ATTACHMENT 1
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Aydan Court Multi-Family Development – Special Use Permit Application (File No. 9798-03-94-6008)
DATE: October 20, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your consideration is an application for a Special Use Permit from Cazco, Inc., proposing to construct a 58-dwelling unit multi-family development on a 5.8-acre site located on the north side of NC-54 across from Downing Creek Parkway, including 122 parking spaces. The site is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district, the Watershed Protection District and is adjacent to North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gameland. A request to rezone the property to the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district has also been provided. The site is identified as Durham County Parcel Identifier Number 9798-03-94-6008.
BACKGROUND
February 21, 2007 Community Design Commission Concept Plan Review
May 14, 2007 Town Council Concept Plan Review
August 31, 2007 Applications submitted for Special Use Permit and Zoning Atlas Amendment
Existing Conditions
Location: The development is proposed on a vacant site located on the north side of NC-54 across from Downing Creek Parkway. The following properties are on the perimeter of the site:
Access and Circulation: The property currently neither has access nor bus stops in proximity to the site.
Topography, Drainage, and Vegetative Cover: The site has significant steep slopes, including areas with 10%-15% slope, 15%-25% slope and areas with over 25% slope. The steepest slopes are along the frontage as well as the center and rear southern parts of the site. There is also an intermittent stream that crosses the site near the frontage, flowing to the northeast into the Army Corps of Engineers Jordan Lake Watershed area.
There is a 100-foot Resource Conservation District corridor bounding an intermittent stream that crosses the site on an east-west axis, near the NC-54 frontage of the site. There is also a smaller Resource Conservation District area in the northern part of the site adjacent to another intermittent stream.
It appears that nearly the entire site meets the criteria of a significant tree stand with the possible exception of a small area on the top of the central bluff. There are also approximately 222 specimen trees on the site, as defined by Subsection 5.7.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
EVALUATION
Town staff has reviewed this application for comparison with the standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance as proposed to be amended and the Design Manual and offers the following evaluation:
Ordinance Requirements
The staff evaluation of the Special Use Permit application will be discussed in this memorandum based on the assumption that:
1) That the Zoning Atlas Amendment application which proposes to rezone the site from Residential-1 (R-1) to the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C), will be enacted by the Council.
Development Description
The Special Use Permit application proposes to construct a multi-family development on a 5.8-acre site, located on the north side of NC-54 across from Downing Creek Parkway. Approximately 61% (75) of the 122 proposed vehicular parking spaces are in garages with 47 surface parking spaces. A single point of access is proposed on NC-54.
Vehicular access to the Aydan Court site is proposed from the westbound and eastbound sides of NC-54, through a proposed left-turn lane and median crossing and right-turn lane respectively.
The proposal involves seven buildings including six town home buildings and one condominium building ranging from approximately 44 feet to 54 feet tall. They are proposed to contain 58 dwelling units including 8 single-bedroom units, 8 two-bedroom units, and 33 three-bedroom units and 9 four-bedroom units. The Comprehensive Plan includes a goal that residential developments of 5 or more units provide 15 percent of the units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households. The applicant is proposing to provide a combination of 4 affordable dwelling units and a payment-in-lieu of 4.7 units affordable dwelling units (15% x 58 = 8.7 affordable dwelling units).
A central courtyard is proposed between four of the town home buildings.
The applicant is proposing an approximately 530-foot long greenway trail/bicycle path along the site frontage to connect to the existing and future trial network along NC-54.
The applicant is proposing a Stormwater Quality Structure indicated on the site plan in southeast corner of the site.
The applicant is proposing a stub-out to the adjacent property to the west, owned by UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc.
The applicant is proposing to disturb approximately 66.1% of the entire site during construction. In addition, the applicant is proposing to exceed the allowable disturbance of the steep slopes that are more than 25% grade. The maximum land disturbance on slopes greater than 25% grade is 25%. The applicant is therefore requesting a modification to regulations for disturbance of steep slopes, as well as parking quantity standards and height regulations. Please refer to the section regarding Modification to Regulations.
The following table provides the proposed intensity of development:
|
Bldg No. |
Floor Area (Sq Ft) |
No. Res. Units |
Floors (above grade) |
Overall height |
Vehicular Parking Spaces in Garages |
|
1 |
14,000 |
3 |
3 |
43’8” |
6 |
|
2 |
14,000 |
3 |
3 |
43’8” |
6 |
|
3 |
4 |
3 |
43’8” |
8 |
|
|
4 |
14,000 |
3 |
3 |
43’3” |
6 |
|
5 |
19,700 |
4 |
3 |
45’4” |
8 |
|
6 |
19,700 |
4 |
3 |
45’4” |
8 |
|
7 |
79,000 |
37 |
4 |
53’9” |
33 |
|
Total |
180,100 |
58 |
|
|
75 (plus 47 surface parking spaces) |
Prepared by Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department
The chart represents a preliminary site design. We anticipate changes to floor area and number of residential units will occur as the project is further developed.
