TO: Mayor and Town Council
From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
Subject: Public Hearing: Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 7.126.B.2)
Date: September 20, 2004
Introduction
We have received a request for Preliminary Plat approval for the Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision. The 32.41-acre site is generally located northwest of the intersection of Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane. The applicant is proposing to develop 25 lots. The site is located in the Residential Low Density-1 (R-LD1) zoning district and in the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District. The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 126, Block B, Lot 2.
Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the application.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
· Cover Memorandum: Introduces application, describes process for review, summarizes staff and advisory board comments, and offers recommendations for Council action.
· Staff Report: Offers detailed description of site and proposed development.
· Attachments: Includes a checklist of requirements for this development, resolutions of approval and denial, advisory board comments, and applicant’s materials.
Background
Preliminary Plat approval authorizes the division of land. Assuming approval of the Preliminary Plat, we expect the lots in this subdivision to be used for construction of single-family homes. However, we note that single-family dwelling units with an accessory apartment, places of worship, child day care facilities, and non-profit recreation facilities are permitted uses on lots in the Residential-LD1 zoning district, subject to some restrictions.
The Council conducted a Concept Plan Review of this project on October 20, 2003. This plan differs from the Concept Plan reviewed in 2003.
This is an application for a Preliminary Plat approval. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of a Preliminary Plat 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 note that review of subdivision proposals differs from review of Special Use Permits in that the question of compliance with regulations and standards is the basis for approval or denial, rather than the four findings of fact listed in Section 4.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. However, the Council’s review and action on a subdivision is quasi-judicial, with sworn testimony and evidence entered into the record. Please see the attached summary of key differences between legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions, prepared by Mr. David Owens of the Institute of Government.
The standard of review and approval of a Preliminary Plat application involves comparing the application with the regulations and standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The review typically focuses on vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, traffic impact, public improvements, lot standards, and recreation area.
Information regarding this application will be presented at tonight’s Public Hearing. The Land Use Management Ordinance directs that if, after consideration of the information, the Council decides that the application meets all the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements, the application must be approved. If the Council decides that the application does not meet all the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements, the application accordingly must be denied.
The application is for approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide 32.41-acres. The applicant is proposing to develop 25 lots. The site is generally located northwest of the intersection of Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane. Access is proposed for 24 of the lots from Zapata Lane. A total of 15.54-acres of recreation area/open space are proposed for this subdivision.
The site is located in the Residential Low Density-1 (R-LD1) zoning district and in the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District. The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 126, Block B, Lot 2.
Evaluation of this application centers on compliance with the subdivision regulations and standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. We have included as an Attachment of this memorandum a checklist of the Town’s subdivision regulations. The checklist indicates which of the Town’s regulations are satisfied by the applicant’s proposal and recommended conditions.
The Council may find that the proposal meets the subdivision regulations and other pertinent Town regulations, or may find that the proposal does not meet the regulations. Please refer to the attached Staff Report for detail on compliance with subdivision regulations.
Based on our staff evaluation and comments received from Advisory Boards, we believe that the key issues concerning this proposed development are the following:
Cluster Development: The property is zoned Residential Low Density-1 (R-LD1) and the applicant proposes a cluster development, in accordance with Section 3.8.8 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
If authorized by the Town Council, cluster developments allow lot sizes to be reduced: individual lots may be smaller (5,500 square feet vs. 43,560 square feet in the R-LD1 zoning district) as long as the sum of reductions in lot area is added to the recreation area for the benefit of all residents of the cluster development. The recreation area is increased and the intensity of development is controlled. With approval of a cluster development, lot width and setback requirements may also be reduced. The cluster provision allows the developer greater flexibility but does not permit the creation of additional lots (and so the overall density is not increased).
The Council may approve a cluster subdivision in any residential district if it makes the five findings found in Subsection 3.8.8(b) of the Land Use Management Ordinance (see page 9). The Council may, if it chooses, make these five findings and approve this proposal as a cluster development.
Comment: We believe this proposal complies with Section 3.8.8 of the Land Use Management Ordinance for single-family residential lots in a cluster development. Each of the 25 proposed lots meets the public water/sewer requirement, minimum gross land area, minimum lot width and minimum street frontage requirements for a cluster development in the Residential-LD1 zoning district. The proposed associated recreation area exceeds the minimum amount required for cluster developments.
