|
MEMORANDUM |
|
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Estates at Oxford Subdivision – Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 9777-64-2202) |
|
DATE: |
January 23, 2008 |
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Estates at Oxford Subdivision would be located on the east side of Smith Level Road, south of Dogwood Acres. Four residential lots are proposed with access from a proposed cul-de-sac off Woodward Way. The 24.4 acre property is in Orange County outside of Chapel Hill’s Urban Service Boundary and outside the Town’s corporate limits, in the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction. The entirety of the site is located in the Residential-LD-5 (R-LD-5) zoning district, and a portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District. The property is identified as Chapel Hill Township Property Identification Number 9777-64-2202.
KEY ISSUES
Based on our evaluation and comments received from advisory boards, we believe that the key issues concerning this proposed development are the following:
1. Fire Protection: The subject site is located outside the Town’s Urban Services Boundary. Fire protection will be provided via an existing joint agreement between Orange County and the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
The closest water main is a 12-inch line along the east side of Smith Level Road. The nearest fire hydrants are on Dogwood Drive (2,300 feet north of the new subdivision entrance) and on North Circle Drive (1,400 feet east of the new subdivision entrance), both in the adjacent Dogwood Acres Subdivision. The Town’s Fire Marshal notes that the distances between these hydrants and the anticipated building sites in this proposed development preclude use of these hydrants with the Town’s fire fighting equipment for this development.
Because this proposed development is located outside the Town’s Urban Service Boundary, neither the extension of a water line nor the installation of a fire hydrant on the existing Smith Level Road waterline are permitted.
The Town’s Fire Marshal reviewed the plans in light of the fact that water mains cannot be extended to the site at this time. For protection of individual homes, the Fire Marshal originally recommended that the applicant be required to provide each house with a residential sprinkler system meeting the requirements of Section 13D of the National Fire Protection Association Standards. For more discussion of this issue, please refer to the accompanying memorandum from the Town’s Fire Department.
Comment: For protection of homeowner life and property, we believe that installation of fire protection sprinklers is an important consideration, given that this site cannot be served by hydrants for fire protection, and the Town has no pumper truck to provide water to the site. The Planning Board, in its review of this application, supported the inclusion of a sprinkler requirement.
Although we agree that fire safety is a concern, we note that consideration of a subdivision, in accordance with North Carolina law, does not allow the inclusion of a public safety condition. The process for subdivision approval does not require the Council to make the finding that public health, safety, and welfare will be promoted by the proposed development, as is required in the review of Special Use Permit. (Please refer to the Process section below for more discussion of how subdivision approval differs from Special Use Permit approval.) Thus, the Town cannot require the applicant to install sprinkler systems.
We have included in Resolution A a stipulation encouraging the applicant to consider installing sprinkler systems. An additional stipulation calls for adding notes to the final plat and Homeowners’ Association documents, to be recorded in the County Register of Deeds Office, which alert potential lot owners that until annexation, no water/sewer lines can be extended to serve these lots for fire protection and other purposes.
2. Sidewalk Requirement: Originally, we recommended sidewalk installation along the new street and along the Woodward Way frontage (both located outside the Town’s Urban Services Boundary). However, NCDOT has clarified that it will not maintain a sidewalk in state right-of-way, nor would it grant maintenance easements for private parties to maintain a sidewalk located in state right-of-way. Therefore, we recommend that the sidewalk be located within a pedestrian easement on the new subdivision lots, and that the Homeowners’ Association maintain the sidewalk. Because of NCDOT’s policies regarding sidewalk location and maintenance, we no longer recommend installation of sidewalk along the Woodward Way frontage, as it may not be possible to obtain the necessary pedestrian and sidewalk maintenance easements from current property owners there.
We now recommend construction of a sidewalk on one side of the new street. The applicant does not wish to install sidewalk on the new street, citing a desire to maintain a rural feel on this street. The Planning Board recommended against a requirement for sidewalks.
Comment: We believe that sidewalk should be constructed along the new internal street, consistent with town requirement regarding promotion of pedestrian access and circulation within new subdivisions. We continue to include in Resolution A stipulations calling for construction and maintenance of this sidewalk segment.
