to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
subject: Aydan Court, 2100 NC-54 East - Application for Special Use Permit
date: March 23, 2009
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 20, 2008, December 8, 2008 and February 9, 2009 for 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 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 (proposed Ordinance A or Ordinance B).
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.
DISCUSSION
We have
identified the following issues related to this development.
1. Levels of Approval Authority: A Council member inquired about the possible development options on the Aydan Court site and what the corresponding approval authority is each, from staff to Council approvals.
Staff Comment: The approval authority for various development scenarios range from:
· Staff approval of a single-family home (by right);
· Planning Board approval of Site Plan Review for a place of worship or daycare facility, with less than the 20,000 square-foot floor area and 40,000 square-foot land disturbance threshold (by right);
· Planning Board approval of a 4-lot subdivision (minor subdivision-by right) with construction of single-family homes, places of worship, or day care facilities (by right);
· Town Council approval of a subdivision greater than 4 lots (major subdivision-by right) with subsequent by right development;
· Town Council approval of a multi-family development with 17 units as a Special Use Permit; or
· Town Council discretionary approval of a rezoning to allow more than 17 units accompanied by Town Council approval of a multi-family development as a Special Use Permit. Additional detail and various intensity scenarios are provided in the attached tables (Attachment 1A, Table 1).
2. Potential Benefits of Multi-Family Development Proposal: A Council member inquired about the potential benefits of the current Aydan Court multi-family proposal compared to developing the site under the existing low-density Residential-1 (R-1) zoning.
Staff Comment: We think there may be potential benefits with the applicant’s existing development proposal and the associated rezoning request rather than some development scenarios with the current R-1 zoning district. There would appear to be less impact if a single house were built on the site or a minor subdivision with 4 homes. The applicant has not indicated an intention to construct low-density development but has provided low-density scenarios for illustrative purposes.
The potential benefits of the applicant’s Aydan Court proposal are related to the willingness of the developer to mitigate impacts and provide amenities that go beyond ordinance standards with a medium-density design of 10 units/acre. These benefits, associated with the economies of scale of a medium-density development, include more intense development being located along a major transportation corridor, centralized stormwater treatment, including a proposed stormwater harvesting system, provision of an energy management plan, including 20% ASHRAE energy reduction, provision of improved recreation space (bicycle/greenway trail), and provision of affordable housing. Aside from having medium density on a major transit corridor, any of the above items could be provided with a lower density single-family subdivision. However, the applicant has indicated a willingness to provide only the minimum Ordinance requirements under such lower-density development scenarios. Staff has prepared detailed tables (Attachment 1, Tables 1-4) and the applicant has prepared site plans and tables (Attachment 2A) to compare development scenarios with various environmental and development intensity issues.
3. Comparison of Intensity and Environmental Standards Among Design Scenarios: A Council member requested a comparison of the intensity and environmental standards allowed under the applicant’s proposal and among design scenarios in the existing R-1 zoning district.
Staff Comment: Please refer to the responses to issues #1 and 2 above. Also, the staff have prepared detailed tables (Attachment 1A, Tables 1-4) and the applicant has prepared site plans and tables (Attachment 2A) to compare development scenarios with various environmental and development intensity issues. Additionally, please see the detailed staff response regarding stormwater questions (Attachment 1B) and the applicant’s revised stormwater impact statement (Attachment 2C).
4. Comparison of Stormwater Impacts Between Single-Family and Multi-Family: A Council member requested a comparison of stormwater impacts between the proposed multi-family development and single-family or multi-family development in the existing R-1 zoning district.
Staff Comment: The minimum stormwater regulations are the same for single-family and multi-family development. Please refer to the detailed staff response regarding stormwater impacts and the applicant’s revised stormwater impact statement for additional information (Attachments 1A-Table 4, and Attachments 1B and 2C).
5. Modification to Steep Slope Requests: A Council member inquired about how many requests the Council has considered to modify steep slope regulations (i.e. land disturbance limited to 25% area of those slopes greater than 25% grade) since these regulations were enacted in the Land Use Management Ordinance, January 27, 2003.