Housing Floor
Area Restrictions: The developer has chosen to comply with Section 3.8.5
of the Land Use Management Ordinance by setting aside six lots with floor area
restrictions. The single-family homes on these lots would be restricted to no
more than 1,350 square feet of floor area. The submitted site plan identifies
the six lots on which a size-limited unit must be
constructed. The six lots are interspersed through the subdivision and are
located on both sides of the proposed new street. The size restriction for
these lots is for a 30-month period.
This plan differs from the Concept Plan that was reviewed by the Council on October 20, 2003. The Concept Plan included three affordable housing lots that were separated from the main development, fronting on Old Lystra Road. The applicant subsequently modified the plan to integrate six size-restricted lots into the main development and eliminate the three affordable housing lots.
Comment: We believe that the application, as conditioned in Resolution A, meets the requirements of Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Zapata Lane Maintenance: Section 5.8.1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that all development have access to a publicly maintained street. The single access point for this development is from Zapata Lane, which is currently a privately maintained street.
Comment: We understand that the developer is assisting the Zapata Lane neighborhood in petitioning the North Carolina Department of Transportation to accept Zapata Lane for public maintenance. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring acceptance of Zapata Lane for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing site work.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. The key special conditions that we recommend are described in detail in the accompanying staff report. With this application, we believe that the Council could adopt a resolution to approve.
The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
SUBSEQUENT REGULATORY STEPS
Following is a brief outline describing the next steps in the development review process, should the Council approve the Preliminary Plat application:
1. Applicant receives the clerk-certified copy of the Council-adopted resolution;
2. Applicant submits detailed Final Plans and documentation, complying with Council stipulations. Information is reviewed by Town departments and the following agencies:
· Orange Water and Sewer Authority,
· Duke Power Company,
· Public Service Company, and
· BellSouth.
3. Upon demonstration of compliance with remaining Council stipulations, Town staff issues a Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing site work. Permit includes conditions specific to the development and requires pre-construction conferences with Town staff;
4. Engineering Department issues an Engineering Construction Permit, authorizing work within the public right-of-way;
5. Applicant submits final plat application for Town review and approval. Once approved, the plat is recorded; and
6. Planning Department issues Zoning Compliance Permits for development on individual lots; Inspections Department issues Building Permits for development on individual lots and Certificates of Occupancy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see summaries of board actions and recommendations in the attachments.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on August 3, 2004. The Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution A.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on September 7, 2004. The Board voted 5-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution A.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on August 24, 2004. The Board voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution A.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this subdivision proposal on August 18, 2004. The Commission voted 10-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution A.
Greenways Commission Recommendation: The Greenways Commission reviewed this subdivision proposal on September 8, 2004. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution A.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council approve the Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Resolution A.
Resolution B would deny the application.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report (p. 7).
2. Checklist of Compliance with Subdivision Regulations (p. 16).
4. Resolution B (p. 25).
5. Summary of Planning Board Action (p. 26).
6. Memorandum from Parks and Recreation Commission (p. 27).
7. Memorandum from Greenways Commission (p. 28).
8. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 29).
9. Summary of Transportation Board Action (p. 30).
10. Summary Minutes of Council Concept Plan Review (p. 31).
11. Summary of Community Design Concept Plan Review (p.33).
12. Subdivision Fact Sheet (p. 38).
13. Letter from the Developer (p. 40).
14. Reduced Plans (p. 47).
15. Summary of Differences Between Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Zoning Decisions (p. 60).
16. Petition Regarding Exterior Lighting (p. 61).
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Public Hearing: Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 7.126.B.2)
Date: September 20, 2004
Introduction
We have received a request for Preliminary Plat approval of the Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision. The 32.41-acre site is generally located northwest of the intersection of Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane. The applicant is proposing to develop 25 lots. Access is proposed from Zapata Lane for 24 of the lots. One lot fronts on U.S. Highway 15-501. The site is located in the Residential Low Density-1 (R-LD1) zoning district and in the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District.
A total of 15.54 acres of recreation area/open space is proposed for this subdivision. The application also includes dedication of public easements for a greenway corridor. The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 126, Block B, Lot 2.
Attached are the Subdivision Fact Sheet, a letter from the developer, and reduced plans.