Concept Plan Reviews
Proposals for this project have been reviewed by the Community Design Commission and the Town Council. The table below compares some of the differences between the most recent Concept Plan proposal with the current Special Use Permit application.
|
|
May 14, 2007 Council Concept Plan Proposal |
Special Use Permit Application |
|
Land Area |
254,180 s.f. |
254,180 s.f. |
|
Floor Area |
145,000 s.f. |
173,000 s.f. |
|
No. of Vehicular Parking Spaces |
144 |
122 |
|
No. of Dwelling Units |
85 |
58 |
|
Dwelling Units/Acre |
14.7 |
10.1 |
|
Affordable Housing |
12 units |
Provision of 4 Units and Payment-In-Lieu of 4.7 units (total 8.7 units) |
|
Impervious Surface |
40 – 45% |
117,157 s.f. (46%) |
Prepared by the Chapel Hill Planning Department
Concept Plan Review summaries from the Town Council and Community Design Commission as well as the applicant’s responses are attached.
Zoning: The site is currently zoned Residential-1 (R-1). This application is accompanied by a rezoning application to rezone the site to the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C).
Floor Area: The applicant is proposing 180,100 square feet of floor area; the proposed floor area is within the proposed maximum permitted floor area in the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district, which would permit a maximum of 279,598 square feet of floor area.
Setbacks and Height: In the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district, a 10-foot setback standard would apply for the street, and 0-foot setbacks for interior property lines. The solar setback is not applicable in this zoning district. The applicant is proposing an approximately 115-foot minimum street setback and a 13-foot minimum interior setback, thereby complying with the required setback limits. The proposed maximum height limits for primary and secondary height limits in the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district are 39 feet (at the setback line) and a maximum of 60 feet respectively. The proposal complies with the proposed standard height limits; however, it does not comply with primary and secondary height limits. Please see more detailed information immediately below and the Modifications to Regulations section.
Intensity and Dimensional Standards: The proposed project meets all of the proposed intensity and dimensional standards for the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district except for parking quantity standards, steep slope regulations, and provisions regarding height. Please see more detailed information immediately below and the Modifications to Regulations section.
Modifications to the Regulations: The applicant is requesting that the Council approve three modifications to Land Use Management Ordinance regulations, including: 1) Subsection 5.3.2, Steep Slope regulations, 2) Subsection 5.9.7 Vehicular Parking Quantity Standards, 3) Subsection 3.8.4 Transitional Control Intensity Modifications.
Vehicular Parking Quantity Standards
Subsection 5.9.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, Parking Quantity Standards, for the proposed multi-family development has a minimum parking space requirement of 95 and a maximum of 119. The applicant is requesting a modification to regulations to include three more parking spaces than the maximum allowed, or 122 parking spaces. The applicant believes that public purposes are satisfied regarding their request for modification to regulations to exceed the maximum number of parking spaces by 3 spaces because:
“…approximately 61% of the proposed vehicular parking spaces are located beneath buildings, thereby minimizing impervious surface.” [Applicant Statement]
We believe that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree for the requested modification to regulations to exceed the maximum number of parking spaces because of the fact that the proposed development is minimizing surface parking and therefore impervious surface. Please refer to the vehicular parking section for additional information.
Steep Slope Regulations
Subsection 5.3.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that no more than one quarter of the slopes over 25% grade be disturbed. The steepest slopes, which comprise about 7.6% (11,515 s.f.) of the site, are along the frontage as well as the center and rear southern parts of the site. The applicant is proposing to disturb approximately 34.9% more than the maximum allowed (or 59.9% total) of the slopes over 25% grade and is requesting a modification to regulations. The applicant has indicated in their request for modification to regulations that:
“To accommodate the entrance location as determined by NCDOT, a portion of the 25% sloped embankment at the front of the site must be disturbed to construct the entry road. The design minimizes the disturbance while still providing for sidewalks from the site to the pedestrian and bicycle trail to be extended from Meadowmont to the eastern property line of Aydan Court. [Applicant Statement]
“…the limited amount of disturbance when measured against the standards for impervious surface maximums and higher density residential development clearly establishes that public purposes for minimizing disturbance to steeply sloped land are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the total disturbance of steeply sloped land in absolute terms is so minimal on this site.” [Applicant Statement]
We believe that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree for the requested modification to regulations to exceed the maximum disturbed land area on slopes greater than 25% grade, because the applicant must disturb the steep slopes near the frontage in order to access the site and the steep slopes internal to the site are scattered in small segments, making them difficult to avoid and less significant as a percentage of the entire site.
