ATTACHMENT 1
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Purefoy Drive Development – Application for Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing (File No. 9870-54-7219) |
|
DATE: |
October 17, 2007 |
The Town has received an application for approval of a Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing, which proposes to create 51 single-family lots on 19.3 acres. Town staff has reviewed this application for compliance with the standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual and offers the following evaluation.
Location: The 19.3-acre site is located on the north side of Purefoy Drive, approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of Purefoy Drive and Rogers Road. The property is traversed by a 128 foot Duke Power Company transmission easement. Edgar Road, an existing public road, is located within the proposed development site. The site is composed of 17 different lots. The eastern edge of the site is adjacent to the northwest quadrant of the Greene Tract and a future 18 acre affordable housing development site proposed by Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro.
A portion of the proposed development also includes the off-site extension of a sanitary sewer line between the south side of Purefoy Drive and the Rusch Hollow neighborhood.
Existing Structures: There are three dwelling units currently on the site.
Pedestrian Circulation: There are currently no sidewalks along either side of Edgar Road or Purefoy Drive.
Bus Stops, Routes: There is currently no Town of Chapel Hill transit service in this area.
Topography, Drainage, Vegetative Cover: The site is gently sloping from the east to the west with most of the property having less than 10 percent slopes. A portion of the site, within the Duke Power Easement, includes slopes generally between 10 to 15 percent, with a smaller area having slopes exceeding 25 percent. The site is not located with the Town’s Watershed Protection District. The property does not contain any streams, floodplain, or Resource Conservation District. We believe the site may contain some wetlands. The eastern portion of the site has several significant trees and the western portion of the site is generally pines.
The Special Use Permit application proposes to create 51 single-family lots on approximately 19.3 acres. The 51 lots vary in size from 7,146 square feet to 43,563 square feet. The applicant is proposing 6 acres as open space, including two improved recreation areas.
The applicant is proposing a stormwater facility to be located in the northwest portion of the site, for managing stormwater runoff associated with the proposed internal public street network.
General access to the site would be provided by two access points from Purefoy Drive, including the existing Edgar Road right-of-way. The application also indicates two connector road stub-outs to the north and one connector road stub-out to the east. The applicant is proposing that the internal connector street network be constructed to Town local connector street standards and be dedicated as public right-of-way. The applicant is also proposing to construct several discontinuous sidewalk segments along Purefoy Drive.
The development proposal also includes the extension of an off-site sanitary sewer main between the proposed development site and the Rush Hollow neighborhood.
The plans for the Purefoy Drive Development are similar to the 2006 Concept Plans reviewed by the Community Design Commission and the Town Council.
Zoning: The site is zoned Residential-1. The applicant has applied for a Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing approval to allow for a reduction in the Residential-1 minimum lot sizes (17,000 square feet). Adjacent zoning to the site is Residential-1 (R-1).
Planned Development-Housing: Because the application is a Special Use Permit Planned Development-Housing, setbacks and primary height regulations of the underlying Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district, only apply to lots on the perimeter of the development site. The land use intensity proposed by this development is allowed in this zoning district with the approval of a Special Use Permit. There are floor area limitations for Planned Development-Housing projects. This project has a maximum floor area of 66,970 square feet. The Project Fact Sheet submitted with the application indicates as proposed a maximum floor area of 66,970 square feet.
Dimensional Standards: As a Planned Development-Housing, the individual lots within the development are not subject to setbacks or primary height regulations except at the perimeter of the development. The application meets the dimensional standards outlined in the Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance for the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district as required.
Modifications to the Regulations: The applicant is requesting the Council modify the landscape bufferyard requirements. The staff is also recommending that the Council modify the setback regulations. Each is discussed below.
We recommend this modification of the regulations. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case. We believe it is reasonable to reduce the required buffer standards for this application. The applicant is proposing buffers adjacent to a lot with an existing residential development. If this application was as a conventional subdivision, no perimeter buffer would be required. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is providing 51 affordable single-family dwelling.