Staff Comment: There have been two requests to modify steep slope regulations since these regulations have been part of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including 1) the Residences at Grove Park, and 2) Aydan Court. The Residences at Grove Park was approved by Council on February 23 and was granted a modification to regulations to disturb 53% of steep slopes greater than 25% grade. The Aydan Court request to disturb 59% of steep slopes is under consideration.
6. Steep Slopes Regulatory Requirements: A Council member inquired about the requirements for requests to exceed regulatory limits on steep slopes for the various types of development scenarios for the site.
Staff Comment: Section 5.3.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance restricts land disturbance to not exceed 25% area of those slopes greater than 25% grade. For Special Use Permit applications, the Council may grant requested modifications to regulations, allowing applicant’s to disturb more than the Ordinance maximum of 25% area on slopes greater than 25% grade. For staff and Planning Board approvals, applicants must request a variance from steep slope regulations from the Board of Adjustment.
Please refer to the attached tables provided by staff that indicates regulatory differences (Attachment 1A - Table 4) and additional information provided by the applicant regarding steep slopes (Attachments 2A and 2E).
7. Stormwater Management and Erosion Control: A Council member inquired about the applicant’s proposal to manage stormwater and control erosion during construction.
Staff Comment: Please refer to the detailed staff responses regarding stormwater impacts (Attachment 1B) as well as additional information provided by the applicant (Attachments 2B, 2C, & 2D).
8. Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Device Reliability: A Council member inquired about assurances that stormwater management and erosion control devices will work effectively throughout the life of the proposed development.
Staff Comment: Please refer to the detailed staff response regarding stormwater impacts (Attachment 1A) as well as additional information provided by the applicant (Attachments 2B, 2C, & 2D).
10. Implications of Proposed New Jordan Lake Rules: A Council member inquired about how the proposed Jordan Lake Rules, which go beyond the current County erosion control rules, may pertain to Aydan Court for both the construction period and the post-construction development. Would the construction provisions of the proposed Jordan Lake rules apply based on the issuance dates of building permits or would they apply based on the issuance date of any Town permit?
Staff Comment: Please refer to the detailed staff response regarding stormwater impacts (Attachment 1A).
11. Disturbed Land Area: A Council member requested figures indicating the amount and percentage of proposed disturbed land area, calculating only the areas outside the Resource Conservation District (RCD) and the areas outside perimeter landscape buffers (i.e. deduct the landscape buffers and the RCD area prior to doing calculation).
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that they propose to disturb 166,615 square feet (83.8%) as a percentage of land area outside landscape buffers, Resource Conservation District, and steep slopes and 166,615 square feet (65.5%) as a percentage of gross land area. The second percentage (65.5%) is how land disturbance is typically calculated. Please refer to attached response provided by the applicant for additional detail (Attachment 2F).
12. Stormwater Control Device Reference: A Council member inquired about a reference in the staff report to a proposed stormwater control device not being accepted by the Town.
Staff Comment: The information in the memo was incorrect and has been corrected. The proposed stormwater devices for Aydan Court are accepted by the Town. Please refer to the detailed response regarding stormwater impacts (Attachment 1A).
13. Enforcement of Proposed Organic Landscaping: A Council member inquired about what enforcement mechanism could be used to ensure compliance with the proposed organic landscaping maintenance program.
Staff Comment: In order to highlight the proposed program and ensure compliance, we recommend a stipulation that would require that the homeowner’s association (HOA) covenants and conditions include requirements for the sole use of organic landscaping materials in common areas maintained by the HOA. We do not think that there is a feasible means of Town oversight of landscaping practices for individual developments. We therefore recommend that the implementation and enforcement of this program be within the purview of the homeowner’s association. Please refer to the information provided by the applicant regarding their proposed landscape fertilizer program (Attachment 2G).
14. Oversight of Recycling Program: A Council member inquired about how the proper function of the proposed recycling program could be kept up over time.
