ATTACHMENT 2

STAFF REPORT

 

SUBJECT:       Bradley Green Subdivision – Application for Preliminary Plat Approval

                        (File No. 7.17..21)

 

DATE:             September 6, 2005/October 4, 2005 (Planning Board)

September 6, 2005 (Transportation Board)

                        September 21, 2005 (Parks and Recreation Commission)

                        September 27, 2005 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board)

INTRODUCTION

We have received a request for Preliminary Plat approval of Bradley Green Subdivision.  The 7.0-acre site is located north of Ginger Road and east of Sunrise Road, just to the north of the Chandler’s Green subdivision.  The applicant is proposing to develop eight residential lots with access proposed from Ginger Road and from the extension of Amesbury Drive, with an additional road stub-out proposed to the north.  The site is located in the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district, in the Urban Service Boundary, and outside the town limits.  A portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District. 

A total of 2.75 2.2 acres of open space are proposed for this subdivision.  The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 17, Lot 21. 

Attached is the Subdivision Fact Sheet 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 two-family dwellings (a dwelling unit with an accessory apartment or a duplex), places of worship, child day care facilities, and non-profit recreation facilities are permitted uses on lots in the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district under certain circumstances.  In this case, the applicant’s proposal is based on single-family dwelling use of these proposed lots.  The property is located outside the Town of Chapel Hill corporate limits but within the Town’s Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction and 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 7.0-acre site is located on the north side of Ginger Road and east of Sunrise Road.  It is located just to the north of the Chandler’s Green Subdivision.

The site is located in the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district.  The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 17, Lot 21.

Adjacent properties (Chandler’s Green) to the south and east are located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district.  A portion of the property is located in the Resource Conservation District.  Properties located to the north and west are zoned Residential-2 (R-2).  The adjacent properties either have single-family dwelling units or are undeveloped.

The site is undeveloped with mixed pine and hardwood vegetation, including a number of significant large diameter oaks and other hardwoods.  The site topography straddles a ridge line with a small drainage basin draining to the northern property line and a southern basin draining to an existing creek located on-site.  The land slopes in a general eastward and southward direction.  A significant portion of the site contains areas of less than 15 percent slopes.  The southeastern portion of the site has slopes between 15 percent and 20 percent.  The land slopes from the west to the east with a difference of 36 feet (the highest point 490 feet above sea level on the northwestern property line and the lowest 454 feet above sea level on the southeastern property line). 

An existing creek on the property has been classified as an intermittent and perennial stream.  The site contains approximately 106,286 square feet of Resource Conservation District associated with the perennial stream originating within the site. 

An existing Duke Power Company transmission line with an associated 68-foot easement bisects the site.  There is one existing transmission tower located within the easement. 

Development Description:  The applicant proposes to subdivide the 7.0-acre site into 8 residential lots with access from the extension of Amesbury Drive from the Chancellor’s Green subdivision to the south.  Additional access is proposed from Ginger Road and a road stub-out is proposed to the north.  Lot sizes are proposed to range from approximately 10,691 square feet to 27,176 square feet.  The required minimum lot size in this zoning district is 10,000 square feet of gross land area.  The Resource Conservation District extends into proposed lots 4, 5, and 6. 

The applicant proposes a 10-foot wide unimproved access easement to connect to the one of the proposed open space areas.  This open space (2.23 acres) is almost entirely within the Resource Conservation District.  The applicant is also proposing two smaller recreation area/open spaces (totaling 0.516 acres) with direct access from the extension of Amesbury Drive.  The applicant is proposing a payment-in-lieu of providing the required recreation area.  The recreation area open space areas is  proposed to be deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.

A 68-foot wide Duke Power Company containing transmission lines borders lot 8 and is within the proposed property lines of lots 2 and 3.  Duke Power Company easements limit the types of activities that can occur within the easement.  Generally, structures are prohibited as are trees.  Landscaping and fences are permitted within certain guidelines.

Ordinance Requirements

Housing Floor Area Restrictions:  Current Land Use Management Ordinance regulations specify that, for a major development proposing 5 or more single-family or two-family lots, at least 25% of the dwelling units shall be restricted in size to no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area for a 30-month period.  The regulations specify that in calculating how many such houses are to be required, the total number of lots is multiplied by .25, and resulting fractions are rounded up.

