MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT:	Estates at Oxford Subdivision – Application for Preliminary Plat (File No. 9777-64-2202)
DATE:	February 25, 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 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-LD5) zoning district, and a portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District. The property is identified as Orange County Property Identification Number 9777-64-2202.

DISCUSSION

Several concerns were expressed at the January 28, 2008 Public Hearing, and each is discussed below.

1. Requiring fire sprinklers installation in each home: The Town Council asked the applicant if he was willing to accept a stipulation in Resolution A requiring the installation of sprinklers in each home, and the applicant initially declined. A citizen spoke in favor of sprinkler installation, citing concerns for fire fighters, and speculating that home insurance premiums would be reduced.

Since the hearing, the applicant further investigated the sprinkler option and has offered to accept a stipulation requiring sprinkler installation in each home (please see the attached letter from the applicant).

Comment: We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring installation of sprinklers in the new homes, as offered by the applicant. We continue to believe that sprinkler systems in the homes would be the safest fire protection option, given that the estimated fire truck response time to this area is about 6 minutes.

2. Relative to requirements for fire protection, clarification on what role “public health, safety, and welfare” plays in the review/approval of a subdivision: Council Members asked if the finding of “public health, safety, and welfare” pertained to the review of a subdivision.

Comment: We note that according to state statutes, local regulation of the subdivision of land does not involve the governing board’s making a finding of public health, safety, and welfare promotion. Please refer to the Process Section below, and to the attached summary of key differences between legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions, prepared by Mr. David Owens of the School of Government.

We anticipate the Council will receive a memorandum from the Fire Department and Town Attorney at an upcoming meeting on how best to address fire protection standards for structures outside the Town’s Urban Services District.

3. Requiring plat notes regarding water line extension: A Council member voiced his support for the stipulation in Resolution A which called for including notes on the final plans and final plat indicating no water lines would be available for fire protection.

Since the hearing the applicant has offered to ensure installation of sprinklers in each new home. He simultaneously requested removal of stipulation #4 which calls for notes to be placed on the final plans and plats alerting potential lot owners that no public water or sewer could be extended to the site. (Please see the attached letter from the applicant.)

Comment: Even with the installation of sprinklers, we believe it would still be beneficial for potential home owners to know that no water or sewer extension can be anticipated in this area, for fire protection or other purposes. We do not recommend deletion of this stipulation.

4. Fire Protection Mutual Aid Agreement: There was inquiry as to the nature, coverage area, and cost-sharing arrangements in the Orange County Mutual Aid Agreement.

Comment: Established in 1994, this mutual aid agreement provides for multi-agency fire response for the southern part of Orange County (the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, and Orange County). At the Council’s direction in 1994, the Chapel Hill Fire Department has participated in this arrangement for exchange of in-kind services and resources routinely. Our Fire Department staff report that the exchanges have thus far been equitable.

The Southern Orange County Fire District covers about 4,500 residents in an area of about 18 square miles north of the Chatham County line to Eubanks Road, and west to Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road. Funding for fire protection in this area is through collection of county taxes ($0.94 per $100 of property tax). The County contracts with the Town of Carrboro (with compensation of about $400,000 last year) to serve as primary responder within this fire district.

As a practical matter, given the proximity of the Chapel Hill Fire Station Number 5 on U.S. Highway 15-501, it’s likely that the Chapel Hill Fire Department would typically be the first responders to a fire at the Estates at Oxford.

In addition, since the public hearing, we have received comments from the Transportation Board and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. These comments are attached.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board met on January 10, 2008 and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend adoption of the Resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following change:

the deletion of the sidewalk requirement.

Comment: This recommendation is incorporated into Revised Resolution A.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on January 29, 2008 and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following change:

the deletion of the sidewalk requirement.

Comment: This recommendation is incorporated into Revised Resolution A.

Our preliminary recommendation from January 28, 2008 and recommendations from other advisory boards are summarized in the attached comparison chart and are included in the January 28, 2008 public hearing memorandum, a copy of which may be viewed at the following web page link: http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/01/28

Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Preliminary Plat application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A.

Following the January 28 public hearing, the below changes have been incorporated into Revised Resolution A:

Revised Stipulation # 3 to require installation of sprinklers in each new home;
Revised Stipulation #4 to remove any reference to future annexation;
Deleted Stipulation #6 and revised the subsequent stipulation (now #6) to delete the sidewalk construction and maintenance requirements; and
Revised stipulation #12 to clarify the bufferyard would be owned by the owners of Lots 1 and 2, but would be maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.

A copy of a matrix comparing the differences between the above recommendations is included at the end of this memorandum.

PROCESS

This is a Major Subdivision application undergoing review for Preliminary Plat approval. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this 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 regarding its compliance with the standards and regulation of the Land Use Management Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and tonight we submit our report and 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 listed in Section 4.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. 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, stormwater management, and recreation area.

Information regarding this application was presented at the January 28, 2008 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 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 [Resolution B]. Please refer to the Staff Report from January 28, 2008 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 revised resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. The key special conditions that we recommend are described in detail in the January 28, 2008 staff 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 Revised Recommendation

Planning Board Recommendation

Parks and Recreation Commission

Transportation Board

Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board

Fire Protection

Sprinklers

Yes

Note on plat and HOA documents re: lack of water lines

Yes

Require Sidewalk (within private easement)

Ownership of Bufferyards

Two lot owners

Responsibility for Bufferyards

HOA

* not discussed at the meeting

ATTACHMENTS

Summary of Transportation Board Action (p. 16.).
Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 17).
Summary of Differences Between Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Zoning Decisions (p. 18).
Letter from the applicant re: hydrants (PDF) (p. 19).
Letter from the applicant re: sprinklers (PDF) (p. 20).
Letter from the Carrboro Fire Chief (PDF) (p. 21).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (February 25, 2008)

Staff PowerPoint Presentation [2 MB pdf]