Primary and Secondary Height Modifications
The applicant is proposing to exceed the primary and secondary heights maximums allowed in the proposed Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district as indicated in the Section 3.8, dimensional matrix table 3.8-1. The applicant is therefore requesting to modify the primary and secondary height standards on the proposed condominium building from 1 to 6 feet on the western side of the site and from 1 to 14 feet on the eastern side of the site. The applicant believes that public purposes are satisfied regarding the request to modify regulations to exceed the maximum primary and secondary height standards by 1 to 6 feet on the western side of the site and 1 to 14 feet on the eastern side of the site for the following reason:
“The public purpose of this modification is to permit a floor of parking beneath the condominium building and thereby allow the development of the circulation system needed to connect to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. property (Council requirement) and gravity flow sewer system (OWASA requirement) needed to support residential development of this site.” [Applicant Statement]
We believe that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree for the requested modification to regulations to exceed maximum primary and secondary height regulations in the condominium building in order to accommodate a floor of subsurface parking thereby reducing impervious surface on the site.
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. 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.
Vehicular Parking Quantity Standards: We recommend the applicant’s request to modify parking regulations. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, to an equivalent or greater degree, because 61% of the proposed vehicular parking spaces are beneath buildings, thereby reducing impervious surface.
Steep Slope Regulations: We recommend that the Council grant the request for modification to steep slope regulations. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, to an equivalent or greater degree, for the following reasons indicated by the applicant:
Primary and Secondary Height Modification Regulations: We recommend that the Council grant the request for modifications to primary and secondary height regulations. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, to an equivalent or greater degree because a floor of vehicular parking is being proposed beneath the condominium building, thereby reducing impervious surface.
Please refer to the applicant’s Proposed Modification to Regulations for additional information (Attachment 7).
Affordable Housing
The Comprehensive Plan includes a goal that residential developments of 5 or more units provide 15 percent of the units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households. The applicant is proposing to provide a combination of affordable housing on-site and a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing.
Fifteen percent of the proposed 58 dwelling unit total is 8.7 affordable dwelling units. The applicant is proposing to provide 4 affordable dwelling units on-site (1-bedroom units in the condominium building, affordable to households earning between 65% and 80% of median family income) and a payment-in-lieu of 4.7 dwelling units at $78,000 per dwelling unit for a total of $366,600. The applicant’s proposed payment-in-lieu per unit obligation was derived from the figure used for the recently approved Castalia at Meadowmont development. The applicant is proposing to provide an $6,789 payment-in-lieu at the time of Certificate of Occupancy for each of 54 market rate dwelling units for a total of $366,606.
We are continuing discussion with the applicant about the details of the applicant’s affordable housing proposal. We have included our standard stipulation regarding affordable housing in Resolution A requiring that 15% affordable units be provided onsite.
Transportation
Traffic Impact: Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA) for the proposed Woodmont and Aydan Court developments were prepared by the Town Consultants in 2007 in accordance with the Town TIA guidelines and procedures. The Aydan Court TIA was revised in February 2008. A copy of the executive summary of the TIA is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 16).
The Aydan Court development is proposed to consist of 58 residential condominiums/townhomes with an anticipation build-out year of 2010 and analysis year 2011. The proposed development is projected to generate 346 daily trips consisting of 26 AM peak hour and 31 PM peak hour trips.
Trip generation for the Aydan Court development is provided below:
|
Development |
Daily Trips |
AM Peak Trips |
PM Peak Trips |
|
Aydan Court |
346 |
26 |
31 |
|
Trip generation is based on ITE Trip generation Manual, 7th Edition Noon peak is assumed to be the pm peak trips or average of am and pm peak trips. |
|||
Please see the TIA executive summaries for more information on the analysis results. Town staff met with staff from NCDOT and City of Durham and discussed the details of the TIA findings and recommendations. The Town staff recommends the following roadway improvements for Aydan Court.
Recommended Roadway Improvements for Aydan Court
A. Construct a two-lane driveway cross-section consisting of one ingress and one egress lane providing a right-in/right-out movement only. Also, construct an exclusive right-turn lane with a minimum of 100 feet of storage and appropriate taper.
B. Construct a median break and left-over on eastbound NC-54 opposite the proposed Aydan Court entrance with an exclusive left-turn lane with 200 feet of storage and appropriate taper. This transportation improvement for the proposed development is recommended by the Town of Chapel Hill for appropriate emergency access to the site.
C. Close the median opening at NC-54 and Little John Road. This median closure is required by NCDOT because of the additional NC-54 median break opposite the proposed entrance to the Aydan Court site. This improvement must be built by the applicant if not completed by others first.