Staff Comment: The applicant is required by stipulations in Revised Resolution A, to obtain approval of a Solid Waste Management Plan and comply with an approved recycling program that functions properly over time. Orange County Solid Waste Department has regular contact with developments through its collection program to help ensure the proper function of the recycling program.
15. Transit Service Through the Site: A Council member inquired about notification of future residents that transit would be routed through the proposed development in the future.
Staff Comment: Transit was proposed through the Aydan Court site in an earlier iteration of the development application but is no longer proposed. We are now recommending a payment-in-lieu of transit amenities in general proximity to the site, along NC-54.
16. Construction Start and Completion Deadlines: A Council member inquired about the reasons for staff limiting construction start and completion deadlines.
Staff Comment: The typical start and completion deadlines granted in Special Use Permit approvals are 2 years to start construction and 3 years to complete construction. The key staff consideration for construction start and completion deadlines is changing conditions, particularly in regard to traffic impact. We had previously recommended that the Aydan Court applicant be granted construction start and completion deadlines of 2 years and 5 years respectively, in response to the applicant’s request to extend the deadlines. The traffic impact for the Aydan Court development is relatively insignificant and the Town Traffic Engineer indicated an extended construction period would not require a new Traffic Impact Assessment prior to completion. We therefore recommend that the construction start and completion deadlines be extended to 3 and 7 years respectively, as requested by the applicant. Revised Resolution A includes this change. We expect to provide a report to the Council about construction start and completion provisions in April. Please see detailed information provided by the applicant regarding the proposed construction schedule (Attachment 2H).
17. Activity With Environmental Organizations: A Council member inquired about creative ideas regarding how future residents of the proposed development could become active in local environmental organizations, such as River Watch or Clean Sweep programs.
Staff Comment: The applicant has provided a response to this item (Attachment 2J, see number 8d).
18. Transit Stops and Typical Walking Distances: A Council member inquired about the distance transit riders are typically willing to walk and how this distance compares to the proposed bus stops for the recently approved St. Thomas More Church.
Staff Comment: The walking distance that transit planners typically use for planning transit stops, is one quarter mile (1,320 feet). This is not considered the maximum distance that transit riders will walk to a transit stop but is a rule of thumb for planning purposes. The distances from the recently approved St. Thomas More Church and School, to the bus-stop stipulated in that approval, are approximately 1,200 feet and 1,760 feet respectively. We are recommending a payment-in-lieu of $17,500 for transit facilities to be placed in the general proximity to the Aydan Court site. The distance from the proposed Aydan Court condominium building, at the north end of the site, to the NC-54 frontage is approximately 900 feet.
19. Town Purchase of Aydan Court Site: A Council member inquired if the Town has ever shown an interest in purchasing the Aydan Court site.
Staff Comment: A Parks and Recreation Department staff member recalled that when the Meadowmont property was proposed for development in the early 1990’s the Council asked the Manager’s office to contact the Lloyd family about the possibility of purchasing the property. The applicant, Cazco, Inc. purchased the Aydan Court site from the Lloyds in 2007.
The applicant has provided additional background information regarding the Aydan Court site as well as the adjacent site owned by the UNC Foundation Incorporated (Attachment 2K).
20. Proximity to Gameland: A Council member asked for clarification regarding 1) the Jordan Lake Watershed gameland safety restrictions for hunters as required by NC State regulations, 2) what associated recommendations were proposed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and 3) what landscape buffer is being provided by the applicant on the Aydan Court site. The Council member also requested that the different buffer restrictions be clearly indicated on a map.
Staff Comment: Please refer to the information and maps provided by the applicant to address these requests (Attachment 2L). Please also see the letter discussing off-site hunting safety buffers recommended by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in the attached letter from the University of North Carolina (Attachment 3B). Note that the USACE and the NCWRC provide recommendations regarding off-site hunting safety but maintain restrictions on their own properties only.
21. North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Area: Subsequent to the October 20 Public Hearing we received additional information describing North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Areas.
Staff Comment: North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Areas are natural areas selected for their significance and to protection of biodiversity. The Aydan Court site is located in the Little Creek Bottomlands and has been identified as a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. We note that inclusion on the significant areas list does not confer protection to a site, nor give it regulatory status. The Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance also does not provide additional considerations of Natural Heritage Areas. For additional information, please refer to Attachments 1C and 3H.