We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case. Although the modification would reduce the setback adjacent to the buffers from 14-feet to 4-feet, the actually impact would not result in moving the building closer to the adjoining properties. The 10-foot wide common area would effectively create an additional setback width of 10 feet and thereby maintain the 14-foot setback. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is providing 51 affordable single-family dwelling units.
The Town Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. The Council may deny one or more of the proposed modifications from regulations at its discretion. If the Council chooses to deny a request for modification to regulations, the applicant’s alternatives are to comply with regulations or request a variance from regulations.
This Special Use Permit application includes an offer by the applicant to provide, for sale and private ownership, 51 affordable units. All of the lots are to be available for households earning below 80 percent of the area’s median income. The applicant, Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, intends to collaboratively work with the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust and Empowerment in the development of the project.
This offer of affordability is included in the applicant’s Statement of Justification and is described as follows:
“This project will add up to 51 single-family homes. All of the units will be affordable for 99 years to households earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income.” [Applicant’s Statement]
We endorse the applicant’s affordable housing proposal. Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring that the applicant submit, for Town Manager review and approval, copies of the deed restrictions addressing the affordability component of this propose development. The documents must be approved by the Town Manager prior to the recordation of a final plat.
Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force: This project is located within the Rogers Road Small Area Plan area. An element of the Task Force work is to consider future connector road network, with an emphasis on creating greater opportunities for access to the Rogers Road neighborhoods, including the Greene Tract. We envision a future road network in this area that will be a grid with multiple connections to better disperse vehicle movement.
We believe that the proposed site plan, with multiple connector road stub-outs, attempts to provide maximum opportunities for future road connections. Attached to this report is a preliminary illustrative connector roadway network for the Rogers Road Small Area. This map is illustrative in nature and has not been endorsed by the Task Force as of the date of this report. Further, the connector roadway network as shown has not be reviewed or endorsed by the Town Council.
Traffic Impact: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by the Town Consultant in accordance with the Town’s TIA guidelines. The findings of the TIA indicate that the additional traffic generated by the proposed Purefoy Drive development would not be expected to negatively impact the surrounding road network. A copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis Executive Summary is attached to this report.
Vehicular Access: The proposed development has frontage on Purefoy Drive and Edgar Road. Purefoy Drive is a local two-lane public street, located within a 60-foot wide right-of-way that dead-ends into the western edge of the Greene Tract. Edgar Road is narrow public lane, located within a 60 foot-wide right-of-way. This road also dead-ends north of the site and provides access to several residential structures.
Purefoy Drive: We recommend the following improvements to the portion of Purefoy Drive between the site’s east and west property line:
These conditions have been included as stipulations in Resolution A.
Sight Distance on Purefoy Drive and School Bus Stop on Rogers Road: At the Planning Board meeting, concerns were raised regarding traffic including: a) the sight visibility at the intersection of Edgar Road and Purefoy Drive; and b) the location of an existing school bus stop at Rogers Road and Purefoy Drive. In response we recommend that the final plan and plat include clear sight distance triangles at the Edgar Rd./Purefoy Dr. intersection.
Internal Connector Streets: Two points of access from Purefoy Drive are proposed to the site; one access point by way of Edgar Road, the other is via a new internal street. The applicant is proposing construction of the internal streets for the site to Town local connector standards. Except for Edgar Road (60-foot right-of-way) the applicant is proposing that all internal connector streets include a 45-foot wide right-of-way.
We recommend the following improvements to all internal connector streets:
These conditions have been included as stipulations in Resolution A.
Connector Road Stub-Outs: The applicant is proposing two connector road stub-outs along the northern property line and one connector road stub-out along the eastern property line. In addition to these proposed connector stub-outs, we recommend that the applicant provide an additional connector road stub-out to the western property line, at a location to be determined. We believe all of the proposed and recommended connector road stub-outs are a critical component of the Rogers Road Small Area Plan. Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring connector road stub-outs to the north, east and west property lines.
Connector Road Stub-Out Signage and Notification: We recommend that signage be located at each connector road stub-out. We recommend that at such time as the applicant completes construction activity associated with the clearing and grading for the road bed, signage should be located at each connector road stub-out. The signage should indicate that the connector road would be extended for future development. The size, text, and color of the signs should be subject to the Town Manager’s approval. If the project and street construction is to be constructed as a phased development, we also recommend that the signage should be installed at the end of each road in each phase.