Background
Preliminary Plat approval authorizes the division of land. Assuming approval of the Preliminary Plat, we expect the lots in this subdivision to be used for construction of single-family homes. However, we note that single-family dwelling units with accessory apartments, places of worship, child day care facilities, and non-profit recreation facilities are permitted uses on lots in the Residential-LD1 zoning district. In this case, the applicant’s proposal and subsequent cluster development calculations are based on single-family dwelling use of 25 of the proposed lots. The property is located outside Town of Chapel Hill corporate limits, but within the Urban Service Boundary.
Evaluation
We have reviewed the application for compliance with the standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and offer the following evaluation:
GENERAL ISSUES
Existing Conditions: The 32.41-acre site is generally located northwest of the intersection of Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane. A portion of the proposal fronts on U.S. Highway 15-501. The application would also create a new lot for future development that is west of the Chancellor’s View development that has frontage on U.S. Highway 15-501. The developer proposes that this lot not be included as part of the private restrictive covenants for the 24 lot portion of the development.
The site is located in the Residential Low Density-1 (R-LD1) zoning district and in the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the property is located in the Resource Conservation District. The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 126, Block B, Lot 2.
Adjacent properties on most sides are located in the Residential Low Density-1 (R-LD1) zoning district. The portion of the property located at U.S. Highway 15-501 has Residential-2 (R-2) zoning across the highway. The adjacent properties either have single-family dwelling units or are undeveloped.
The site is undeveloped with mixed mature forest, including a number of significant large diameter oaks, pines and poplars. The terrain generally slopes steepest on the perimeter of the site and in the areas proposed for recreation area/open space, with the areas proposed for the residential lots having slopes less than 15 percent. The elevation changes from 490 feet near Zapata Lane to 330 feet closer to Highway 15-501.
Development Description: This proposed development is for a 25 lot cluster development on 32.41 acres. The applicant is proposing to modify lot size standards on 24 of the 25 lots. The total sum of reduction in lot area of these 24 modified lots is 11.38 acres. As provided by the Land Use Management Ordinance, this total sum in the reduction of residential lot area is added to the minimum recreational land area requirement for this subdivision. More than 15 acres of private recreation area/open space are proposed including the dedication of a public greenway easement. For additional discussion on recreation please refer to the discussion under Recreation Requirements.
As noted below (see Housing Floor Area Restrictions), the developer has chosen to comply with Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance by setting aside six lots with floor area restrictions. The single-family homes on these lots are restricted to no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area. The submitted site plan identifies the six lots on which a size-limited unit must be constructed. The six lots are interspersed through the subdivision and are located on both sides of the proposed new street.
Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Zapata Lane, although one lot fronts on Highway 15-501. The proposed development also includes a street stub-out to undeveloped property along the western property line. Please refer to the discussion below on Access and Circulation for more information.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Cluster Development: The property is zoned Residential Low Density-1 (R-LD1) and the applicant proposes a cluster development, in accordance with Section 3.8.8 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
If authorized by the Town Council, cluster developments allow modification of lot size standards; individual lots may be smaller (5,500 square feet vs. 43,560 square feet in the R-LD1 zoning district) as long as the sum of reductions in lot area is added to the recreation area for the benefit of all residents of the cluster development. The recreation area is increased and the intensity of development is controlled. With approval of a cluster development, lot width and setback requirements may also be reduced.
The cluster provision allows the developer greater flexibility but does not permit the creation of additional lots (and so the overall density is not increased).
The Council may approve a cluster subdivision in any residential district if it makes the following five (5) findings in accordance with Subsection 3.8.8(b) of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
a. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;
b. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;
c. The total number of lots proposed for the tract, excluding parcels of reserved recreation area, is not greater than the number determined by multiplying the total gross land area by the maximum density established in Section 3.8 for that zoning district;
d. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Section 5.5; and
e. The minimum amount of land reserved as recreation area shall be the sum of all reductions in minimum gross land area as a result of the cluster form of development, combined with the minimum recreation area reservation required in Section 5.5. Only the minimum recreation area reservation required in Section 5.5 may be dedicated outside the boundaries of the land being subdivided as specified in Section 5.5.2.
The Council, may, if it chooses, make these five findings and approve this proposal as a cluster development.
This proposal complies with Section 3.8.8 of the Land Use Management Ordinance for single-family residential lots in a cluster development. Each of the 25 proposed lots meets the public water/sewer requirement, minimum gross land area, minimum lot width and minimum street frontage requirements for a cluster development in the Residential-LD1 zoning district. The proposed associated recreation area exceeds the minimum amount required for cluster developments.
