to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
subject: Public Hearing: Aydan Court, 2100 NC-54 East - Application for Special Use Permit
date: October 20, 2008
Attached for your consideration is an application from Cazco, Inc. for a Special Use Permit to allow construction of 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 in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district. The property is identified as Durham County Parcel Identifier Number 9798-03-94-6008.
Accompanying this application is a Zoning Atlas Amendment application requesting to rezone the site. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for a discussion of the proposed rezoning. The recommendations in the attached staff report are made with the assumption that the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district is applied to this property.
The applicant is also requesting three modifications to Land Use Management Ordinance regulations, including steep slope regulations, parking standards, and primary and secondary height regulations.
Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the Special Use Permit application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
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. The buildings 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 applicant is proposing to provide a combination of 4 affordable dwelling units onsite and a payment-in-lieu of 4.7 units affordable dwelling units (15% x 58 = 8.7 affordable dwelling units).
During staff and advisory board review we identified the following key issues related to this project:
Environment: Several issues related to the sensitive environment of the site were discussed at the Planning Board meeting, including the disturbance of steep slopes, the protection of water quality in the Jordan Lake Watershed, and the hunting safety as related to the Jordan Lake Watershed waterfowl impoundment, managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. We discuss each below:
“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]
Comment: We believe that the Council could grant the request for modification to steep slope regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, to an equivalent or greater degree, because the steep slopes (over 25%) are scattered around the site in discrete segments and that the applicant must cross an area with steep slopes along the frontage of the site to construct a driveway. Please refer to the Staff Report for additional detail.
B. Jordan Lake Watershed Stormwater Impact: Planning Board members expressed concern regarding the possible impact of post-development stormwater runoff from the proposed Aydan Court site.
Comment: The proposed application would comply with stormwater regulations as required by Section 5.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The Ordinance requires that the stormwater quality, volume, and rate generated by development shall be managed to specific meet performance criteria. As stipulated in Resolution A, the applicant must provide a stormwater management plan that must be based on 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate cannot exceed the pre-development rate and the post-development stormwater runoff volume cannot exceed the pre-development volume for the local 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids from the first inch of precipitation utilizing the Town’s Design Manual. Applicants must comply with Chapel Hill stormwater regulations which we believe provide significant mitigation from the impacts of stormwater runoff and exceed North Carolina stormwater regulations.
However, Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules are currently being reviewed by the State of North Carolina to limit the impact of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The Council offered written comments and expressed support for the draft rules to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission September 10, 2007 (Attachment 20). We note however, that the Town is anticipated to be required to comply with proposed regulations for Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus), in New Hope Creek, into which the Jordan Lake impoundment flows, beginning sometime in 2009. At that time, development applications would be required to comply with any new standards.
C. Army Corps of Engineers Jordan Lake Watershed and Gameland: Planning Board members expressed concern about safety with hunting allowed on the adjacent Army Corps of Engineers Jordan Lake Watershed and Gameland managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Staff Comment: There were two meetings held between Town staff and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) staff, during the spring and summer of 2008. The second meeting with USACE and NCWRC staff was also attended by the applicant for Aydan Court. The discussion in both meetings focused on the hunting safety and secondarily water quality.
The Upper Little Creek Waterfowl Impoundment area, part of the Jordan Lake Watershed, and adjacent to the proposed Aydan Court site is owned by the USACE and managed for wildlife by the NCWRC. Hunting of waterfowl and deer is permitted. Representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recommended a voluntary “100-foot vegetated buffer” and “the widest buffer possible between the gameland boundary and permanently inhabited residences,” respectively. The applicant is proposing a 10-foot vegetated buffer as required by the Land Use Management Ordinance. In addition, there is an off-site vegetated area along the western edge of the waterfowl impoundment that is roughly a minimum of 150 feet wide.