We recommend that the final plans and final plats include a note stating that “Future development of the adjoining property will include the extension of the connector road stub-out along the north, east and west property lines”. We also recommend that the applicant should submit to all purchasers of property and residential units a statement that properly discloses the proposed extension of the multiple connector road stub-outs, specifying that the connector roads will be extended for future development.
We have included stipulations to this effect in Resolution A.
Pedestrian Circulation: There are currently no sidewalks along either side of Purefoy Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct several discontinuous sidewalk segments along that portion of the proposed development site that fronts Purefoy Drive. The applicant is also proposing sidewalks along one side of all internal connector streets.
We recommend that in addition to the proposed internal sidewalks, that the applicant also construct a five-foot wide sidewalk and a three foot utility strip, along the entire frontage of Purefoy Drive, between the east and west property lines of the proposed development site.
We have included this stipulation in Resolution A.
Public Improvements: We recommend that, until this development is annexed into the Town limits, the Homeowners Association or NDCOT be responsible for the maintenance of the internal streets including the improved portions of Purefoy Drive. We also recommend that the Homeowners Association be responsible for maintaining the sidewalks until annexation.
Bus Stops and Routes: There is presently no public bus service along Purefoy Drive or Rogers Road. We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for a future bus stop and shelter. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
Recreational Requirements: Section 5.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the applicant provide 22,029 square feet of recreation space for this Special Use Permit application to meet the active recreation needs of the residents. The applicant is proposing to satisfy the recreation requirement by providing two recreation sites totaling 43,400 square feet of recreation space. The applicant is also proposing recreation improvements including a covered picnic shelter and tables as well as a “tot” lot.
We typically do not allow picnic shelter to count as active recreation unless the shelter is in close conjunction with the proposed play area. Therefore we recommend that the numbers, configuration, and type of amenities in the recreation space, to be provided on-site, be approved by the Town Manager. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Specimen Trees: Approximately 26 specimen trees have been identified on the Landscape Plan for the Purefoy Drive site. No significant tree stands have been identified. Four of the specimen trees have been identified to be removed as part of the roadway construction. Due to the small lot sizes, we anticipate that many of the significant trees will be removed as part of the residential construction. In response to staff comments, the applicant is proposing to preserve several significant trees north of proposed lot 41 and between lots 27 and 28. These areas are identified as open space on the proposed site plan.
Buffers: The table below outlines the minimum landscape buffer requirements for the proposed Special Use Permit and the buffers proposed by the applicant.
Location |
Ordinance Requirement |
Proposed Buffers |
|
Southern Boundary (Purefoy Drive frontage) |
15’ Type “B” External Buffer |
No buffer (requesting modification to regulation) |
|
Western, Northern, and Eastern Boundary |
10’ Type “B” Internal Buffer |
|
|
Lots 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31.
|
10’ Type “B” Internal Buffer |
10’ Type “B” Internal Buffer |
The applicant is requesting a modification to the buffer regulations. We recommend that the applicant provide a 10-foot type “B” buffer as proposed in the above chart. For additional information, please refer to the discussion on Modification to Regulations.
We recommend identification of the proposed bufferyard on the final plans and plat as common area to be deeded to the Homeowners’ Association. We recommend that provisions for the maintenance of the buffer be incorporated into the Homeowners’ Association covenants. These recommendations have been incorporated in Resolution A.
Landscape Protection Plan: We recommend that a detailed Landscape Protection Plan for the proposed development be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan must show all critical root zones of any rare or specimen trees affected by proposed construction, including the off-site sanitary sewer line extension. The plan shall indicate which trees are proposed for removal, and where tree protection fencing and silt fencing will be installed. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
We recommend that detailed landscape planting plans and landscape maintenance plans for the proposed buffer be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all plantings. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Building Elevations and Lighting Plan: The Ordinance requires that detailed building elevations and a lighting plan be approved by the Community Design Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Resource Conservation District: There is no Resource Conservation District on the proposed development site or on the off-site properties associated with the extension of the sanitary sewer line from the Rusch Hollow neighborhood.