Housing Floor Area Restrictions: As a Major Subdivision application, this proposal is subject to Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, which places floor area restrictions on 25 percent of the dwelling units. Section 3.8.6 of the Ordinance gives developers the option of proposing to substitute an affordable housing component for the floor area restrictions described in Section 3.8.5. The developers of this project have chosen to provide floor area restricted units.
Based on Section 3.8.5(b), this proposal must restrict the size of houses that may be constructed on six of the residential lots. The units are restricted to no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area. The submitted site plan identifies the lots which are proposed for a size-limited unit. The six lots are interspersed through the subdivision and are located on both sides of the proposed new street.
The size limitation must remain in effect for 30 months following issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy for each structure. We recommend that a stipulation of Resolution A require that a note be placed on the final plans and plats indicating the specific lots and floor area restrictions for each lot on which size limitations are placed.
Steep Slopes: Subsection 5.3.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance addresses proposed development and steep slopes. The provisions call for minimal grading and site disturbance as well as specialized site design techniques in areas of steep slopes. Six of the proposed lots have slopes in the 10-15 percent range. We recommend that a steep slopes plan be developed for this property during the final plan review. 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 and adjacent properties as Low Residential (1 unit per acre). The site is also within the boundaries of the Southern Area Small Area Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted on June 23, 1992. The site is designated for residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre in the Southern Area Small Area Plan.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Access and Circulation: Vehicular access to most of the site is proposed from Zapata Lane. The new road is proposed to terminate at a stub-out on the western property line, between lots 14 and 15 and the proposed greenway trail (see Recreation section below). We note that a temporary T-turnaround is proposed for turnaround use before the stubout is connected. We recommend that the T-turnaround, and its associated easement, be removed when the stubout is connected to future development to the west. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Section 5.8.1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that all development have access to a publicly maintained street. The single access point for this development is from Zapata Lane, which is currently a privately maintained street. We understand that the developer is assisting the Zapata Lane neighborhood in petitioning the North Carolina Department of Transportation to accept Zapata Lane for maintenance. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring acceptance of Zapata Lane for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
We recommend that signage be located at each roadway stub-out that indicates the roadway will be extended for future development. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 27-foot wide road cross-section from back of curb to back of curb within a 45-foot right-of-way throughout the site. The applicant is also proposing to provide a 5-foot sidewalk on the eastern side of the road through the subdivision. We recommend that the applicant provide roads built to Town standard with 30-inch curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalk. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Traffic Impact: The subdivision application included a Traffic Impact Analysis, which estimated the traffic impacts of the proposed development on nearby roadways and intersections. The summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis notes that the projected traffic impacts of the proposed development do not warrant roadway or signalization improvements at the studied intersections. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommended that a study be performed on Old Lystra Road in the vicinity of Zapata Lane to determine the optimum manner to either increase sight distance or reduce the speed of vehicular traffic. Any proposed measures to reduce speeds or increase sight distance would be subject to the approval of the Town and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. This recommendation is stipulated in Resolution A.
RECREATION ISSUES
Recreation/Open Space Requirements: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that a certain percentage of subdivision land be set aside for recreation area for the residents. The minimum recreation area requirement in the Residential Low Density-1 zoning district for this development is 1.62 acres.
Because this development is proposed as a cluster development, which allows for reduction in lot size, the sum of the reduction in the required lot size must be added to the Residential Low Density-1 recreation area requirement in order to determine the minimum recreation area required. The sum total of the reduction from the minimum required lot sizes is 11.38 acres. Therefore, the minimum recreation area requirement for this proposed cluster development is 13.0 acres.
The Land Use Management Ordinance states that the recreation area must be of a character, shape, and location suitable for use as a playground, playfield, or other active recreation purpose, including greenway pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easements. It is anticipated that the future greenway segment identified on the subdivision proposal will be a connector to the future Wilson Creek Trail. Connector trails are discussed in the Town’s Master Greenway Report.
The applicant is proposing to comply with this minimum recreation area requirement by dedicating 15.54 acres of “Open Space” to the Homeowners’ Association. This area does not generally meet the suitability requirements for play grounds or playfields as it is primarily the areas with steeper slopes and Resource Conservation District. However, a sufficient area is suitable for future greenway purposes. The remainder of the recreation area, which surrounds the clustered subdivision, will be preserved as Homeowners’ Association land and provide a passive recreational area. We recommend that the dedication of “Open Space” to the Homeowners’ Association be considered adequate to satisfy the recreation area requirements for this development. This recommendation has been included in Resolution A.