D. Construct a left-over on westbound NC-54 to provide access to Downing Creek Parkway. This transportation improvement is required by NCDOT because of the median closure on NC-54 opposite Little John Road. Alternative access to the site for westbound traffic on NC-54 must be provided. This improvement must be built by the applicant if not completed by others first.
Recommended Transportation improvement A above is required to access the Aydan Court site. Improvement B is required to provide proper emergency access to the site. The subsequent transportation improvements (C and D), required by NCDOT, are sequential and interdependent on improvement B. These transportation improvements are required whether the Woodmont development is approved or not. We have included a revision that requires that allows for the possibility that improvements C and D may be constructed by others, in advance of the Aydan Court development. Stipulations to this effect are included in Resolution A.
Access and Circulation
Vehicular Circulation: The proposed Aydan Court site is accessed from the NC-54 frontage. A private drive loops through the site and there is a stub out to the property owned by the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. to the west. The proposed site driveway is generally opposite Downing Creek Parkway on the south side of NC-54. The applicant is proposing a median break and eastbound and westbound left turn lanes in the NC-54 right-of-way. North Carolina Department of Transportation has provisionally approved the proposed median break and cross-over plan on NC-54. We recommend roadway improvements as indicated in the transportation section immediately above.
Stub Out to Western Property: We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant provide an internal street network design that includes a connector road stub-out to the western property line. The stub-out would connect with the adjacent property owned by the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. and potentially to the Meadowmont development further to the west. We recommend that the location of this western connector road stub-out be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We recommend that the applicant construct the connector road stub-out to the western property line. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that when the proposed construction activity associated with the clearing and grading for the connector street road bed is complete, signage be located at the connector road stub-out. We recommend that the signage indicate that the roadway will be extended for future development. The size, text, and color of the signs shall be subject to the Town Manager’s approval. We recommend that the final plat and final plans include a note stating that “Future development of the adjoining property to the west of Aydan Court will include a roadway connection to Aydan Court at the road stub-out as shown on this final plan/plat”. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the applicant submit to all purchasers of property and residential units a statement that properly discloses the proposed extension of a road stub-out, specifying that the connector road will be extended for future development into the adjoining properties. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Transit: There are currently no bus stops in immediate proximity to the site. The nearest bus stop is approximately one half mile away along Barbee Chapel Road. The applicant has not proposed transit facilities but has proposed a median break on NC-54, which will allow eastbound buses a place to turn around and stop along the NC-54 frontage of the site.
We had previously recommended that transit service be provided through the Aydan Court site from the anticipated future development to the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. property to the west. On further discussion, we do not anticipate future transit service through the site, connecting to the property owned by the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. to the west and Meadowmont, and have changed our recommendation for a payment-in-lieu of transit on NC-54. The applicant is proposing a $17,500 payment-in-lieu of bus stop amenities along the NC-54 frontage of the site.
We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu, not to exceed $17,500 for a bus-stop pull-off for an articulated bus, and bus-stop shelter and associated amenities, including a pad, bench, real-time signage, lighting, and trash can. We recommend that the funds may be used for transit improvements anywhere in general proximity to the site. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We had previously recommended a $35,000 payment-in-lieu of transit amenities, including a bus pull-off. We recommend that the payment-in-lieu of transit be reduced to $17,500 because future development on this transit corridor if more likely to use Transit service with greater frequency, such as the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation Inc. property to the west. There is no transit service planned on the NC-54 corridor at this time but will be according to future development.
NC-54 Corridor Study: On March 26, 2007 a Council member presented a petition asking the Council to begin the process for a special corridor study for the NC-54 Corridor with Durham. The study would focus on the portion of NC-54 west of the Interstate 40 interchange and into Chapel Hill, addressing roadway capacity and development issues along the corridor and preparing strategies to reduce congestion. These strategies would include roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements. It is anticipated that the study area would include the NC-54 from just east of I-40 to Fordham Boulevard in Chapel Hill.
Mixed use and higher intensity development would be compatible with both local and regional transit service in the NC-54 corridor. The Town has based its socio-economic projections for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update on the strategy of implementing transit oriented districts along several corridors, including the NC-54 Corridor.
The proposed study, which would include analysis of the Town’s regional connectivity as well as transit service, has received $200,000 in funding from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization and has been included in the Durham City/County Planning Department fiscal year 2008-2009 work program. These funds include a $40,000 local match and we anticipate that Chapel Hill will be asked to contribute a portion of the $40,000 local match. A final scope of work and details concerning the participation of Chapel Hill staff are yet to be worked out. The funds were available as of July 1, 2008.