The applicant argued that a 100-foot on-site buffer is not feasible. By North Carolina Law, there is a buffer where firearms cannot be discharged within 150 yard (450 feet) of any residence. This rule does not apply to hunting bows. The buffer is not marked on the gamelands property and the applicant suggested that the USACE post signs at a distance of 150 yards from the proposed residences and the USACE representatives declined. The applicant has since offered to post signs on the Aydan Court site, facing the hunting area, that would notify hunters of the property boundary and summarizing the State hunting regulations that limit the discharge of guns within 150 yards of residences. We therefore recommend adding a stipulation requiring that the applicant post signs, every 50 feet along the eastern property boundary that they share with the waterfowl impoundment, which warn hunters of the proximity of residential property and also specify the North Carolina hunting regulations regarding gun discharge (Attachment 19). We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Also regarding hunting safety, the applicant noted that: 1) deer hunting is done from platforms whereby guns would be discharged towards the ground and 2) that the Aydan Court site sits approximately 25 to 45 feet above the water level at the Upper Little Creek Waterfowl Impoundment that would provide a vertical safety zone from gun discharges. We acknowledge that the angle that hunters are pointing their weapons and the elevation difference of the waterfowl impoundment and the development site may enhance safety as regards hunters (Attachment 18).
We have also included a stipulation in Revised Resolution A requiring that the applicant indicate that the Aydan Court site is adjacent to a wildlife area where hunting is permitted on approved plans, the recorded plat and the Homeowners’ Association documents.
The other subject discussed at the meeting was concern from the USACE that the Aydan Court development could potentially diminish water quality. The applicant indicated that they were required to provide, by Town of Chapel Hill regulation, structural stormwater controls for the stormwater quality, volume, and rate generated by the proposed development.
Comment: We recommend that the payment-in-lieu of bus-stop amenities, be reduced to $17,500 from $35,000 for a bus pull-off, bus-stop shelter and associated amenities, including a pad, bench, real-time signage, solar-powered lighting, and trash can. We recommend that the payment-in-lieu of transit be reduced because future development on this transit corridor may be more likely to use Transit service with greater frequency, such as the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation Inc. property to the west. The applicant has indicated that the proposed development will be marketed to retired homeowners who may be less inclined to use public transit.
We otherwise do not believe that time limitations on using the payment-in-lieu of transit facilities or limiting the proximity of such facilities to the Aydan Court site would be appropriate. We believe that the proposed development should contribute to the transit facilities that will be built on the NC-54 corridor in the future as related to the impact of the development. We have revised the stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
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.
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 assessment is that the application, as submitted, including the proposed modification to the regulations with the conditions included in Resolution A complies with the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, and Design Manual, if the proposed zoning district is amended and if the property is rezoned to the amended district.
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. The four findings are:
Special Use Permit – 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 Resolution A and Resolution B to approve and deny the application respectively. Resolution A, to approve the application, includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions, incorporating input from all Town departments involved in the review of this application. We recommend that the Council consider these conditions, and the modification to the regulations, in the context of making the four findings necessary to approve the application.
We will return to the Council with a recommendation for action after the Council has received evidence this evening and reconvened the hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board: The Planning Board met on September 2, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council deny the Special Use Permit application, with Resolution B, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum. The Planning Board concluded that the application does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:
A. Land Use Plan Designation: The application proposes residential development on a site designated on the Land Use Plan (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) as Parks/Open Space.
Comment: The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this site as Parks/Open Space. We believe it would be difficult for any private development to achieve this designation, absent public purchase of the site. To our knowledge, the Town has not shown interest in purchasing the Aydan Court site. The Town’s Greenway Master Plan indicates a greenway trail / bicycle path crossing the site. The application also proposes to achieve other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in the applicant’s revised Statement of Justification (Attachment 6).
Furthermore, the Aydan Court site is located such that it is both adjacent to an environmentally sensitive area but also on a major transportation corridor. As with the competing interests of the site, the Comprehensive Plan has competing goals, such as identifying and protecting open spaces and natural areas and developing a multi-modal transportation system. As regards the transportation goal, locating medium to higher-density development along major transportation corridors, such as NC-54, helps to establish the conditions for developing transit routes to serve such development.
B. Proposed Disturbance of Steep Slopes: The application proposes to disturb more than 25% of the slopes on the site that are 25% or greater, contrary to the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations.
Comment: See discussion section above.
C. Improper Zoning District: The proposal does not meet the current zoning district, Residential-1 (R-1) and the Board recommended denial of the accompanying rezoning request to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district.
Comment: The Aydan Court Special Use Permit application cannot be approved without rezoning to the requested higher-density Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district, which is needed to accommodate the proposed number of units and floor area.