The applicant proposes dedication of a public greenway easement to provide for construction of a future greenway. No greenway construction, other than natural trails, is proposed with this application.
In order to satisfy the recreation area requirement, the applicant is proposing to deed several open space parcels to the Homeowners’ Association. The three parcels are identified on the site plans as “Open Space.” The sum total of these parcels is 15.54 acres. The eastern-most open space parcel is a 6.69 acre tract that includes most of the Resource Conservation District area. Extending from the northern property line to lot 5, this 6.69 acre tract is adjacent to the Old Lystra Road and an existing residential lot. Ten lots back up onto this area.
The second open space is an 8.72 acre tract that runs along the western portion of the development. Ten lots along the new road back up to this proposed open space. A “proposed natural greenway path,” beginning at Zapata Lane, forking off toward Highway 15-501, and terminating on the northern property line, is proposed through this open space.
The third open space parcel is a 5,868 square foot parcel located between Zapata Lane and Lot 1.
We believe that this proposal satisfies the recreation area requirement. We recommend that a public greenway easement be recorded by deed (and referenced on the final plat) over the entire three parcels of open space. A stipulation to this effect has been included in Resolution A.
LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES
Buffers and Landscaping: Landscape buffers are not required by the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance between single-family subdivisions or adjacent to vacant low-density residentially zoned property. The only locations where a landscape buffer is required are adjacent to Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane, where a 20-foot Type-C buffer is required and adjacent to Highway 15-501 where a minimum 30-foot Type-D buffer is required. We recommend that two of these three buffers be located on land owned and controlled by the Homeowner’s Association. Because the developer has indicated that the proposed lot fronting on Highway 15-501 would not be part of the Homeowner’s Association, we do not recommend that the Highway 15-501 landscape buffer be controlled by a Homeowner’s Association. We have included our standard stipulation requiring landscape buffers and a Landscape Protection Plan in Resolution A.
It appears that off-site grading and landscaping will be required to complete internal road construction. We recommend that the applicant obtain offsite construction agreements, authorizing grading and landscaping, for any off-site work. These agreements must be approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and must be recorded prior to initiation of the work. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We recommend that a Homeowners’ Association be created for the purpose of owning and maintaining common areas, however designated, and that a Homeowners’ Association be approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office. We recommend that the Homeowners’ Association document be cross-referenced on the final plat. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Tree Protection: The Tree Protection Plan prepared for this development shows many significant trees and four existing significant stands of pine forest on the site. The proposed clearing limits would eliminate significant trees within the new road’s right-of-way, as well as around the proposed stormwater facility and water and sewer easements. Tree protection fencing is proposed around the clearing limits to protect existing significant trees during infrastructure improvements. We have included a stipulation related to tree protection in Resolution A.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Watershed Protection District: The proposed development is located in the Watershed Protection District. Impervious surface area (i.e. built-upon area) is restricted in the Watershed Protection District by Section 3.6.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The Watershed Protection District is that portion of the New Hope Watershed that drains to Jordan Lake.
Development with a proposed density not exceeding 2 units/acre will satisfy the Low-Density Option of the Watershed Protection District regulations. This development is proposed to be 0.89 units per acre and therefore satisfies the Low Density Option. No further impervious surface limits are required.
Resource Conservation District: Approximately 5 acres of Resource Conservation District are located on this site. The Resource Conservation District extends along the eastern and northern edges of the property. Most of this Resource Conservation District area is located in the “Open Space” that the applicant is proposing to deed to the homeowners’ association.
The applicant is proposing land disturbance within the Resource Conservation District, including sanitary sewer infrastructure. Section 3.6.3(e) of the Land Use Management Ordinance lists public utility facilities as a permitted use in the Resource Conservation District where there is a practical necessity to their location. In order to construct these public utility facilities within the Resource Conservation District, the applicant must comply with Section 3.6.3(g) (Standards for Development in Resource Conservation District) of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The proposed subdivision includes natural greenway trails for a short distance along the northern property line within the Resource Conservation District. Section 3.6.3(e) of the Land Use Management Ordinance lists greenways as a permitted use in the Resource Conservation District. Similar to the utility construction within the Resource Conservation District, these public infrastructure improvements within the Resource Conservation District must comply with Section 3.6.3(g) of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The Resource Conservation District extends onto portions of proposed Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Although not shown as encroaching into the Resource Conservation District area, we are concerned with the proximity to the Resource Conservation District of the infrastructure improvements and associated residential clearing and grading. We recommend that all required erosion control sediment basins, stormwater basins, improvements and easement, infrastructure and residential construction, including associated clearing and grading, be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.