In lieu of providing size restrictions for 25% of the homes in a new subdivision, an applicant may offer and the Council may choose to accept 15% affordable units. If the Council authorizes the provision of 15% affordable units, at least 15% of the dwelling units of a major subdivision must be priced to be affordable to individuals and families who have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income for a family of four. The regulations state that resulting fractions of units are rounded up.

For major development applications which propose to create 5-12 residential lots, the applicant may propose and the Town Council may authorize a payment to the Town to fund affordable housing initiatives (in lieu of small or affordable houses on the ground). The regulations specify that the resulting fractions are not dropped in calculating the payment.  For example:  In a 10-lot subdivision, if an applicant proposed and the Council authorized a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing, 15% would be 1.5 houses.  And, if the estimate of funding that would be needed to make an affordable homeownership opportunity available in the proposed development were to be $100,000, then the payment amount would be $150,000 (1.5 x $100,000 = $150,000).  Resulting fractions would not be dropped in calculating the payment.

We believe that the applicant is proposing a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing.  We understand the applicant is proposing to meet the Town’s small house requirements by providing two lots with units containing no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area each.  A stipulation is included in Resolution A which would require the applicant to comply with the housing floor area restrictions or would require the applicant to provide a payment-in-lieu equaling 1.2 affordable units (15% of 8 lots with resulting fraction to remain).

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. A small portion of the site in the southeast corner contains slopes in excess of 20%.  The immediate areas surrounding this area have slopes between 10 and 20%.  All of the proposed lots have adequate building sites which are outside the areas of slopes greater than 20%.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution A which would require Town Manager approval of the Steep Slopes Plan during final plan review.

Comprehensive Plan:  The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, classifies this site and adjacent properties as low density residential (1-4 units/acre).

Transportation Issues

Access and Circulation:  Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Amesbury Drive and from Ginger Road.  Ginger Road is proposed to provide access between the proposed development and Sunrise Road.  We recommend that in order to provide adequate access for emergency service vehicles that the applicant improve Ginger Road from the intersection of Amesbury Drive to Sunrise Road.  We recommend Ginger Road be improved from the existing 10 foot gravel to surface to a minimum width of 12 feet with a gravel surface, shoulder, and ditch.  A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect. 

We understand that the applicant is proposing to petition the Council requesting that the Council abandon the portion of Ginger Road right-of-way east of Amesbury Drive.  We have referred the applicant to the procedure for initiating abandonment.  If this section of Ginger Road right-of-way is not removed, we recommend that a street stub-out be provided to the east at the intersection of Amesbury Drive and Ginger Road to provide access to the eastern portion of Ginger Road.  A stipulation in Resolution A has been included to that effect.

The new road in the subdivision is proposed as an extension of the existing Amesbury Drive, from the Chandler’s Green Subdivision.  We understanding that a fence crossed the northern end of Amesbury Drive.  Although the site plans submitted by the applicant include a through street connection between Amesbury Drive and the proposed internal subdivision, the Planning Board recommended that the resolution of approval stipulate a roadway connection between the proposed development and Amesbury Drive.  Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring that that internal subdivision street shall be constructed and connected to the north end of Amesbury Drive.

The plans submitted by the applicant appear to locate a portion of the applicant’s internal roadway on adjacent property that is not owned by the applicant.  Based on our preliminary review of the submitted site plans, we believe that the portion of the new roadway in question, near the intersection of Ginger Road and Amesbury Drive, does not intrude on the adjoining private property.  In light of this unknown, Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring the necessary off-site construction easements or right-of-way dedication for the construction of the roadway. 

The internal subdivision road is proposed to terminate in a cul-de-sac near the northeastern property line.  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 public right-of-way.  A five foot sidewalk is proposed on the eastern side of Amesbury Drive from the southern property line to the cul-de-sac in the north.  The sidewalk is not proposed to continue around the cul-de-sac.  We recommend that the applicant provide an extension of the sidewalk to the northern property line.

The applicant is proposing a sidewalk on the east side of the Amesbury Drive extension.  We believe that there may be an opportunity to modify the proposed street and sidewalk design, near the intersection with Ginger Road.  We believe that a redesign of the roadway may provide adequate space within the existing right-of-way for the sidewalk to be located on the west side of Amesbury Drive.  We recommend that if determined feasible by the Town Manager, that the applicant redesign the Amesbury Drive/Ginger Road intersection, within the existing right-of-way, in order to construct the sidewalk on the west side of the proposed internal street. 

