MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Manager |
|
SUBJECT: |
South Grove Planned Development - Housing, Special Use Permit Application (File No. 9776-89-7469) |
|
DATE: |
April 28, 2008 |
INTRODUCTION
Adoption of the attached revised resolution would approve a Special Use Permit to allow a planned development of twenty-six residential lots, including four affordable housing lots on the east side of U.S. Highway 15-501, south of the Southern Community Park. The property is identified as Orange County Property Identifier Number 9776-89-7469.
Resolution A has been revised the following ways in order to reflect comments received:
· Correct Stipulation #5 regarding the water well system to indicate operation and monitoring will be by a “licensed well water operator”;
· Revise Stipulation #7 to indicate common area landscaping fees will be waived for affordable home owners;
· Revise Stipulations #12, 17, and 38 to remove the sidewalk requirement;
· Revise Stipulation #12 to require a path network in the recreation area made of permeable material;
· Revise Stipulations #15 and 38, to clarify installation and maintenance responsibilities for road stubout signage;
· Revise Stipulation #20 to require recreation payment-in-lieu of approximately $50,105, and approximately 35,792 square feet of unimproved on-site recreation area;
· Remove Stipulation #21 regarding Community Design Commission approval of house elevations and lighting plan;
· Correct Stipulation #27 regarding stormwater design standards; and
· Revise Stipulation #44 to require sealed engineering calculations which certify compliance with the energy efficiency performance standards.
DISCUSSION
Several concerns were expressed at the March 10, 2008 Public Hearing, and each is discussed below.
1. Recreation Area Requirement: The staff originally recommended provision of on-site recreation space and improvements. During the discussion at the public hearing and at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the option of payment-in-lieu (PIL) was discussed and recommended. In addition, we have received a letter (dated April 8, 2008, attached) from the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust requesting consideration of providing on-site improved recreation area.
Comment: As we explored the payment-in-lieu option further, we determined that the Town’s statutory ability to require payments-in-lieu for recreation area in subdivision-type developments was partially dependent upon the location of the development. For development proposals in which the recreation requirement would be less than 2 acres, the Town can require payment-in-lieu in the Town’s corporate limits and within the Town’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), but not in the Joint Planning Area (JPA). This particular proposal has a recreation requirement just under 2 acres, and the property is partially in the ETJ and partially in the JPA. So in this case, the payment-in-lieu amount must be calculated proportionally to the land area ratio between the two planning areas (ETJ and JPA). In addition, since this development closely resembles a subdivision in form and function, the recreation-related land area would be considered recreation area as opposed to recreation space. No on-site recreation improvements would be required.
Approximately 22.26 acres of the site are in the ETJ (57.18); and 16.67 acres are in the JPA (42.82%). Using the Town’s formula for calculating payments-in-lieu for recreation area, and applying the 57.18% as the appropriate proportion, the payment-in-lieu amount for the recreation area would be $50,105. This would meet the recreation requirements for the proportion of the site within the ETJ.
For the portion of the site in the JPA, we would apply regulations pertaining to recreation area outside the ETJ, and the Town could request recreation area of .82 acres, or 35,792 square feet. No improvements would be required in the recreation area.
Thus, the staff recommends a dual component recreation requirement of $50,105 payment-in-lieu and dedication of 35,792 square feet of on-site unimproved recreation area. This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. We note that the developer and/or the Homeowners’ Association would have the option of adding recreation improvements.
2. Affordable Housing: The Council had questions for Mr. Robert Dowling of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust regarding the following:
Comment: The Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (OCHLT) has submitted a letter (dated March 14, 2008, attached) stating that the sale price of each affordable home would be $137,000. For such a home to be affordable to a family of three at the 65% area median income (AMI) level (income of $41,500), public subsidy of $35,000 would be necessary. For a family of three at the 80% AMI level (income of $51,350), public subsidy would not be necessary. So for the four affordable lots combined, the range of public subsidy necessary would range from zero to $140,000, depending on the income of eligible applicants.
The same letter indicates OCHLT’s acceptance of the developer’s offer to waive landscape fees for the owners of affordable lots. These lot owners would still be responsible for other homeowners’ association fees. In Revised Resolution A, we have revised a stipulation to call for homeowner association documents to include the waiver of landscape fees for the common areas.
3. Sidewalk: Council members questioned the need for a sidewalk in this development, noting that a sidewalk would increase impervious surface on the site. A request was made to adjust Resolution A to exclude the requirement for a sidewalk.