In review of final plans for this application, we recommend that the applicant demonstrate compliance with sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance which establish review criteria and design/construction standards for utility installations within the Resource Conservation District. We recommend that the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be shown on the final plat and final plans with a note indicating that “Development shall be in accordance with Land Use Management Ordinance.” We recommend that no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District variance in order to be developed.
These recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution A.
Stormwater Management: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate and the post-development stormwater runoff volume shall not exceed the pre-development volume for the local 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event. The Ordinance also requires that the engineered stormwater facilities remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the applicant provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. We recommend that the plan include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it will continue to function as originally intended to be 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.
The applicant has proposed a reserved storm drainage-way around the proposed stormwater quality pond on the western portion of the site. We recommend that all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines. We also recommend that these stormwater management features not be permitted within an approved buffer area. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
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. We note that the Town has a requirement that a letter of credit or bond be provided to ensure compliance with erosion control regulations.
UTILITY AND SERVICE ISSUES
Refuse Management: Resolution A includes a stipulation that a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling, should be submitted for review and approval by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Utilities: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that detailed utility plans be reviewed and approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Utility Lines: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that all new utility lines be placed underground. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
The applicant is proposing to extend water and sanitary sewer connections to the site from the existing water and sewer connections north of the site. The site plan shows OWASA easements to provide these connections.
Fire Safety: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a fire flow report, prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, will be required for review and approval by the Town Manager. We recommend that the maximum spacing between fire hydrants not exceed 500 feet. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
OTHER ISSUES
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Construction Management: We recommend that a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, be 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.
Miscellaneous: We have also included stipulations in Resolution A (1) requiring that no open burning associated with this development be permitted; and (2) encouraging the developer to conduct a “plant rescue” after the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to the start of construction.
CONCLUSION
We believe the proposal, if developed in accordance with the stipulations in Resolution A would meet or exceed all stated requirements in the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Resolution B would deny the request.
Checklist of Regulations and Standards
|
|
STAFF EVALUATION |
|
|
CHANCELLOR’S VIEW PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION |
COMPLIANCEWITH ORDINANCE If approved as a Cluster Development |
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE |
|
Dimensional Matrix 3.8-1 Standards: |
|
|
|
Lots Meet Minimum Lot Size |
Ö |
|
|
Lots Meet Minimum Frontage |
Ö |
|
|
Lots Meet Minimum Width |
Ö |
|
|
Impervious Surface Ratio for lots in the Watershed Protection District |
Ö (meets density – no imp. surface limits) |
|
|
Floor Area Ratio – if existing structures |
N/A |
|
|
Floor Area Restrictions under Section 3.8.5 of the LUMO |
Ö |
|
|
If Cluster Subdivision, meets cluster standards |
Ö |
|
|
Lot Layout Standards: |
|
|
|
Lots Front on Roads Meeting Town Standards (Section 5.2.4) |
Ö |
|
|
Erosion and Sedimentation Control |
Ö |
|
|
Steep Slope Regulations |
Ö |
|
|
Stormwater Management |
Ö |
|
|
Recreation Area standards of Section 5.5 of the LUMO |
Ö |
|
|
Landscape Buffers |
Ö |
|
|
Homeowners’ Association |
Ö |
|
|
Tree Protection |
Ö |
|
|
Access and Circulation meets Section 5.8 of the LUMO |
Ö |
|
|
Parking – 2 parking spaces for single-family dwellings |
N/A (units not yet identified) |
|
|
Front Yard Parking 40% restriction |
N/A (units not yet identified) |
|
|
Lighting |
Ö |
|
|
Utility Lines Underground |
Ö |
|
|
Public water and sewer available |
Ö * |
|
|
If outside Urban Services Boundary, County Health Dept. Approval |
N/A
|
|
|
Solid Waste Collection and Recycling |
Ö |
|
|
Historic District Regulations |
N/A |
|
|
Resource Conservation District Regulations |
Ö |
|
|
Watershed Protection District |
Ö |
|
|
Schools Adequate Public Facilities |
Ö (with condition of approval) |
|
|
Reservation of a School Site, if Applicable |
N/A |
|
N/A = Not Applicable September 15, 2004
* With dedication of off-site sewer easements and approval of sewer plan.
