|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: South Grove at 15-501 South, Planned Development-Housing Special Use Permit Application (File No. 9776-89-7469) |
|
DATE: |
March 10, 2008 |
INTRODUCTION
Attached for consideration is a proposed application from Oldham Associates for the 26-lot South Grove Planned Development-Housing Special Use Permit on the east side of U.S. Highway 15-501 South. Accompanying the Special Use Permit application is an application for a Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment, Floor Area Limits, Planned Development-Housing. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9776-89-7469.
In 2006, the applicant submitted a Concept Plan proposal. Comments from the Community Design Commission review (August 16, 2006) and the Council’s review (October 4, 2006) are attached.
The South Grove Planned Development-Housing Special Use Permit application would create 26 single-family lots on 40 acres. The site is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 15-501, just south of Cole Road and the Town’s Southern Community Park.
The site is located in the Residential-Low Density-1 (R-LD1) zoning district, outside the Town of Chapel Hill’s corporate limits, outside the Urban Services Boundary, and in the Watershed Protection District. Part of the site is in the Town’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and part is in the Chapel Hill/Orange County Joint Planning Area.
1. Fire Protection: The proposed development would be located outside the Town’s Urban Services Boundary, where water lines cannot be extended. Consequently, the typical requirement for fire hydrants was not applicable here. As an alternate approach to fire protection, the staff’s preliminary recommendation was to require the applicant to install a sprinkler system in each new home. The applicant considered the options of installing sprinklers in each new home or of installing hydrants in the development, connected to the community well. The applicant now offers to accept a condition of approval which requires installation of sprinklers in the new homes.
Comment: Given the location of this development outside the Town’s Urban Services Boundary, where providing hydrants with a minimum fire flow would not be possible, we believe that the installation of sprinklers is the safest alternative strategy for fire protection. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A calling for installation of sprinklers in each new home.
2. Alternate Bufferyard: The applicant is proposing a decorative wall, a gazebo, landscaping, and a paved path at the entrance to the development, within a section of the 30foot Type D bufferyard required along the highway frontage. The Community Design Commission recommended the applicant use natural materials and design the wall, gazebo, and landscaping for a “rustic” look, in keeping with the surrounding semi-rural area. We recommend that the applicant apply to the Community Design Commission for an alternate buffer along this section of the highway frontage, including the proposed wall, gazebo, lighting plan for the gazebo, and landscaping plan.
Comment: We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
3. Recreation Space: Section 5.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the applicant provide 34,841 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 35,158 square feet of improved recreation space, including a multipurpose court, an athletic field, picnic area, playground structure and swing set, and gazebo.
At its February 20, 2008 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted to recommend its first preference of a full payment-in-lieu, rather than on-site improvements, with its second choice being the set of on-site recreation improvements as shown on the plans. The Commission preferred a payment-in-lieu because it felt the Town would be better served by improvements to or expansion of the nearby Southern Community Park.
Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance provides that a payment-in-lieu of on-site recreation area may be made by the developer, with Council approval; or the Council may require payment-in-lieu when the required recreation area is less than two acres. Historically, payments-in-lieu have been made when on-site land has been generally unsuitable in character (e.g., sloped or subject to flooding), or when there would be few residents to enjoy on-site recreation improvements.
In this case, we believe the proposed recreation area is usable, and that on-site recreation would benefit 26 families. We believe the proposed assortment of on-site improvements will provide opportunities for a good balance for active and passive recreation for residents. In addition, we note that currently there is no safe direct pedestrian route for these families to get to the Southern Community Park. Therefore, we recommend that the development be approved with on-site recreation improvements as proposed. We recommend that prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the numbers, configuration, and type of amenities in the recreation space be approved by the Town Manager. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Comment: Staff’s preliminary recommendation to advisory boards included a stipulation exempting the affordable lot owners from this landscaping fee. Following discussion with Orange Community Land Trust and other Town staff, we do recommend this exemption. We believe that this type of stratified fee scheduled could exacerbate the differences between the affordable lots owners and those owing the market rate home. Resolution A does not include a stipulation exempting the affordable lot owners from the Homeowner’s Association Fees.
5. Energy Management Plan: The applicant has submitted an Energy Management Plan (EMP) which describes his intent to integrate energy efficiency into both site design and Homeowners’ Association documents in order to monitor construction practices and to encourage ongoing operating efficiencies once the homes are occupied. The applicant also notes a commitment to building homes which are at least 20% more energy efficient than the base line requirements of the ASHRAE standards for this type of housing product. (Please refer to the applicant’s Energy Management Plan, attached.)