Watershed Protection District: The proposed development is located outside the Watershed Protection District.
Impervious Surface: The application is allowed a total of 440,590 square feet of impervious surface. The applicant is proposing a total of 249,638 square feet of impervious surface. The applicant is proposing a total of 96,638 square feet of impervious surface associated with the proposed streets and sidewalks. The applicant is also proposing that each lot be allocated a total of 3,000 square feet of impervious surface for a total of 153,000 square feet of impervious surface for the lots. We recommend that the final plans and final plat identify this proposed impervious surface limit on each lot. We recommend that an impervious surface tally sheet be submitted with all final plans and with all Single-Family Zoning Compliance Permit and Building Permit applications. We also recommend that the applicant shall submit to all purchasers of property and residential units a statement that properly discloses the impervious surface limits associated with each lot. We have incorporated this recommendation in Resolution A.
Stormwater Management: The applicant has proposed a stormwater management facility which will store excess stormwater and release it at a rate at or below the pre-development rates for the site. This facility is proposed to be located in the northwestern portion of the site.
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that each residential lot manage stormwater rate, quality, and volume. Due to the small lot size, we do not believe there is a practical way to manage residential stormwater on a lot by lot basis. We recommend that the applicant provide one or more centrally located stormwater facilities to handle the residential stormwater requirements for the entire site in lieu of providing individual residential stormwater facilities on each lot.
These have been included as stipulations in Resolution A.
Erosion Control: We recommend that a Soil and Erosion Control Plan for the site and the off-site utility work be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Office and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This stipulation is included in Resolution A.
Wetlands: We believe there may be some wetlands located on the western portion of the site. We recommend that during Final Plan review the applicant show the location of State and/or federally-regulated wetlands on the proposed development site, including the area associated with the off-site sewer line. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Energy Management: We recommend that the applicant include an Energy Management Plan in the Special Use Permit Final Plan application, to include consideration of utilizing sustainable energy, currently defined as solar, wind, biofuels, and hydroelectric power, in the proposed development. We recommend that the Energy Management Plan include consideration of the purchase of carbon offset credits and green power production through coordination with the NC GreenPower program. We also recommend that the Energy Management Plan provide for an acceptable level of increased energy efficiency that ensures indoor air quality and adequate access to natural lighting, and allows for the proposed utilization of sustainable energy in a development.
We recommend that the Energy Management Plan incorporate a “20 percent more energy efficient” feature relative to the energy efficiency standard of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as amended and in effect at the time of building permit issuance. We also recommend that similar comparable standards, generally recognized as applicable to building energy consumption as amended and in effect at the time of building permit issuance, may be used by the applicant when incorporating the “20 percent more energy efficient” feature into their Energy Management Plans.
We also recommend that the applicant report to the Town the actual energy efficiency achieved, during a five year period following the occupancy of the first residence.
Refuse Management: We note that the Town refuse collection services will not be available to this development until the development has been annexed into the Town’s corporate limits. Until such time that this area is annexed, we recommend that the homeowners association contract for private collection service.
We note that the Orange Community Recycling intends to provide regular curbside recycling services to all dwelling units in this proposed development at such time it is included in the Orange County recycling program collection service area.
We have included our standard stipulations in Resolution A.
Utilities: The Ordinance requires that detailed utility plans be reviewed and approved by OWASA, Duke Energy Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Duke Energy Easement: During the Planning Board meeting questions were raised regarding the use of herbicides by Duke Energy within the power easement and the potential impact on the proposed stormwater facility (which includes vegetative plantings) and the proposed neighborhood recreation areas. The Planning Board recommended that the Homeowners Association maintain the vegetative cover within the easement area with the intent to eliminate the need for the use of herbicides by the utility company. We do not believe that we can supersede Duke Energy right to maintain the easement; therefore this recommendation has not been incorporated in Resolution A.
Underground Utilities: Except for three phase power lines, the Ordinance requires that all new or relocated utility lines be located underground. We have this standard stipulation in Resolution A.