Comment: The applicant proposed the sidewalk as an amenity for the residents. We agree the sidewalk is not necessary. However, we recommend that a path network made of permeable material such as mulch be provided in the recreation area, to formalize pedestrian routes and reduce the area of bare soil, particularly since the recreation area is near the stormwater detention pond. In Revised Resolution A, we have eliminated the sidewalk requirement and added a requirement that the proposed path network in the recreation area or elsewhere be made of a permeable surface.
4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths to Southern Community Park: A Council member requested that the staff explore bicycle and pedestrian path opportunities from this development site to the Southern Community Park.
Comment: We do not believe there is a rational nexus for provision of off-site sidewalk or pedestrian path to the Southern Community Park. Therefore, we do not recommend that such a pedestrian facility be required and have not included a stipulation in revised Resolution A.
5. Stormwater Rate and Quality: A Council member inquired into the post-development rate and quality of stormwater runoff from the stormwater pond to adjacent property to the north.
Comment: Stipulation #28, included in Resolution A attached to the public hearing memorandum, required pre- and post-development rate and quality to remain the same. This stipulation has been retained in Revised Resolution A (renumbered to #27). With this requirement, the rate of water flowing to the adjacent property is not to increase and the quality is not to decline. At final plan stage, the staff will review detailed stormwater management plans to ensure the design of the stormwater management facilities complies with this standard.
6. Road Stubout Signage: A Council member asked for clarification on who will be responsible for installing and maintaining road stubout signage.
Comment: Historically, the developer installs the signage and the homeowners’ association maintains the signage. We have included this clarification in the road stubout stipulation in Resolution A.
We understand that the staff anticipates reporting to the Town Council on the general issue of road stubout sign installation and maintenance responsibilities.
7. Community Design Commission Review of Building Elevations and Lighting Plan: Initially we recommended the applicant request a modification to the regulations regarding the Community Design Commission review/approval of building elevations and lighting plans. We then questioned whether this was the appropriate avenue for requesting relief from the Ordinance requirement. In the public hearing memorandum we recommended that the Community Design Commission review a set of overall design guidelines that could be applied to the 26 homes.
Comment: After further consultation with the Town Attorney since the public hearing, we believe the applicant can request that the Council modify the regulations pertaining to approval of building elevations and lighting plans by the Community Design Commission. Please see the section below on modifications to the regulations.
In addition, the developer has stated his intent to set up a review process by the South Grove Homeowners’ Association to review building elevations and lighting.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT
The Council asked the applicant to provide information on the following:
Please see the attached letter from the applicant addressing these questions.
MINOR CORRECTIONS TO RESOLUTION A
In Revised Resolution A, we have corrected two stipulations:
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS
Internal Landscape Buffers: 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: The 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.
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 appear and 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, at its February 20, 2008 review of the application, also supported this modification of the regulations. In Resolution A, we have removed the stipulation calling for Community Design Commission review of building elevations and lighting plans.
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. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in this particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. 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.
We believe that with respect to the applicant’s request to modify the regulations, the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is providing four affordable housing units; and it would support consistency in application of regulations, given that this development will appear and function as a single-family subdivision, and Community Design Commission review of building elevations and lighting plans is not required for single-family subdivisions.
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.
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.
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: After the public hearing, we investigated the applicability of requirements for improved recreation space and found that recreation space improvements cannot be required of the developer. We have removed the bicycle rack requirement from Revised Resolution A. For more information on recreation requirements, please see the Discussion section above.
In addition, the Board asked the staff to explore bicycle and pedestrian connections to the north along U.S. Highway 15-501. For more information on this issue, please see the Discussion Section above.
Parks and Recreation Commission 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:
Comment: Please refer to the Discussion Section for additional information.
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:
Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A, which includes the following features incorporated following the March 10 public hearing:
· Correct Stipulation #5 regarding the water well system to indicate operation and monitoring will be by a “licensed well water operator”;
· Revise Stipulation #7 to indicate common area landscaping fees will be waived for affordable home owners;
· Revise Stipulations #12, 17, and 38 to remove the sidewalk requirement;
· Revise Stipulation #12 to require a path network in the recreation area made of permeable material;
· Revise Stipulations #15 and 38, to clarify installation and maintenance responsibilities for road stubout signage;
· Revise Stipulation #20 to require recreation payment-in-lieu of approximately $50,105, and approximately 35,792 square feet of unimproved on-site recreation area;
· Remove Stipulation #21 regarding Community Design Commission approval of house elevations and lighting plan;
· Correct Stipulation #27 regarding stormwater design standards; and
· Revise Stipulation #44 to require sealed engineering calculations which certify compliance with the energy efficiency performance standards.