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.
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:
· “Aydan Court is proposed to be a medium density residential neighborhood (10 units/acre) on a site that is presently zoned for residential use. It is designed to provide safe vehicular access from NC 54 in accordance with recommendations of the Town’s traffic impact review consultant.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Aydan Court has been designed from the outset to be a community leader in the areas of energy efficiency, carbon footprint reduction, and long term energy reduction thru operational management.” [Applicant Statement]
· “On-site recreation activity is provided for within a community exercise and meeting facility to be located within the proposed 4-story building containing condominium flats. In addition the developer will extend the existing “Meadowmont — NC 54” trail system from its current location at the southeast corner of Meadowmont to the eastern edge of Aydan Court where it meets the Upper Little Creek Wildlife Area.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have identified the following evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.
On September 2, 2008, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit. See the Recommendations Section in this memorandum for statements from the Chapel Hill Planning Board.
Statements from the New Hope Audubon Society:
· “We urge the Council to reject the Rezoning Application and Special Use Permit for the Aydan Court development for the following reasons:
1) the high density development lies directly adjacent to the Upper Little Creek Impoundment (that has been declared impaired by the NC DENR) with the Resource Conservation District buffering on part of the tract;
2) the tract is in the Lake Jordan Watershed that has also been declared impaired by the NC DENR, in part from nutrient loading and sediment runoff from Chapel Hill;
3) the tract is also designated as a State Natural Heritage area; and [New Hope Audubon Society Statement]
Additional detail is available in an attachment from the New Hope Audubon Society (Attachments 3E and 3G).
Statements from Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG):
· “On October 20th of last year, NRG urged the Council to reject the Rezoning Application and Special Use Permit for the Aydan Court development for the following reasons:
· “the high density development lies directly adjacent to the Upper Little Creek Impoundment (that has been declared impaired by the NC DENR) with the Resource Conservation District buffering on part of the tract;” [Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth Statement]
Additional detail is available in an attachment from the Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (Attachments 3F and 3G).
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:
· “Article 3, Zoning Districts, Uses, and Dimensional Standards establishes use, density, intensity (floor area ratio) and dimensional standards.” [Applicant Statement]
“The applicant proposes a Zoning Map Amendment. The site is currently zoned R-1 Residential, a district that permits a maximum density of 3 units per acre and permits a very limited amount of floor area. The applicant proposes to develop the site at a density of 10 dwelling units per acre and with an increased amount of floor area. Currently the Planning Board and the Town Council are considering a modification to the amount of floor area permitted in the Residential Special Standards Conditional (R-SS-C) residential district. The applicant proposes that the Aydan Court site be rezoned to R-SS-C district after the adoption of the proposed 1.000 floor area ratio for that district.” [Applicant Statement]
“Article 5, Design and Development Standards govern many of the physical aspects of development. The applicant’s plan meets the requirements of Article 5 with three exceptions.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Parking Quantity Standards - §5.9.7 - In June 2007, the Town adopted new parking standards establishing minimum and maximum levels of parking. For Aydan Court a minimum of 95 and a maximum of 119 spaces are permitted. The applicant proposes 122 spaces.” [Applicant Statement]
“Building Height — Table 3.8-1: Dimensional Matrix (LUMO) - Aydan Court is to be developed at a density of 10 dwelling units per acre with two types of dwelling units: 1) Townhomes and 2) Condominium Flats in a building with 4 floors of homes over a garage parking level.” [Applicant Statement]
“The applicant requests 3 minor modifications to the height standards:
1) A one (1) foot Secondary Height modification to allow the condominium building to have a maximum secondary height of sixty-one (61) feet.
2) A six and one-half (6.5) feet modification to the building height standard for the west side of the condominium building at the proposed building setback line.
