers and plantings.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.
|
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.
“The applicant believes that this proposed development fully complies with the letter and spirit of the Town of Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas, Resource Conservation district Guidelines, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, Greenways Plan and Urban Services Area. The applicant also believes that this proposed neighborhood will improve and enhance the public safety and provide a need for the community.” [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.
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.
Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, our recommendation is that, with the stipulations in Revised Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The Planning Board met on April 3, 2007 and voted 5-4 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the following changes to the staff’s recommended stipulations:
· Vehicular connection to the Larkspur neighborhood: That the connection to the Larkspur neighborhood is designed for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has not been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section on connectivity in this memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Maintenance of the Horace Williams Trail: That the Town be responsible for the maintenance of the “Horace Williams” trail.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section in the April 17 Public Hearing memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Recreation space requirements: That the portion of the recreation space associated with the “Horace Williams” trail shall be reduced by 50 percent.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section in the April 17 Public Hearing memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Energy efficiency: That the applicant include a 20 percent energy efficiency feature into their plans.
Staff Comment: As of the writing of this memorandum Revised Resolution A does not include a stipulation concerning energy efficiency. Please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District: That the resolution is amended to clarify the anticipated amount of land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District
Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation limiting the amount of land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District. Please refer to Attachment 1 of this memorandum (Council Questions from April 17 Public Hearing) for additional discussion on this item.
A copy of the Planning Board Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.
The Transportation Board met on April 26, 2007 and voted 6-3 to recommend the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the stipulations as recommended by staff. A copy of the Transportation Board Summary of Action is attached.
The Community Design Commission met on April 18, 2007, and voted 9-1 to recommend the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the following changes to the staff’s recommended stipulations:
Traffic calming: That the applicant installs a raised pedestrian crosswalk, on the internal street, between Eubanks Road and the Larkspur neighborhood.
Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation specifying that the type and location of traffic calming devices be determined during final plan review. Please refer to the Key Issues section on connectivity in this memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
Traffic safety study: That the Town should conduct a traffic impact/safety analysis to determine whether the connection should remain open or closed to local traffic.
Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring that the Town conduct a Traffic Impact and Safety Analysis, within 24 months after the roadway connection, between Eubanks Road and the Larkspur neighborhood is open.
Traffic control signage: That the applicant install stops signs and signage limiting commercial vehicle thru traffic.
Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation specifying that the type and location of traffic calming devices, including signage, be determined during final plan review. Please refer to the Key Issues section on connectivity in this memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Maintenance of the Horace Williams Trail: That the Town be responsible for the maintenance of the “Horace Williams” Trail.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section in the April 17 Public Hearing memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Recreation space requirements: That the portion of the recreation space associated with the “Horace Williams” greenway shall be reduced by 50 percent.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section in the April 17 Public Hearing memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
The Parks and Recreation Commission met on April 18, 2007, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the following changes to the staff’s recommended stipulations:
· Greenway trail name: That the name of the “Rails to Trails” greenway should be referred to as the “Horace Williams Trail” in order to reflect new trail name as noted in the most recent Greenways Master Plan.
Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A includes this change.
· Vehicular connection to the Larkspur neighborhood: That the connection to the Larkspur neighborhood is designed for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has not been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section on connectivity in this memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Greenway trail alignment: That the greenway should be separate from the public street or right-of-way connection to the Larkspur neighborhood.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section on connectivity in this memorandum on for additional discussion on this item.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on April 24, 2007 and voted 6-2 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the following changes to the staff recommended stipulations:
· Vehicular connection to the Larkspur neighborhood: That the connection to the Larkspur neighborhood is designed for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access only.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has not been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section on connectivity in this memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Internal sidewalks: That a sidewalk be provided on both (inner and outer) sides of the loop road(s) to provide a continuous walking circuit.
Staff Comment: In order to improved pedestrian circulation, around a central cluster of units that are entirely surrounded on all sides by street, Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that the entire internal street, located within western portion of the site, be constructed with sidewalks on both sides.
The Greenways Commission met on April 25, 2007 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the following change to staff recommended stipulations:
· Greenway trail name: That the name of the “Rails to Trails” greenway should be referred to as the “Horace Williams Trail”.
Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A includes this change.
· Maintenance of the Horace Williams Trail: That the Town be responsible for the maintenance of the “Horace Williams” greenway.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section in the April 17 Public Hearing memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Recreation space requirements: That the portion of the recreation space associated with the “Horace Williams” greenway shall be reduced by 50 percent.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section in the April 17 Public Hearing memorandum for additional discussion on this item.
· Greenway trail alignment: That the greenway should be separate from the emergency access, public street or right-of-way connection to the Larkspur neighborhood.
Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues section on connectivity in this memorandum on for additional discussion on this item.
· Greenways Commission review of trail: The Commission wishes to review the final alignment and design details of the Greenway trail prior to construction approval by the Town.
Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A does not include this provision as a recommendation. The final greenway plans for this project will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Department. We suggest that during final plan review the Parks and Recreation staff present the Greenways Commission with a copy of the final plans in order for the Commission to forward their comments back to Town staff.
We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A. Following Advisory Board review the April 17 Public Hearing, the following stipulation have been added to the staff’s recommendation:
1. Maintenance of the Horace Williams Trail: That the Town be responsible for the maintenance of the “Horace Williams” Trail.
2. Greenway trail name: That the name of the “Rails to Trails” greenway should be changed to the “Horace Williams Trail” in order to reflect new trail name as noted in the most recent Greenways Master Plan.
3. Greenway trail alignment: That the greenway should be separate from the emergency access, public street or right-of-way connection to the Larkspur neighborhood.
4. Recreation space requirements: That the portion of the recreation space associated with the “Horace Williams” greenway shall be reduced by 50 percent.
5. Land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District: That the amount of land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District shall not exceed 55,970 square feet.
Future Traffic safety study: That the Town should conduct a traffic impact/safety analysis to determine whether the connection should remain open or closed to local traffic.
6. Internal Sidewalks: That a sidewalk be provided on both sides of all internal streets located in the western portion of the proposed development.
7. Roadway stub-out in the Resource Conservation District: That land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District associated with the construction and grading of the proposed stub-out to the east is prohibited.
8. Recycling: That the phrase “multi-family type recycling services” is deleted from this stipulation.
We anticipate that based on additional information provided at tonight’s meeting, that the Council may modify Revised Resolution A to include additional stipulations with respect to Affordable housing and Energy efficiency.
We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Revised Resolution A 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 recommended by the staff. Resolution B would deny the application.
DIFFERENCES AMONG ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Revised Manager |
Planning Board |
Transp. Board |
Comm. Design |
Bicycle & Pedestrian |
Parks & Rec. |
Greenways |
|
Vehicular connection to Larkspur |
Full public street access |
Emergency & greenway access |
Full public street access |
Full public street access |
Emergency & greenway only |
Emergency & greenway only |
Full public street access |
|
Horace Wms Trail maintenance |
By Town of Chapel Hill |
By Town of Chapel Hill |
* |
By Town of Chapel Hill |
* |
* |
By Town of Chapel Hill |
|
Recreation Space Req |
Credit from HW Trail limit to 50% |
Credit from HW Trail limit to 50% |
* |
Credit from HW Trail limit to 50% |
* |
* |
Credit from HW Trail limit to 50% |
|
Energy efficiency |
Not specified |
20% energy efficient feature (or compar.) |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Disturbance in RCD |
Limit to 55,970 sq ft |
Limit to 55,970 sq ft |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Traffic calming |
Yes |
* |
* |
Raised ped crosswalk |
* |
* |
* |
|
Traffic safety study |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Traffic control signage |
Yes |
* |
* |
No thru commercial traffic |
* |
* |
* |
|
Greenway trail name |
Horace Williams Trail |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Horace Williams Trail |
Horace Williams Trail |
|
Greenway trail alignment |
Separate from public street or emergency access |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Separate from public street or emergency access |
Separate from public street or emergency access |
|
Sidewalk on both sides of internal streets |
Yes (western portion of site) |
* |
* |
* |
Yes (western portion of site) |
* |
* |
|
Greenways Commission to review final greenway plans
|
No |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
East stub-out & the RCD |
Land disturbance prohibited in RCD |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* Issues not raised at Advisory Board meeting, and therefore not included in the Resolution A