3. Ownership and Maintenance of Bufferyards: The applicant is proposing a 20-foot wide buffer along the Smith Level Road frontage, per ordinance minimum requirements. The bufferyard would be located on the western boundary of two of the four proposed lots. We are recommending that the bufferyard be deeded to the Homeowners’ Association and maintained through the covenants and restrictions of the subdivision. Resolution A includes a stipulation that the applicant deed the area to the Homeowners’ Association.
The applicant objects to this stipulation, requesting that the bufferyard be owned and maintained by the future owners of the two lots. The Planning Board supported the applicant’s request, recommending the stipulation shift bufferyard ownership and maintenance responsibility from the Homeowners’ Association to the individual lot owners.
Comment: We believe that the ownership and responsibility for the subdivision bufferyard is most appropriately placed with the Homeowners’ Association, for accountability reasons, and for sharing of maintenance cost and effort. In addition, historically when bufferyard related violations and enforcement have become issues in other developments, the Town has had greater success in contacting the appropriate parties when there is a Homeowners’ Association. For these reasons, we continue to include in Resolution A stipulations calling for Homeowner Association ownership and responsibility for the bufferyards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board: The Planning Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on December 4, 2007. The Board voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of the resolution attached to the December 4, 2007 Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: Resolution A includes stipulations calling for installation and maintenance of a sidewalk along the new street only. For further discussion please see the Key Issues section above.
Comment: Resolution A does not include this stipulation. For further discussion please see the Key Issues section above.
The Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this subdivision proposal on December 19, 2007 and voted 10-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of the resolution attached to the December 4, 2007 Advisory Board memorandum. The Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action is attached to this memorandum.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on January 10, 2008. The Summary of Transportation Board Action will be provided when available.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board will meet on January 22, 2008. The Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board will be made available to the Town Council at the Public Hearing.
Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation: Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council approve the Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Resolution A.
Following advisory board review, the changes below have been incorporated into Resolution A:
Resolution B would deny the application.
A matrix comparing the differences between the above recommendations is included at the end of this memorandum.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.
PROCESS
This is a Major Subdivision application requesting a Preliminary Plat approval. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of a Preliminary Plat application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it against Town standards. We have presented a report to the Planning Board and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.
Review of subdivision proposals differs from review of Special Use Permits in that the question of compliance with regulations and standards is the basis for approval or denial, rather than the four findings of fact listing in Section 4.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. However, the Council’s review and action on a subdivision is quasi-judicial, with sworn testimony and evidence entered into the record. Please see the attached summary of key differences between legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions, prepared by Mr. David Owens of the School of Government.
The standard of review and approval of a Preliminary Plat application involves comparing the application with the regulations and standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The review typically focuses on vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, traffic impact, public improvements, lot standards, and recreation area.
Information regarding this application will be presented at tonight’s Public Hearing. The Land Use Management Ordinance directs that if, after consideration of the information, the Council decides that the application meets all the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements, the application must be approved. If the Council decides that the application does not meet all the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements, the application accordingly must be denied.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the subdivision standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Based on our evaluation, our preliminary recommendation is that the application, as submitted, complies with the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, with the conditions in Resolution A.
The Council may find that the proposal meets the subdivision regulations and other pertinent Town regulations, or may find that the proposal does not meet the regulations. Please refer to the attached Staff Report for detail on compliance with subdivision regulations.
Tonight, the Council receives our attached evaluation, and also receives 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.
SUMMARY
We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend. The key special conditions that we recommend are described in detail in the accompanying report. With these conditions, we believe that the Council could adopt a resolution to approve the application for a subdivision. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
ESTATES AT OXFORD SUBDIVISION
Differences Between Recommendations
|
ISSUE |
Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Parks and Recreation Commission |
|
Fire Protection Sprinklers |
Recommend applicant consider |
Require |
* |
|
Note on plat and HOA documents re: lack of water lines |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Require Sidewalk (within private easement) |
Along new street |
No |
* |
|
Ownership of/Responsibility for Bufferyards
|
HOA |
Two lot owners |
*
|
* not discussed at the meeting
ATTACHMENTS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (January 23, 2008)