3) A fourteen (14) feet modification to the building height standard for the east side of the condominium building at the proposed building setback line.” [Applicant Statement]
“Steep Slopes - § 5.3.2 - The Aydan Court site has a limited amount of sloped area exceeding 25%. In total, the Chapel Hill regulates development on lands that are sloped according to the categories and standards shown in Table 2 below. (LUMO Table 5.3-1 Slope Construction Restrictions).” [Applicant Statement]
The applicant has requested modification to regulations for parking quantity standards, disturbance of steep slopes, and maximum building height. We believe that the Council can make the public purpose finding for the three requested modifications to regulations.
Evidence in opposition: Concern has been expressed by speakers at the public hearings about allowing modification to the steep slope provisions for this development adjacent to the Jordan Lake impoundment. Please refer to Attachments 3E - 3G.
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:
· “To the west is a 51-acre undeveloped property owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Foundation Inc. It is expected that property will be appropriately developed over time to serve the needs of the University. The current proposal will not diminish the economic or use value or potential value of the property. The proposed design provides for an appropriate buffer between the two sites and at the Council request, the design of the Aydan Court site includes a roadway link to the UNC property for a future connection, if one is deemed appropriate.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The Army Corps of Engineers land to the north and east of Aydan Court is in public ownership and will remain so. The development of Aydan Court will not affect the land value of this property. The proposed development will meet or exceed the stormwater management requirements of Chapel Hill and thereby maintain the quality of the water discharging on to the Corps property and will maintain the environmental quality of the Corps property. Lastly, and with regard to the protection of wildlife, residential development of the Aydan Court property will substantially limit the area of the Waterfowl Impoundment in which hunting is permitted by both the NC Wildlife Commission and Durham County. NC Wildlife Commission regulations require a 450 feet no-hunting zone on the Army Corps property where it abuts residential development. Durham County ordinances require a larger 600 feet no-hunting zone abutting the Aydan Court site. The applicant believes that residential development on her site will enhance the value of the Impoundment area as a safe haven for waterfowl and other birds and animals.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: Concern has been expressed by speakers at the public hearings about the environmental impact of this development on the adjacent Jordan Lake impoundment. Please refer to Attachments 3E — 3G.
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 proposed Aydan Court development complies with the adopted general plans for Chapel Hill in several ways.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “It provides a significant vegetation buffer along NC 54 in keeping with the many goals and policies of the town regarding entryway corridors.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “It provides for the orderly extension of utilities and pedestrian and bicycle facilities along a major transportation corridor.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The site is zoned for residential use, although at a density substantially below the generally accepted transit oriented development (TOD) densities. The NC 54 East Corridor is included in the town’s Long Range Transit Plan. In that plan, the density proposed for the applicant’s property is about 25 dwelling units per acre.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The applicant’s proposal is for a density of development consistent with TOD principles, but at a medium density that is consistent with the capabilities of the site.” [Applicant’s Statement]
o “The gross density of Aydan Court is 10 dwelling units per acre. (59 units divided by 5.8 acres).” [Applicant’s Statement]
o “The design density of Aydan Court is 15 dwelling units per acre. (59 units divided by 4 acres, the area of the site not within the RCD overlay zone.)” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition to this finding has been provided by the Chapel Hill Planning Board as well as concern has expressed by speakers at the public hearings (Attachments 3E — 3G). Please refer to the Recommendations Section below for more detail regarding the Planning Board recommendation.
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 if the property is rezoned as proposed to the amended zoning district. Our recommendation, Revised Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
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. The application proposes residential development on a site designated on the Land Use Plan (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) as Open Space.
B. 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 (the applicant requested a Modification to Regulations for Steep Slope regulations).
C. 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.” [Planning Board Statement]
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.
Staff 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. For additional information please refer to #19 in the Discussion Section above. 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 2I) and Statement of Compliance (Attachment 2J).
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.
Staff Comment: Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance allows the Council to modify regulations where the Council can make a public purpose finding. 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 the predominant area of steep slopes to construct a driveway for site access.
C. 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 Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district, which is needed to accommodate the proposed number of units and floor area of this medium density development.