RESOLUTION A
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation,
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation,
Greenways Commission Recommendation,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation and
Transportation Board Recommendation
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHANCELLOR’S VIEW CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (File # 7.126.B.2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision, proposed by Kapcov Ventures, LLC, on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 126, Block B, Lot 2, if developed according to the Preliminary Site Plan dated April 15, 2003, and revised May 19, 2004 and July 28, 2004, and the Existing Conditions map dated May 19, 2004, and revised July 28, 2004, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Town Design Manual and the Land Use Management Ordinance and specifically with the following cluster development requirements from Section 3.8.8(b) of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
1. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;
2. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;
3. The total number of lots proposed for the tract, excluding parcels of reserved recreation area, is not greater than the number determined by multiplying the total gross land area by the maximum density established in Section 3.8 for that zoning district;
4. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Section 5.5; and
5. The minimum amount of land reserved as recreation area shall be the sum of all reductions in minimum gross land area as a result of the cluster form of development, combined with the minimum recreation area reservation required in Section 5.5. Only the minimum recreation area reservation required in Section 5.5 may be dedicated outside the boundaries of the land being subdivided as specified in Section 5.5.2.
These findings are based on the following:
1. Expiration of Preliminary Plat: That this Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one year from the date of approval subject to reapproval by the Town Manager in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
2. Number of Lots: That this approval shall authorize the creation of 25 lots on 32.41 acres.
3. Single-Family Restriction: That lots 1-24 are restricted to Single-Family Dwelling Unit use only. A note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.
4. Floor Area Restrictions: That the provisions of Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, “Housing Floor Area Restrictions for Major Subdivision and Planned Development” shall apply to this development. That the final plans and plats shall indicate the specific lots and floor area restrictions for each lot on which size limitations are placed, subject to Town Manager approval.
Required Improvements
5. On-Site Road Improvements: That a 27-foot wide road, measured from back of curb to back of curb, with 30-inch wide curb and gutter within a 45-foot wide right-of-way shall be built to Town Standard.
6. Sidewalk Improvements: That a 5-foot wide sidewalk shall be built to Town standard on one side of the new road.
7. T-Turnaround: That the applicant shall provide a temporary T-Turnaround, large enough to accommodate service vehicles, on Lot 15. The associated easement shall be recorded on the final plat.
8. T-Turnaround Removal: That the T-Turnaround and associated easement shall be removed when the stubout is connected to future development to the west.
9. Off-Site Grading: That off-site temporary construction agreements, authorizing grading and landscaping, shall be provided for any off-site work, such as the area required for building the connection to Zapata Lane, and shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office. The agreements shall be recorded prior to initiation of work.
10. Stub-out: The new roadway shall be constructed to stub-out at the western property line between lots 14 and 15 and the open space area.
11. Stub-out Signage: Signage shall be located at the roadway stub-out that indicates 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.
12. Sight Distance Improvements: That the recommendations related to sight distance improvements from the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 2002, shall be identified on the final plans and shall be subject to the Town Manager’s approval.
13. Zapata Lane Maintenance: That Zapata Lane shall be accepted for maintenance by the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
14. Minimum Recreation Requirements: That a minimum of 15.54 acres of recreation area shall be provided for this development. The applicant or Homeowners’ Association shall remain responsible for the recreation area, unless and until the Town assumes responsibility.
15. Dedication of Recreation Areas: That the applicant provide for Town Manager review and approval, a deed conveying to the Homeowners’ Association the 15.54 acres identified as “Open Space.” These documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and cross-referenced on the final plat.
16. Town Recreation Easement: That the applicant shall grant a public access easement to the Town for the entire recreation area/open space. The easement shall provide public access to build and maintain trails and shall indicate that the following users be entitled to use the public recreation area: pedestrians, users of non-motorized vehicles, and motorized wheelchairs. The easement shall be recorded by deed at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and shall be cross-referenced on the final plat.