Comment: We believe the applicant’s EMP represents a positive start. We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the EMP be further revised to conform with standard EMP format; expanded to address the production or offset purchase of renewable energy sources through the NC GreenPower program; and expanded to address assurance of positive indoor air quality, adequate access to natural lighting, and the allowance of renewable energy. We also recommend inclusion of a stipulation calling for submittal of sealed engineering calculations which certify compliance with the energy efficiency performance standards of each home, no more than 30 days after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. We believe these EMP revisions and stipulations as incorporated in Resolution A would help assure compliance with Council policy regarding energy efficiency.
For additional information on Energy Management Plans please refer to the attached memorandum from staff.
Comment: For discussion on this issue, please refer to the section on Modifications of the Regulations.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS
Modification to Internal Bufferyard Requirements: Table 5.6.6.-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies that a 10-foot Type B landscape internal bufferyard is required along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines, all of which abut properties now in residential use and located in residential zoning districts. The Orange County Health Department requires a ten foot separation between property lines and septic fields. If the 10-foot buffer were to be part of Homeowners’ Association property, an additional ten foot separation would be required according to County Health Department requirements, reducing the areas available within the lots for septic systems. The applicant is requesting a modification to the regulations to eliminate this buffer requirement.
Comment: Staff considered the circumstances, the intent of landscape buffers, and the nature of the development. Surrounding property is under residential use in rural residential zoning districts. We believe that because the development will appear and function like a traditional subdivision, which would require no buffers along property lines abutting residential uses, this development should not be required to include these 10-foot buffers. We believe the size and topography of the lots will generally allow for retention of vegetation without the buffer requirement. Since many of the lots will require on-site septic fields, we believe it would be advantageous to retain flexibility as to where clearing within the lots can occur. We recommend approval of the applicant’s request to modify the regulations to exclude the buffer requirement along these three property lines.
Modification to the Community Design Commission Review of Building Elevations and Lighting Plans: For Special Use Permit applications, Section 4.5.3.(n) of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires Community Design Commission review and approval of detailed building elevations and lighting plans. The applicant requests modification of the regulations to eliminate this requirement. The buildings proposed with this development are 26 single-family homes. Conventional street lighting is not proposed; rather, the applicant proposes that the Homeowners’ Association act as an approval body for individual property owners’ plans for low-level lighting where driveways meet the new internal street, and within the picnic area which is centrally located within the development.
Comment: We believe that this proposed development will function like a traditional single-family subdivision. Subdivision approval does not require Community Design Commission review and approval of the elevations of single-family homes. We agree with the applicant that Community Design Commission review of each single family home and the proposed driveway lighting plan should not be required. The Community Design Commission, in its February 20, 2008 review of the application, also supported this modification of the regulations.
However, we do not believe the Land Use Management Ordinance permits modification to the regulation which requires Community Design Commission review of elevation drawings of buildings approved under a Special Use Permit. We offer an approach which we believe honors the intent of the regulations, yet would not necessarily subject each home to Community Design Commission review. Instead of requiring the Commission’s approval of the building elevation of every individual single-family house, we believe the Council could require Commission review of a set of building elevation design guidelines for all 26 new homes, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the development. Under this scheme, as the project is built out, individual home elevations could be reviewed by Town staff to ensure compliance with the Commission-approved design guidelines. Homeowners not wishing to comply with the design guidelines would be offered the alternative of going before the Community Design Commission for approval of an individual house design. In Resolution A, we have included a stipulation to this effect.
Council Findings and Public Purpose: The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. 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. We believe that with respect to the applicant’s request to modify the bufferyard regulations, the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the nature of the development – similar to a traditional single-family subdivision - and its surroundings do not warrant a 10-foot landscape buffer on its northern, eastern, and southern perimeter.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on February 19, 2008 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following change:
Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A. Please refer to the Discussion Section for additional information.
A copy of the Planning Board Summary of Action is attached.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on February 14, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum.
A copy of the Transportation Board Summary of Action is attached.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on February 26, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approved the Special Use Permit with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following specification:
Comment: We have included this specification in Resolution A.
In addition, the Board asked the staff to explore bicycle and pedestrian connections to the north along U.S. Highway 15-501.
A copy of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action is attached.
Parks and Recreation Board Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on February 20, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following change as its first preference:
The Commission stated that the recreation space and improvements thereto, as shown on the plans, were acceptable as an alternative to a full payment-in-lieu.
Comment: We believe that provision of on-site recreation improvements would better serve the residents of this development than would further development of the Southern Community Park. We recommend the approval of the on-site recreation improvements as proposed. Please refer to the Discussion Section for additional information.
A copy of the Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action is attached.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on February 20, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following change:
A copy of the Community Design Commission Summary of Action is attached.
A copy of a matrix comparing the differences between the above recommendations is included at the end of this memorandum.
PROCESS
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 regulations as proposed by the applicant, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification 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.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
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. 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 Modification. The four findings are:
|
Special Use Permit Modification – Required Findings of Fact
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.
SUMMARY
We have attached a resolution that includes stand ard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, our preliminary assessment is that, with the requested modifications 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.