In addition, the Planning Board appended comments of a Board member to their recommendation including the following concerns (Attachment 4):
Comment: See response to item (A) above that addresses the Land Use Plan under Comprehensive Plan Issues.
Comment: See discussion section above.
Comment: See comment response above.
A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on September 11, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum.
A copy of the Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on April 16, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: We do not concur. The standard construction start and completion deadlines for Special Use Permits are 2 years and 3 years respectively. We have made accommodation to the applicant’s request for an extension by increasing the construction completion deadline to 5 years, which we believe is reasonable. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A. Applicants can request extensions of construction deadlines from the Town Manager and from the Council, if necessary.
Comment: We do not concur. Vehicular and Bicycle Parking regulations are currently under review by the Council. We recommend a minimum of 60 bicycle parking spaces, or the minimum bicycle parking spaces required at the time of approval of the Special Use Permit application. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Comment: We do not concur. We recommend the ASHRAE standards that specifically pertain to Townhouse and Condominium development rather than the more general standards that may not achieve adequate efficiencies. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Comment: We do not concur. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide an Energy Management Plan requiring that they consider using sustainable energy such as solar, wind, biofuels, hydroelectric power, purchase of carbon offsets, and the like. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Comment: We do not concur. We recommend covenants that do not prohibit the use of solar collection devices. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
A copy of the Summary of the Community Design Commission Action and the proposed revisions to Resolution A submitted by the applicant, is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on April 22, 2008 and voted 5-1, with one abstention, to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum.
A copy of the Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission met on April 16, 2008 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
A copy of the Summary of the Parks and Recreation Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission met on September 2, 2008 and voted 5-0 to recommend the two stipulations below be included as part of any resolution that the Council approves.
Comment: We concur. The two stipulations related to recreation improvements and a greenway encroachment agreement are included in Resolution A.
The Commission also agreed to forward the following individual comments from a Commission member addressing broader environmental issues related to the preservation of significant natural areas. A copy of the Summary of the Greenways Commission Action, including these individual comments, is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: The following stipulations were added to Resolution A, or amended, following Advisory Board review.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council open the Public Hearing and receive evidence in support of and in opposition to the Aydan Court Special Use Permit application. We will return to the Council with a recommendation for action after the Council has received public comment this evening and reconvened the hearing.
Resolution A would approve the application, if the Council approves the associated rezoning request and pending amendment to the zoning district.
Resolution B would deny the application.
Aydan Court Special Use Permit - DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board |
Transportation Board |
Community Design Commission |
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Parks and Recreation Commission |
|
Extended Construction Start and Completion Deadlines |
Start: No Completion: Yes, 5 Yrs. |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Start: No Completion: Yes, 5 Yrs. |
Start: Yes, 3 Yrs. Completion: Yes, 7 yrs. |
* |
* |
|
Increase Handicapped Parking Spaces |
Yes, to 5 |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Yes, to 5 |
* |
* |
* |
|
Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces
|
Min. of 60 Spaces or Requirement in Place at Time of Adoption |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Min. of 29 Spaces |
Min. of 10 Spaces and Max. of 39 |
* |
* |
|
Correct Typo: 15% Affordable Units not Bedrooms |
Yes |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Transit Improvements Internal to Site |
Delete, See Payment-In-Lieu of Transit Improvements |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Delete, See Payment-In-Lieu of Transit Improvements |
* |
* |
* |
|
Transit Cross Access Easement |
Delete, No Longer Necessary |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Delete, No Longer Necessary |
* |
* |
* |
|
Revise Payment-In-Lieu of Transit Improvements
|
Yes |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Energy Mgmt. Plan: Consider Sust. Energy, Carbon Offsets, and 20% More Efficiency |
Yes |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
* |
|
No Limitations on Covenants on Solar Collection Devices |
Yes |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Yes |
No |
* |
* |
|
Provide Payment-In-Lieu of Offsite Transit Impr. Rather Than Onsite |
Yes, $17,500 |
Recommend Denial of Application |
Yes, $35,000 |
* |
* |
* |
|
Approve Proposal With Stipulations Requiring 1) Rec. Improvements and 2) Greenway Encroachment Only |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Provide Notification Signs for Hunters |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
*Issues not discussed, and therefore not included in the recommendation |
||||||