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 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). Additional evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, 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 [Resolution B, if adopted, would deny the application].
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
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;
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “Neighborhood design will reflect and promote high aesthetic standards, with emphasis on maintaining a beneficial and sustainable environment for residents and the larger community. The proposed housing types will respond to known housing needs within the Chapel Hill community, including housing needs for citizens in the low-to-moderate income range.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “A public street stubout is proposed as part of the internal street system, for possible future extension to the north. Several parcels on the north side of the site are accessed by private driveways, without direct public street access. The proposed stubout will provide an opportunity for logical street and pedestrian connectivity if the adjacent property is developed, and will have potential to benefit multiple other properties in this area as the street is incrementally extended.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The applicant believes that a single water supply well will be more protective of groundwater quality, and public health than would 26 individual, less-restricted well sites. In addition, the common well will be subject to regular monitoring and testing for water quality, and will be fitted with treatment systems to increase water quality.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Approximately 1200 linear feet of stream and associated Resource Conservation District exist along the property’s eastern boundary. No land disturbance is proposed in any portion of this area; but in order to provide an enhanced means for preservation of this natural area, the applicant proposes to establish a conservation easement that will encompass the onsite portions of the stream and adjoining RCD.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “…all homes will be equipped with residential fire sprinkler systems for primary fire suppression.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.
Finding #2: That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The project’s design will conform to all applicable environmental regulations, including but no limited to regulations and policies relative to streams, Resource Conservation District, steep slope areas, significant and specimen trees, and cemeteries.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Stormwater runoff from onsite improved areas will be directed and managed to meet or exceed Town requirements for runoff quantity, rate, and quality.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The applicant proposes to contract with one or more home builders to deliver four finished housing units that will be designated for purchase by individuals or families with low to moderate income levels. Specifically, Lots #5, #6, #18, and #24 are designated for this purpose. These lots are distributed throughout the neighborhood, rather than being clustered in any single area.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The zoning classification for the property allows a maximum density of 1 residential unit per acre. The project anticipates the development of 26 single-family residences on the 38-acre parcel, for a density of 0.68 units per acre, or about 2/3 of the maximum zoning allowance.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.
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;
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The proposed large-lot, single family use is consistent with the current zoning classifications of the subject property and adjacent properties, and consistent with current usage of contiguous developed properties. Development and usage of the property as intended is not expected to create any conditions that would be normally associated with diminished property values.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The neighborhood will be designed, developed, and regulated as a beneficial addition to the local community. It will provide attractive and well-maintained landscape and architectural elements, internal public street improvements, and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, contributing to a positive and responsible community presence. In addition, restrictive covenants will promote an orderly and protective environment for neighborhood residents and their guests, prohibiting offensive or inappropriate activities and conditions. The applicant believes that these beneficial improvements and characteristics will contribute to an increased sense of property value within, and adjacent to, the propose neighborhood.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Generally, stormwater runoff will leave the site in the same locations, rates, and quantities as it does currently.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.
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.
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The application of PD-H criteria and the SUP process allows lot sizes and dimensions to be customized for better land use efficiency and homesite quality. This flexibility essentially allows a clustering of lots in a manner that increases beneficial usage of the upland areas, while leaving the more sensitive site areas undisturbed.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The proposed use of a single community water supply well provides a much more sustainable and high-quality design solution than the alternative of 26 individual wells.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “These affordable single-family homes will be interspersed throughout the neighborhood, and will be architecturally compatible with other houses within the neighborhood, and promote a more diverse resident base.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “New streets within the neighborhood will conform to applicable NCDOT standards, and will be available for ultimate acceptance by NCDOT. In addition, a street stubout to the north will provide the opportunity for logical and orderly street extension in the future for the benefit of several parcels that currently do not have direct street access.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The proposed neighborhood use is consistent with land use and development density guidelines outlined for the site in the Comprehensive Plan, Small Area Plan, Southern Area (CP). According to the CP, the upland portions of the subject property are designated as “Prime Buildable” and “Secondary Buildable” area, indicating that the land is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The proposed use is permitted and anticipated by the current R-LD1 zoning, and the proposed density is only about two-thirds of the maximum allowable density permitted by the zoning district.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued public hearing process. Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the four findings.
We have attached a revised resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, we believe that, with the requested modifications to the regulations, the Council could make the four findings necessary to approve the application. Our recommendation, Revised Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
ATTACHMENTS