In addition, the Planning Board appended comments of a Board member to their recommendation including the three following concerns listed below as D, E, and F (Attachment 3A):
D. The Land Use Plan’s designation as Parks/Open Space is inappropriate for the proposed residential development.
Staff Comment: See response to item (A) above that addresses the Land Use Plan under Comprehensive Plan Issues.
E. The site’s proximity to the Jordan Lake Watershed waterfowl impoundment may have negative impact on the waterfowl habitat as related to changes to stormwater volume and stormwater quality.
Staff Comment: The proposed application would comply with stormwater regulations as required by Section 5.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Applications 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. 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 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. The applicant is proposing to remove more than 85% total suspended solids. The applicant is also proposing a stormwater harvesting program, thereby reducing the impact of impervious surface. We believe these proposed measures will enhance the stormwater quality, rate and volume leaving the proposed development site.
F. The proposed development may meet Land Use Management Ordinance standards for stormwater volume and stormwater quality but that standard may not be adequate to properly protect the Jordan Lake Watershed, including sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus standards.
Staff Comment: See comment response immediately above. The Town regulates sediment with the Town’s erosion control and total suspended solid requirements. Neither the Town nor the State regulates nitrogen and phosphorus for Jordan Lake at this time, though the proposed Jordan Lake Rules are being developed to regulate these nutrients and the regulations would apply to the Town at some future date when they are adopted.
A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 3A).
Staff Revised Recommendation: We recommend approval of the application with Revised Resolution A.
Resolution A has been revised to include:
G. Request to Modify Height: Revision clarifying the request for modification for primary and secondary heights.
· Construction Start and Completion Deadlines: Revised stipulation to extend construction start and completion deadlines to 3 and 7 years respectively, from 2 years and 5 years.
· Affordable Housing: Revised affordable housing stipulation to reflect the Council’s revised affordable housing policy (Attachment 1D). The stipulation has been revised to:
o increase the proposed payment-in-lieu of 4.7 dwelling units from $78,000/unit to $85,000/unit;
o add an annual 3% increase to the payment-in-lieu figure, from the date of approval, prior to payment of the payment-in-lieu.
o Establish a reserve fund with 1% transfer fees from each sale/resale of units.
· Approved Water Quality Devices: Revised stipulation clarifies the types of stormwater management devices that applicant is required to use, as proposed. Clarification that all water quality devices must be Town-approved and identified in the Stormwater Management Plan.
· Stormwater Harvesting: New requirement in response to applicant’s revised stormwater impact statement requiring that the applicant provide facilities for stormwater harvesting for irrigation site-wide and for toilet flushing in the condominium building. We have added a stipulation to Revised Resolution A.
· Steep Slope Regulations: Clarification that the applicant must comply with the modification to regulations authorized by Council rather than the regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance.
· Organic Landscaping Practices: New requirement for Homeowner’s Association to record Covenants and Conditions, including the requirement for organic landscaping practices on the Aydan Court site. We have added a stipulation to Revised Resolution A.
· Remediation and Restoration of Damaged Stream Corridors: New stipulation requiring the applicant to provide $10,000 to the Town of Chapel Hill for remediating or restoring damaged stream corridors. We have added a stipulation to Revised Resolution A.
· Public Artwork: In order to comply with the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district, the applicant is proposing $20,000 for public artwork to be placed on the NC-54 frontage of the site or payment-in-lieu thereof. For additional information, please see the accompanying rezoning memorandum. We have added a stipulation to Revised Resolution A.
· Construction Management Plan: Revision adding requirement for applicant to indicate how the project will comply with the Town’s Noise Ordinance during construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Responses:
A. Four Tables Comparing Applicant Proposal & Single-Family Design Scenarios (p. 36).
B. Stormwater Responses (p. 40).
C. Information on Significant Natural Heritage Areas (p. 44).
D. Council’s Amended Affordable Housing Policy, January 26, 2009 (p. 52).
2. Applicant Responses:
A. Single Family Subdivision Alternative Designs and Comparisons (p. 53).
B. Erosion Control Narrative and Plans (p. 58).
C. Revised Stormwater Impact Statement (p. 67).
D. Revised Stormwater Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan (p. 78).
E. Steep Slopes Information (p. 80).
F. Land Disturbance Information (p. 84).
G. Soils and Fertilizing Program (p. 88).
H. Construction Schedule (p. 91).
I. Revised Statement of Justification (p. 92).
J. Revised R-SS-C Statement of Compliance (p. 124).
K. Aydan Court Ownership Background (p. 132).
L. Gameland Buffers and Jordan Lake Watershed Property (p. 133).
M. Revised Project Fact Sheet (p. 140).
N. Revised Requested Modification to Regulations (p. 143).
A. Planning Board Summary of Action and Addendum, September 2, 2008 (p. 161).
B. Letter from UNC Regarding Gameland Buffers on Jordan Lake Watershed Property (p. 164).
C. US Army Corps of Engineers — Additional Comments (p. 166).
D. Combined Correspondence in Support (p. 172).
E. New Hope Audubon Society Statement of Opposition (p. 178).
F. Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth Statement of Opposition (p. 180).
G. Combined Correspondence in Opposition from October 20, 2008 Public Hearing (p. 184).
H. Comments Regarding the Jordan Lake Watershed and Gamelands: Letters From US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and Michael Brough Attorney for Applicant http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/10/20/1b/1b-17_usace-ncwrc-m-brough-combinedcomments_20081020.pdf
I. Area Map
http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/10/20/1b/1b-23_areamap_20081020.gif
J. October 20, 2008 Public Hearing Memorandum http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/10/20/1b/
K. Handouts From February 9, 2009 Public Hearing, Including Letters in Opposition, Letters in Support, and Additional Information From the Applicant http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/02/09/additional_info/
|
Aydan Court Special Use Permit - DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS |
||||||
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board |
Transportation Board |
Community Design Commission |
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Parks and Recreation Commission |
|
Extended Construction Start and Completion Deadlines |
Start: 3 Yrs. Completion: 7 Yrs. |
No |
Start: 2 Yrs. Completion: 5 Yrs. |
Start: 3 Yrs. Completion: 7 yrs. |
* |
* |
|
Increase Handicapped Parking Spaces |
Yes, to 5 |
No |
Yes, to 5 |
* |
* |
* |
|
Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces
|
Min. of 10 Spaces and Max. of 39 |
No |
Min. of 29 Spaces |
Min. of 10 Spaces and Max. of 39 |
* |
* |
|
Correct Typo: 15% Affordable Units not Bedrooms |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Revise Affordable Housing Plan |
Yes, To Include Larger Payment-In-Lieu, 3% Annual Increase in PIL |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Transit Improvements Internal to Site |
Delete, See Payment-In-Lieu of Transit Improvements |
No |
Delete, See Payment-In-Lieu of Transit Improvements |
* |
* |
* |
|
Transit Cross Access Easement |
Delete, No Longer Necessary |
No |
Delete, No Longer Necessary |
* |
* |
* |
|
Revise Payment-In-Lieu of Transit Improvements |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Energy Mgmt. Plan: Consider Sust. Energy, Carbon Offsets, and 20% More Efficiency |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
* |
|
No Limitations on Covenants on Solar Collection Devices |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
* |
* |
|
*Issues not discussed, and therefore not included in the recommendation |
||||||
|
Aydan Court Special Use Permit - DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS — Continued |
||||||
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board |
Transportation Board |
Community Design Commission |
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Parks and Recreation Commission |
|
Provide Payment-In-Lieu of Offsite Transit Impr. Rather Than Onsite |
Yes, $17,500 |
No |
Yes, $35,000 |
* |
* |
* |
|
Provide Notification Signs for Gameland & Hunters |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Increase Requested Height Modification |
Yes, From 6 to 7 Feet |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Approve Revised Stormwater Management Plan With Bioretention and Stormwater Harvesting |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Approve Organic Landscaping Practices |
Yes, With Conditions Requiring HOA Conditions |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Installation of Public Artwork or Payment-In-Lieu Thereof |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
*Issues not discussed, and therefore not included in the recommendation |
||||||