Stipulations Related to Landscaping
17. Landscape Buffers: That a 20-foot Type-C buffer shall be provided along the Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane frontages, and that a 30-foot Type-D buffer shall be provided along the U.S. Highway 15-501 frontage.
18. Ownership of Landscape Buffers: The Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane landscape buffers shall be on land that is deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.
19. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees will be removed and preserved, and indicating significant tree stands, and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
20. Tree Protection Fencing: That the limits of land disturbance with tree protection fencing shall be shown on the Landscape Protection Plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Homeowners’ Association
21. Homeowners’ Association: That a Homeowners’ Association be created that has the capacity to place a lien on the property of a member who does not pay the annual charges for maintenance of common areas, however designated. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and shall be cross-referenced on the final plat. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall comply with Section 4.6.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
22. Boundaries: That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be indicated on the final plat and plan. A note shall be added to all final plats and plans, indicating, “Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance.”
23. Variances: That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or Final Plan approval for the subject phase(s) of development.
24. Buildable Lots: That no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance in order to be built upon.
In addition, for each lot it must be demonstrated that there is sufficient buildable area outside the Resource Conservation District, slopes of 25% or greater, water quality vegetated buffers, other required landscape buffers, easements, and any applicable building setback limits.
25. Construction Standards: That for encroachment(s) into the Resource Conservation District the requirements and standards of Section 3.6.3(g) of the Land Use Management Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be adhered to, unless the application is granted administrative exemptions from Section 3.6.3(h).
All required erosion control sediment basins and stormwater improvements, outside the public right-of-way, including associated clearing and grading be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District where practicable to minimize land disturbance. That all grading associated with the construction of a residence be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.
26. Steep Slopes: That each submittal for Final Plan approval shall include a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10% or more, and indicating how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations in Section 5.3.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The Town Manager shall decide if the proposed building and site engineering techniques are appropriate. These restrictions shall be referenced in the Homeowners’ Association documents.
Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer, and Other Utilities
27. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final Utility/Lighting Plan be approved by Duke Power Company, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
28. OWASA Easements: That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded concurrently with the final plat. That the final plat shall be approved by OWASA prior to Town Manager approval.
29. Placement of Utility Lines Underground: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground.
30. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report, shall be prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, and showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Town Design Manual, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
31. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet, subject to approval by the Town Manager.
32. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards.
33. Best Management Practices: That the applicant shall employ Best Management Practices, such as drainage swales and level spreaders, to manage the rate and quality of runoff, based on best available information from the NC State University Cooperative Extension. Final design and locations shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These stormwater management features shall not be permitted within approved landscaped bufferyard areas.
34. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, shall be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit
35. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. The plan shall include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be referenced in the Homeowners’ Association documents.
36. State or Federal Approvals: That any required State or federal permits or any required encroachment agreements for development in areas such as wetlands must be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
37. Street Names and Addresses: That the name of the development and its streets and house numbers be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
38. Pavement Marking Plan: That the applicant submit a signage and pavement marking plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The signs and pavement markings shall be installed by the applicant prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a structure on the new lots.
39. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle and pedestrian traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
40. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling, and for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
41. Open Burning: That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris association with this development is prohibited unless it is demonstrated to the Town Manager or his designee that no reasonable alternative means are available for removal of the materials from the subject property. The Fire Marshall may establish safety standards, which must be met in order to receive a permit under this Article.
42. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), and landscape plans and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual.
43. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
44. Plant Rescue: That the applicant consider conducting plant rescue activities on the site prior to initiation of development activity.
45. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are completed; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.
That if the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.
46. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
That a performance guarantee be provided in accordance with Section 5-97.1 of the Town Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity.
47. Silt Control: That the applicant takes appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
48. Construction Sign: That the applicant shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 4 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
49. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: That the applicant provide the necessary Certificate of Adequacy of Public Schools prior to recordation of the final plat.
50. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
51. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the _____ day of _______________, 2004.
RESOLUTION B
(Denying Application)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHANCELLOR’S VIEW CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (File No. 7.126.B.2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision, proposed by Kapcov Ventures, LLC on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 126, Block B, Lot 2, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated April 15, 2003, and revised May 19, 2004 and July 28, 2004, and the Existing Conditions map dated May 19, 2004, and revised July 28, 2004, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for Preliminary Plat Approval for the Chancellor’s View Cluster Subdivision.
This the _____ day of _______________, 2004.