|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Purefoy Drive Development – Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing Application (File No. 9870-54-7219) |
|
DATE: |
October 17, 2007 |
Attached for your consideration is a request from Habitat for Humanity for a Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing to create 51 single-family lots. The 19.3 acre site is located in the Residential-1 zoning district on the north side of Purefoy Drive between Rogers Road and the Greene Tract. The site is located outside the Town of Chapel Hill’s corporate limits, within the Urban Services Boundary, and in the Town’s Northern Joint Planning Transition Area (JPA).
This package of materials has been prepared for the Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
In 2006, the applicant, Habitat for Humanity, submitted a Concept Plan proposal. Comments from the Community Design Commission review (May 17, 2006), the Council’s review (September 18, 2006) and the applicant’s response to the comments are attached to this memorandum.
The Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing application proposes to create 51 single-family lots. The lots vary in size from 7,146 square feet to 43,563 square feet. The applicant, Habitat for Humanity, 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 increased stormwater runoff associated with the proposed development. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by two access points from Purefoy Drive, including the existing Edgar Road right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to construct two connector road stub-outs to the north and one connector road stub-out to the east. The applicant is also proposing that the Council grant a modification to the required bufferyard regulations.
We have identified several key issues concerning this application:
Comment: 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 size 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.
Comment: For discussion on this issue, please refer to the section on Modification to the Regulations.
Comment: We do not believe that a condition in the Special Use Permit can supersede Duke Energy’s right to maintain their utility easements; therefore this recommendation has not been incorporated in Resolution A.
Comment: For the Special Use Permit application, the applicant is required to provide pre-development and post-development hydrologic calculations and to identify the stormwater management structure(s) that will be used to provide compliance with the water quality, rate, and volume requirements. The applicant has provided this information in as much detail as is required at this stage of the development review process. Detailed stormwater design calculations and plans are submitted as part of the Final Plan Zoning Compliance Permit following approval of a Special Use Permit. Resolution A includes the standard stormwater stipulations.
This site drains east to west and the applicant has proposed a drainage conveyance system, comprised of curb and gutter and a storm drainage system that conveys runoff to the western portion of the site where a stormwater management structure is to be located. The submitted plans, last revised August 10, 2007 and reviewed by staff, indicate that the majority of the site runoff will be conveyed to the stormwater controls.
Comment: 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. The Task Force materials were received by the Planning Board on October 2 and the Community Design Commission on October 10. On October 2, the Planning Board passed a separate resolution endorsing the guiding principals expressed in the Task Force summary comments. A copy of the Planning Board’s resolution to the Council is attached.
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.
Comment: 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 units.
Comment: We recommend this modification of the regulations. 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.
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, and modifies the regulation as proposed by the applicant, 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 the application as submitted, including the proposed modification to the regulations, 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:
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;
Finding #2: That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;
Finding #3: That the use or development is 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; and
Finding #4: That the use or development conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this 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, with the requested modification to the regulations, 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 October 2, 2007 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with the adoption of the resolution attached to the September 18 Planning Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: In response to a concern expressed by a citizen, the Planning Board recommended a stipulation concerning the location of a school bus stop at Rogers Road and Purefoy Drive. Town staff is actively investigating the matter and will contact NCDOT and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools to discuss this issue. In this case we do not believe that a stipulation is required for staff to being to study this matter, as recommended by the Planning Board. Resolution A does not include the recommendation of the Planning Board.
Comment: Transit service is currently not provided to this area. As the community develops, we anticipate that the demands for transit service will increase and a bus stop/shelter may be necessary. We believe that before refunding the payment within the time period recommended by the Planning Board, that a portion of the proposed development (25 homes) should be occupied for a period of five years. We recommend that the transit impacts of this development be analyzed after a percentage of the homes have been constructed and occupied. Therefore, Resolution A includes a stipulation that, upon request by the applicant, the payment shall be returned if the improvements are not completed within 5 years after the issuance of the 25th certificate of occupancy.
Comment: Resolution A does not include this recommendation. Please refer to the Key Issues section for additional discussion.
Comment: Resolution A provides for a modification of the setbacks adjacent to the bufferyards. Please refer to the modification of regulations section for additional discussion.
Comment: The change to the Purefoy Drive sidewalk stipulation was added as a point of clarification with respect to the construction of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
Comment: The initial recommended 22-foot wide back of curb to back of curb roadway improvement did not include footage for the 2 ˝-foot wide curb and gutter on both sides of the street; therefore the recommended width increased by 5-feet. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated in Resolution A.
Comment: This stipulation has been incorporated in Resolution A.
The Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum.
Planning Board Resolution to Council: On October 2, 2007 the Planning Board adopted a separate Resolution to Council regarding concerns associated with traffic, stormwater and transit service. The Resolution also endorsed the guiding principals expressed in the September 27, 2007, Task Force summary comments. A copy of the Planning Board’s Resolution is attached to the Planning Board Summary.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on September 27, 2007 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with the adoption of the resolution attached to the September 27 memorandum. The Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to this memorandum. Resolution A includes the recommendations of the Transportation Board.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on September 25, 2007 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with the adoption of the resolution attached to the September 25th Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: See discussion under Planning Board Recommendation. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
Comment: See discussion under Planning Board Recommendation. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
The Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to this memorandum.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission met on September 19, 2007 and voted 10-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with the adoption of Resolution A, as attached to the Advisory Board memorandum. The Summary of the Parks and Recreation Commission Action is attached to this memorandum.
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on October 10, 2007. The Summary of the Community Design Commission Action will be provided 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 review by the Town’s Advisory Boards, the following changes have been incorporated in 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 Purefoy Drive Development Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Housing, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.
Resolution B would deny the application.
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Preliminary |
Planning Board |
Bicycle & Ped Adv Board |
Transportation Parks & Rec |
Community Design |
|
Purefoy Dr improvements |
Continuous sidewalk on north side of Purefoy Dr |
* |
The Community Design Commission will review this application on October 10, 2007.
The Summary of the Community Design Commission Action will be provided when it is available. |
||
|
Internal connector streets |
27 feet from back of curb to back of curb |
* |
|||
|
Sight distance triangles |
At Purefoy/Edgar Rd intersection |
* |
* |
||
|
Review Rogers Rd school bus stop location with CH-C school |
Yes (implemented without being stipulated) |
Yes (stipulated in resolution) |
* |
* |
|
|
Permit solar collectors and clothes lines |
Yes – allowed in HOA docs
|
* |
* |
||
|
Control use of herbicides by Duke Energy |
No – can not control utility activity in easement |
Yes - require HOA to maintain easement |
* |
* |
|
|
Time limit on bus stop payment-in-lieu |
Return payment within 5 years of 25 certificate of occupancy |
Return payment within 5 years |
* |
* |
|
|
Setbacks along landscape buffer |
Modify regulation to reduce setback from 14’to 4’
|
* |
* |
||
* not discussed at meeting