Pedestrian Circulation: The applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide sidewalk that would connect the condominium building at the rear of the site, extending through the west central part of the site. All buildings are connected to parking lots and streets with sidewalks. We recommend that all sidewalks and associated infrastructure be built to Town Standards subject to Town Manager approval. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
The applicant is also proposing a 10-foot wide bicycle path/greenway trail across the approximately 530 foot frontage of the site and 1,500 feet frontage of the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. property to the west. The trail segment would connect to the existing Meadowmont Greenway and future trail segments that are part of the Greenway Master Plan. We recommend that the applicant provide a 10-foot wide bicycle path/greenway trail across the approximately 530 foot frontage of the site, built to Town standard, subject to Town Manager approval. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the applicant obtain an encroachment agreement from NCDOT to accommodate the bicycle and pedestrian trail that traverses the southern part of the site, build the trail, and that the following users be entitled to use this public trail: pedestrians, users of non-motorized vehicles, and motorized wheelchairs. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Vehicular Parking: The number of required vehicular parking spaces for the proposed multi-family development is a minimum of 95 and a maximum of 119 under current regulations. Note that recommended amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance bicycle and vehicular parking standards, as proposed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and Transportation Board would change the minimum and maximum for vehicular parking to 92 and 116 respectively. The proposed Land Use Management Ordinance Amendments went to Council Public Hearing on September 17, 2008. The Council is scheduled to take action on these amendments to the Ordinance in October 27.
The applicant is proposing 122 vehicular parking spaces, with 75 (61%) being provided in covered parking garages and 47 being in surface parking lots. The applicant is requesting a modification to regulations to exceed the maximum number of permitted parking spaces by 3 spaces for current regulations or 6 spaces for proposed parking regulations. Please refer to the Modification to Regulations Section for further discussion.
The applicant has changed their previous proposal of 2 handicapped parking spaces to 5. One handicapped parking space is required for every 50 regular parking spaces, or major portion thereof, by the Land Use Management Ordinance. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that one handicapped parking space be provided for every 25 parking spaces, with a minimum of one van-accessible handicapped parking space and one van-accessible space for every 8 handicapped parking spaces. Therefore the applicant’s current proposal matches ADA standards. We have included a stipulation calling for five handicapped parking spaces including one van-accessible parking space, as proposed, in Revised Resolution A.
Accessibility Requirements: We recommend that the applicant design all handicapped parking spaces, ramps, and crosswalks, and associated infrastructure according to Americans with Disabilities Act standards, North Carolina Accessibility Code, and Town standard. Code requirements include standards for the number, size and spacing of handicapped spaces, travel distance from parking spaces to buildings, ramp and sidewalk slope and other considerations. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Bicycle Parking: Subsection 5.9.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the proposed development provide a total of 21 bicycle parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 60 bicycle parking spaces, including 52 secure Class I interior spaces (21 in the townhouses and 31 in condominium parking garage, and 8 exterior Class II spaces. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring the applicant to provide a minimum of 60 bicycle parking spaces, or according to regulations in place at the time of approval of the application and to comply with the Class I and Class II bicycle parking standards in the Design Manual.
The applicant had previously proposed 29 parking spaces for bicycles but this difference from the current proposal is simply due to how the interior parking spaces were accounted for.
Note that recommended amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance bicycle and vehicular parking standards, as proposed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and Transportation Board that went to Council Public Hearing on September 17, 2008. The Council is scheduled to take action on these amendments to the Ordinance in October 27.
Landscaping and Architecture
Landscape Buffers: The proposed use requires 30-foot wide landscape bufferyards on the property frontage and 10-foot wide landscape bufferyards on interior property lines. The following table indicates buffers:
|
Location |
Required Buffers |
Proposed Buffer |
|
Site Frontage (Route 54) |
Type “D” 30 ft. wide |
Type “D” 30 ft. wide |
|
All other Property Lines |
Type “B” / 10 ft. wide |
Type “B” 10 ft. wide |
The applicant is proposing 10 foot Type “B” buffers around the internal perimeter of the site and a 30-foot Type “D” buffer on the frontage of the site. We recommend that the applicant provide the proposed bufferyards as stipulated in Resolution A.
The adjacent Jordan Lake Watershed Property is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers but is managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as game land. The NCWRC typically recommends a 150-yard wide buffer around game lands and the Army Corps of Engineers recommended a 100-foot wide buffer. However, given the infeasibility of such large buffers in this case, the Army Corps of Engineers recommended that the applicant provide, 1) as wide a buffer as possible, and 2) include language on the development plat and site plan that informs future homebuyers of the proximity of the game lands and hunting activity to their homes. We have included a stipulation regarding informing future homebuyers in Resolution A. Please refer to Attachments 2 and 19.
Landscape Screening and Shading: In addition to buffer requirements, we note that the applicant’s proposal must meet ordinance landscaping standards in the following sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
We have included stipulations to this effect in Resolution A.
