AGENDA #4k

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Response to Petition from Beechridge Homeowners Association

 

DATE:             April 14, 2004

 

 

This report addresses questions raised with a petition from the Beechridge Homeowners Association at the February 23, 2004 Council meeting.  The petition was received and referred to the staff.  We recommend adoption of the attached resolution which would provide a partial reduction of the fee for a Special Use Permit Modification application. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

On June 24, 1996, Mr. Kevin Huggins obtained approval of a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development-Housing.   Beechridge Development was approved and subsequently developed to create  27 single-family lots on 37 acres.  Because the property was in both a 1-acre minimum lot size zoning district (R-LD1) and a 5-acre minimum lot size zoning district (R-LD5), the developer chose to develop the property as a Planned Development rather than a Subdivision.  The approval as a Planned Development enabled the developer to distribute the density and not comply with the 5 acre minimum lot size for that portion of the development.  Instead the lots are typically 1 to 2 acres in size. 

 

Because the Beechridge approval was as a Planned Development rather than a Subdivision, the Development Ordinance in place at the time of approval required that recreation space be provided for the residents.  Recreation space, as defined at the time, required an improved area for the common active recreational use of residents of a Planned Development.  The Beechridge developer chose to propose picnic tables and outdoor grills for the required recreation improvements, and the application was approved with specific conditions that followed the developer’s proposal.  (Please see conditions 9 and 10 in the attached resolution of approval for Beechridge.)

 

Currently, 13 of the 27 Beechridge lots have occupied houses.  Three houses are under construction.  The recreation improvements have not yet been installed.  The owners of Beechridge lots assert that they do not want the improvements installed.  Since the improvements were specific conditions of approval, the Town Manager does not have authority to delete the requirements.  Accordingly, the owners now seek to modify the Special Use Permit to remove the requirements.

It is our understanding that all 27 lot owners in Beechridge are participants in this petition seeking expedited processing of an application to modify the Special Use Permit, and seeking a reduction in application fees.  All Beechridge lot owners would need to be listed as applicants to modify the Special Use Permit.

 

DISCUSSION

 

This set of circumstances does not fall within the criteria typically used to grant expedited processing.  There is no immediacy or urgent set of facts involved, nor are there public purposes to be achieved.  However, with all Beechridge lot owners involved in this petition and subsequent application, and the limited nature of the modification (removing requirements for amenities that would benefit only those owners), we believe that there would be no controversy or complexity involved in processing the application.  We do not recommend that the Council grant expedited processing status for this application when it is submitted, but we can offer our expectation that such an application would move swiftly through the review process because of the lack of issues or controversy, and in such a case we would routinely schedule such a simple and non-controversial item for the earliest available slots on Advisory Board and Council agendas as possible.

 

Regarding the request for reduction in application fees, we recommend a partial reduction in fees.  This application, if submitted, will necessarily need to be scheduled for review by the Community Design Commission, Planning Board, Transportation Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and Parks and Recreation Commission, necessarily involving staff resources and accompanying costs.  Required public notices also involve cost.  Due to the expected lack of controversy, because the improvements involved would benefit only Beechridge owners and all owners would be party to the application, these costs would be expected to be lower than is typically the case.  Accordingly we believe the Council could reasonably decide to reduce the application fee by one-half to $2,500.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

We recommend that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution which would reduce by half the application fee for a Modification of the Beechridge Special Use Permit.

 

If the application is submitted as has been described, it is our intent to schedule the application for review by Advisory Boards and the Council at the earliest possible dates, given the simple and non-controversial nature of the application.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      Petition from Homeowners Association (p. 4).

2.      Resolution of Approval for Beechridge Development (June, 1996) (p. 30).

 

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING FEE REDUCTION IN THE REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR BEECHRIDGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (2004-04-14/R-11)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a petition from property owners in the Beechridge Development, requesting expedited processing of a Special Use Permit Modification application and seeking reduction in application fees;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby:

 

1.      Reduces the normal application fee, in view of the limited issues involved, to one-half of what would otherwise be required.

 

This the 14^th day of April, 2004.