Off-Site Sewer Improvements: This proposal requires the extension of a sanitary sewer line from the Rusch Hollow neighborhood. We recommend that the approval of this Special Use Permit shall authorize the installation of off-site utility infrastructure. We recommend that off-site utility easements, authorizing the installation of the required sewer line, be provided and approved by the Town Manager and OWASA and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Fire: It is required that all new structures be located within 400 feet of a fire hydrant and that all fire hydrants be shown on Final Plans, subject to the approval of the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Homeowners Association: We recommend that a Homeowners’ Association be created for the purpose of owning and maintaining common areas, however designated, including bufferyards, open space, recreation areas, and stormwater management basins. We recommend that, until this development is annexed into the Town limits, NCDOT or the Homeowners Association be responsible for the maintenance of the internal streets, including the improved portions of Purefoy Drive. We also recommend that the Association document note the proposed extension of the multiple connector street stub-outs, specifying that the connector streets will be extended for future development.
We recommend that the Homeowners’ Association and applicable documents be approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office. We recommend that the Homeowners’ Association document be cross-referenced on the final plat. We have included stipulations to this effect in Resolution A.
Common Area Dedicated to Homeowners Association: The applicant is proposing a private 10-foot wide perimeter landscape bufferyard easement on 15 of the proposed 51 lots. Staff is recommending that the bufferyard be deeded as common area owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The applicant is concerned that the reduction in lot depth, created by the dedication of 10 feet to the Homeowners Association and thus moving the interior setbacks 10 feet closer to the front of the lot, negatively impacts the available building area. The applicant is proposing that the 10-foot wide buffer be located within a private easement on each lots and thereby maintain the deeper lots and setbacks.
With respect to protecting and managing landscape vegetation, landscape buffers deeded as common area owned and maintained by a Homeowner’s Association, are preferred to private easements owned by individual lot owners. Recognizing the applicant’s concern with the reduction in lot sized associated with interior setback line, we recommend that the Council modify the setback regulations and reduce the interior setback, adjacent to the bufferyard, from 14-feet to 4-feet. For discussion on this recommendation please refer to the section on Modification to the Regulations.
Construction Management Plan: We recommend that the applicant provide a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, subject to approval by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plan: We recommend that the applicant provide a Work Zone Traffic Control Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public street that will be disrupted during construction. The plan must include a pedestrian management plan indicating how pedestrian movements will be safely maintained. The plan must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Street Lighting Plan: We recommend that a street lighting plan be reviewed and approved by Duke Energy, NCDOT and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We also recommend that if the proposed street lighting plan includes non-standard poles and/or fixtures, that the plans indicate that the applicant shall be responsible for the additional cost as determined by Duke Energy. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
Comprehensive Plan: The adopted Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, classifies the site as “Low Density Residential” indicated as 1 to 4 units per acre. This application proposes 2.6 units per acre
Rogers Road Small Area Plan: Earlier this year the Town formed a Task Force to study and develop a Small Area Plan for the Rogers Road area. The proposed development is located within the boundary of that small area plan. The applicant has discussed the proposed development with the Task Force. The Task Force discussed this project at their September 27, 2007 meeting. The Quick Report, Summary Minutes and two handouts from that meeting area attached to this memorandum. This attachment was received and reviewed by on October 2 by the Planning Board and on October 10 by the Community Design Commission.
We anticipate that at the conclusion of their work, the Task Force will forward a recommendation to the Town Council that may include changes to some elements of the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, including land use, utilities and a roadway network.
Single Family Zoning Compliance Permits: We recommend that prior to the issuance of building permits for each individual lot, that the applicant obtains a Single-Family Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
Open Burning and Plant Rescue: We have included stipulations in Resolution A requiring that no open burning associated with this development be permitted; and encouraging the applicant to conduct a “plant rescue” after the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to start of construction.
For approval of a Special Use Permit, the Council must make the following findings, as set forth in Article 4.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
Upon review of the application and information that has been submitted to date, our preliminary recommendation is that these findings can be made.
Based on information available at this stage of the application review process, we believe that the proposal, with the conditions in Resolution A and the proposed modification to the buffer regulation, meets the requirements of the applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution A would approve the application with conditions. Resolution B would deny the application.