Landscape Protection and Planting Plan: There are approximately 222 specimen trees on the site, as defined by Subsection 5.7.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance and about 57 (26%) are proposed to be saved. It appears that nearly the entire site meets the criteria of a significant tree stand with the possible exception of a small area on the top of the central bluff. We recommend that the applicant accurately show areas of significant tree stands as defined in Subsection 5.7.7 of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. We recommend that detailed landscape planting and maintenance plans be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the Landscape Protection Plan (Sheet 13) be revised so that it is consistent with the other plans (Sheet 10). This revision is necessary to accommodate the proposed retaining wall construction. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that a tree survey and Landscape Protection Plan be provided for the proposed off-site sewer construction, across the adjacent property owned by the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc., to the OWASA pump station approximately 1,100 feet to the west. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Building Elevation and Lighting Plans: The Ordinance requires that detailed building elevations and lighting plans be approved by the Community Design Commission. We have included a stipulation for Community Design Commission approval, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, for: 1) building elevations, including the location and screening of all HVAC/Air Handling Units, and 2) a lighting plan to ensure that the proposed lighting plan will minimize 1) upward light pollution and 2) offsite spillage of light. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Recreation
Recreation Space: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires 12,709 square feet of recreation space and the applicant is proposing a 10-foot wide greenway trail / bicycle path along the NC-54 frontage of the site. The path is proposed to extend across the 530-foot frontage of the Aydan Court site and the 1,500-foot frontage of the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. property to the west, for a combined linear distance of approximately 2,030 feet.
We recommend that, where feasible, the path be located at least six to eight feet from the highway and, if possible, be located within the public right-of-way. We recommend that the bicycle/pedestrian path be 10 feet wide along its approximately 2,030 length, unless otherwise determined by the Town Manager. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the design of the bicycle/pedestrian path minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflict at the entrance driveway and minimize grading and land disturbance near the critical root zones of any specimen trees, where necessary. We recommend that the design include a raised boardwalk in those areas near the critical root zones. We recommend that the boardwalk, or similar low impact path, be designed so it may be located directly upon the ground without requiring a permanent fixed foundation. We recommend that the final design and location of the bicycle/pedestrian path be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included stipulations to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the bicycle/pedestrian path follow the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s guidelines for design and signage and be constructed to the standards for off-road bicycle trails, as specified in either the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities document, or the North Carolina Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Guideline that are current at the time of construction. We have included stipulations to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that, where feasible, the path be provided within a 15-foot wide public greenway easement. We recommend that the easement be recorded at the Durham County Register of Deeds, and grant an easement in perpetuity to the Town of Chapel Hill. We recommend that the recorded easement include wording that guarantees public pedestrian, non-motorized vehicle, and motorized wheel chair access. We recommend that the easement also guarantee the Town of Chapel Hill’s right to construct and maintain the trail, signage, or any other function necessary to guarantee public safety. We recommend that the recorded easement also include sketch maps indicating the location of the trail within the easement and nearby points of reference, such as public streets. We have included stipulations to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the bicycle/pedestrian path be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development, or as shown on a Phasing Plan, to be approved by the Town Manager. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the portion of the trail along the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. property frontage on NC 54 be subject to the attainment of an easement from the property owner, where necessary. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that all areas along the greenway that are disturbed beyond five feet from the edge of pavement shall be replanted using native trees and shrubs. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
Greenway Trail Encroachment Agreement: We recommend that the applicant provide an North Carolina Department of Transportation encroachment agreement for the greenway trail / bicycle path that is proposed to extend across the 530-foot frontage of the Aydan Court site and the 1,500-foot frontage of the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, Inc. property to the west for a total of approximately 2,030 feet. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Environmental
Energy Management Plan: The rezoning application which accompanies this Master Land Use Plan application is subject to the Council’s resolution indicating the expectation that rezoning applications will include an Energy Management Plan that addresses energy efficiency and includes a 20%-more-efficient-than-ASHRAE feature and reflects the Town’s commitment to alternate forms of energy. The applicant has provided such an Energy Management Plan as part of the rezoning application.
We believe that the Energy Management Plan submitted by the applicant meets the general expectations of the Council for such a plan but have added more specific recommendations pertaining to condominiums and residential building code. Staff anticipates that the applicant will supply all of the deliverables listed in the Energy Management Plan at the time of Zoning Compliance Permit evaluation for the specific building(s) in each phase of development.
We recommend that the applicant provide an Energy Management Plan and that a) considers utilizing sustainable energy, currently defined as solar, wind, biofuels, and hydroelectric power; b) considers the purchase of carbon offset credits and green power production through coordination with the NC GreenPower program; c) provides for 20 percent more efficiency that ensures indoor air quality and adequate access to natural lighting, and allows for the proposed utilization of sustainable energy in the project; and that the property owner reports to the Town of Chapel Hill the actual energy efficiency achieved during the period ending one year after occupancy. These recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution A.
As regards energy efficiency, we recommend that the applicant provide Final Plan notes that indicate the approved development shall incorporate a “20 percent more energy efficient” feature relative to the energy efficiency standard of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as amended and in effect at the time of building permit issuance. We recommend that energy efficiency be a minimum of 20% above the baseline requirements of ASHRAE 90.1, 2004 for the Condominium Building and the North Carolina Residential Building Code for 1 and 2 family dwellings (Sections 1101-1104 for the townhouses, as amended and in effect at the time of building permit issuance).
We recommend that the applicant provide sealed engineering calculations
certifying energy efficiency performance to the Town Manager no more than 60
days after the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Watershed Protection District: The proposed development is located inside the Watershed Protection District. The applicant is proposing 46.2% impervious surface area (117,157 s.f.) and is therefore subject to the high-density option for controlling stormwater runoff and must meet applicable performance standards in Section 3.6.4(g) of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Resource Conservation District: The site has approximately 57,287 square feet of Resource Conservation District in three locations on the site, including that associated with 1) the intermittent stream running through the site (50,208 s.f.), 2) the eastern side of the site (2,106 s.f.) and 3) the northern part of the site (4,973 s.f.). The Resource Conservation District on the property accounts for approximately 22.5% percent of the overall land area.
The applicant is proposing to cross the Resource Conservation District and associated intermittent stream that runs along the front of the site, in a perpendicular fashion with the drive aisle. It is not possible to access the site from the NC-54 frontage without crossing the Resource Conservation District.
The applicant proposes to disturb approximately 8,900 square feet of the Resource Conservation District on-site. The applicant is also proposing to disturb Resource Conservation District offsite, as associated with the extension of an OWASA sewer main to the site. We recommend that the disturbance of the Resource Conservation District only be the minimum necessary to construct the permanent cross culvert piping and headwalls to convey the intermittent stream beneath the proposed road entrance; to construct the road entrance with a minimum 2 feet of compacted fill above the crown of the culvert; and to install the necessary erosion and sediment control measures as approved by the Durham County Erosion Control Division for the construction site. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Impervious Surface: The site currently has no impervious surface on it. The applicant is proposing 46.2% impervious surface area (117,157 s.f.) and is therefore subject to the high-density option for controlling stormwater runoff and must meet applicable performance standards in Section 3.6.4(g) of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Steep Slopes: The site has significant steep slopes, including areas with 10%-15% slope, 15%-25% slope and areas with over 25% slope. The steepest slopes comprise about 7.6% (19,475 s.f.) of the site are along the frontage as well as the center and rear southern parts of the site. Subsection 5.3.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that no more than one quarter of the slopes over 25% grade be disturbed. The applicant is proposing to disturb approximately 55% of the slopes over 25% grade and is requesting a modification to regulations. Please refer to the Modifications to Regulations section for more detail.
Stormwater Management: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the stormwater management performance criteria of the Land Use Management Ordinance for water quality, stormwater volume control, and stormwater runoff rates. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, we recommend that the applicant submit a stormwater management plan for the development. Based on the 25-year storm, the post development stormwater run-off rate should not exceed the pre-development rate.
We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant provide a Stormwater Management Plan that includes specifications and plan details. We recommend that the plan include details and cross sections of the outlet mechanisms for the water quality unit and underground detention structure. We also recommend an operations and maintenance plan and schedule for the proposed water quality unit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
The application indicates that 46.2% of the site would include built-upon area. A Stormwater Quality Structure is indicated on the site plan in the southeast corner of the site. The Stormwater Quality Structure indicated on the site plan is not yet a Town-approved water quality device and therefore cannot be used. All water quality devices shall be identified in the Stormwater Impact Statement and on the plans as a Town-approved water quality structures. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
The Chapel Hill Town Council unanimously adopted comments concerning the proposed Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules at its September 10, 2007 Business Meeting.
Grading: We recommend that the grading plan show how areas on the adjacent property to the west will be graded to accommodate the proposed vehicular stub out and that the applicant provide authorization for off-site work. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
Solar Collection Devices: We recommend that the homeowners association, or similar entity, not include covenants or other conditions of sale that restrict or prohibit the use, installation, or maintenance of solar collection devices including clothes lines. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
Utilities and Services
Refuse Management and Recycling: The applicant is proposing private refuse collection. The Town does not provide curbside refuse collection for multi-family development. We recommend that the applicant provide space for two refuse collection dumpsters in the event that public collection service is desired in the future. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the proposed sewer line be rerouted so that it does not cross the service area directly in front of the required dumpsters. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the grading plan be revised so that the dumpster pad and approach area are on a consistent grade that does not exceed 5%. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the applicant provide a loading area for the recycling carts designed for the condominium building and labeled for temporary storage of recycling carts on collection day only. We recommend that the carts be located near the main parking lot to facilitate refuse truck movement. We request the area be shown on the plans and a ramp be provided to avoid the need to pull carts over a curb (ADA style curbcut desired). We recommend the following note be included on the plans prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit: “If any vehicles are parked in the refuse or recyclables collection vehicle access area, the containers will not receive service until the next scheduled collection day. We have included this as a stipulation in Resolution A.
We recommend the collection vehicle access route to areas containing refuse and recyclable material collection containers be paved with all-weather, heavy-duty pavement or the following note be included on the plans and recorded on the plat: “The Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County will not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles.” We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Utilities: We recommend that the proposed sewer line be rerouted so that it does not cross the servicing area directly in front of the required dumpsters. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the applicant provide final utility/lighting plans to be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Energy Company, Time-Warner Cable, Public Service Company, AT&T or GTE, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The property owner will be responsible for assuring that these utilities, including cable television, are extended to serve the development. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that the applicant provide off-site construction plans for the proposed utility construction for the extension of sewer service to the site, subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Fire: We recommend that the applicant provide Final Plans that include designs of all of the required Fire Safety infrastructure as well as documentation and required plan notes, to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Miscellaneous
Construction Deadline: The typical construction start and completion deadlines are 2 and 3 years respectively. The applicant requested an extension of the construction start and completion deadlines, to 3 years and 5 years respectively, based on concerns about uncertainties in the real estate market. We recommend the extension to a 5 year construction completion deadline. The applicant may request other extensions from the town Manager and Council as allowed by the Land Use Management Ordinance. We have included this as a stipulation in Revised Resolution A.
Recordation of Plat and Homeowners’ Association Documents: We recommend that the applicant include a note on plans, and also record a plat and record Home Owners’ Association (HOA) documents that includes a statement notifying potential property owners that the subject site is adjacent to a state wildlife area on which hunting is permitted.
Construction Management Plan: We recommend that a Construction Management Plan, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plan: We recommend that the applicant provide a Work Zone Traffic Control Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public street that will be disrupted during construction. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Recombination Plats: We recommend that a recorded recombination plat, where necessary, be provided prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: Because the proposed development is located in Durham County, the proposed development is not subject to the provisions of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance with Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools.
Open Burning: We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that prohibits open burning.
Erosion Control: We recommend that an Erosion Control Plan for the site be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, and be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Comprehensive Plan: The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this site as Parks and Open Space. We believe it would be difficult for any development to achieve this designation, lacking public purchase of the site.
The application does propose to achieve other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in the applicant’s Statement of Justification (Attachment 6).
SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
Special Use Permit Findings
For approval of a Special Use Permit, the Council must make the following findings, as set forth in Article 4.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
(a) 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;
(b) That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance;
(c) 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
(d) That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
Upon review of the application and information that has been submitted to date, our preliminary recommendation is that these findings can be made, with the modification of regulations and rezoning noted previously.
The proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Resolution A and proposed modifications to regulations complies with the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, if the rezoning application is approved.
Resolution A would approve the application with conditions. Resolution B would deny the application.
Project Fact Sheet Requirements
Check List of Regulations and Standards
|
AYDAN COURT DEVELOPMENT |
STAFF EVALUATION |
|
|
|
COMPLIANCE |
NONCOMPLIANCE |
|
Uses Permitted |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment) |
|
|
Minimum Gross Land Area |
Ö |
|
|
Minimum Lot Width |
Ö |
|
|
Maximum Floor Area |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment) |
|
|
Minimum Recreation Space |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment) |
|
|
Impervious Surface Limits |
Ö |
|
|
Land Disturbance in RCD |
Ö |
|
|
Maximum # Vehicular Parking Spaces |
With Modification to Regulations |
|
|
Minimum # Bicycle Parking Spaces |
Ö |
|
|
Minimum # Loading Spaces |
N/A |
|
|
Maximum # Dwelling Units |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment) |
|
|
Minimum Street Setback |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment) |
|
|
Minimum Interior Setback |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment) |
|
|
Minimum Solar Setback |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment) |
|
|
Maximum Height Limit |
Ö (With R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment and Modification to Regulations) |
|
|
Minimum Landscape Bufferyards |
Ö |
|
|
Steep Slopes |
Ö (with Modification to Regulations) |
|
|
Parking Lot Screening |
Ö (with conditions) |
|
|
Public Water and Sewer |
Ö |
|
|
Adequate Public Schools Facilities |
NA |
|
N/A = Not Applicable Prepared: September 29, 2008