Regardless of the final location for the proposed sidewalk, we also recommend that the applicant install a handicap ramp at the north end of the existing Amesbury Drive sidewalk and at the south end of the proposed sidewalk.  We also recommend that until such time that the property is annexed into Town Limits, the Homeowners Association or NCDOT shall be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalks.  These stipulations have been incorporated into Resolution A:

 We recommend that the applicant provide roads built to Town standard with 30-inch curb and gutter, a 5-foot sidewalk on one side of the street, and have included a stipulation in Resolution A to that effect.

It will be necessary for the applicant to provide street signs, on-street parking, and a pavement marking plan for approval by the Town Manager.  The signs and pavement markings shall be installed by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect.

The new road is proposed to have a stub-out to access the adjoining property to the north between lot 7 and one of the proposed open space areas.  We believe that the proposed road stub-out for Bradley Green is in general alignment with the stub-out road shown on the Sunrise Road Habitat for Humanity Concept Plan.  We believe that a stub-out between these two projects is desirable.  We recommend that the approval of the Bradley Green project require a stub-out along the north property line.  Because a formal application for the adjoining property has not be submitted, we also recommend that the location for this road stub-out along the north property line may be adjusted during final plan review for Bradley Green, if the Town Manager determines an adjustment would provide better access to the adjoining property.  This recommendation has been stipulated in Resolution A.

We recommend that signage be located at the roadway stub-out that indicates the roadway will be extended for future development, subject to the Town Manager’s approval. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.  We also recommend that the final plat include a note stating that “Future development of the adjoining property may include the extension of the stub-out on the north property line.”

Neither Ginger Road nor the proposed internal subdivision roads are located within Town Limits.  Therefore they will not be maintained by the Town of Chapel Hill until such time that this area is annexed into the Town Limits.  We recommend that Ginger Road and the proposed extension of Amesbury Drive be maintained by either the Bradley Green Homeowners Association or the North Carolina Department of Transportation.  If the applicant opts for maintenance by NCDOT, we recommend that the plans for improvements to Ginger Road and the Amesbury Drive extension be approved by NCDOT prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  This stipulation has been included in Resolution A.   

Traffic Impact:  The Traffic Impact Analysis was waived for this development because the total number of trips for the proposed development is projected to be less than 100 trips per day.  We believe there would be no significant traffic impact on the surrounding street network.

The applicant has committed to installing a traffic calming device at the intersection of Amesbury Drive and Ginger Road.  Although we are unable to determine at this time if traffic calming is warranted, we recommend that if the Town Manager determines that traffic calming is warranted, in the proposed subdivision or the existing subdivision, during final plan review, the applicant will install a traffic calming device.  A stipulation to this effect has been included in revised Resolution A 

Recreation Issues

Recreation Requirements:  Section 5.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the applicant provide 36,590 square feet of recreation area.  The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement by providing a total of approximately 118,919 96,442 square feet of open space generally located in the Resource Conservation District.  We believe that the open space area proposed by the applicant is unsuitable as recreation space because it does not meet the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance Section 5.5.2(b)(1) which states that recreation area shall be provided outside the Resource Conservation District.

Additional open space is proposed along Amesbury Drive.  The applicant is proposing a 10-feet access easement over private property to the proposed recreation open space area in the Resource Conservation District.  Section 5.5.2(b)(3) requires that recreation area have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on a public street.  This proposal also does not satisfy this frontage requirement. 

We recommend for the minimum 36,590 square feet of required recreation area, that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu.  We also recommend that the applicant provide a 20-foot wide pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular easement dedicated on the Homeowners’ Association property.  These stipulations have been included 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.

Landscaping and Architectural Issues

Buffers and Landscaping:  No landscape buffers are required with this development.  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.  Amesbury Drive is classified as a Local Road and does not have a landscape buffer requirement.

Tree Protection:  Tree Protection Fencing is shown along the grading limits for the construction of Amesbury Drive.  Additional tree clearing is identified with storm drainage easements on Lots 2, 3, and 4.  Tree Protection Fencing is also shown along the installation of the sewer line on the eastern property line.

We recommend that the Landscape Protection Plan clearly delineate areas of the site that are significant tree stands and the scaled critical root zones of the site’s rare and specimen trees as defined in the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance.  We also recommend that the final plans include a Tree Protection Plan.  A stipulation has been included to this effect in Resolution A. 

Environmental Issues

Watershed Protection District:  This property is not within the Town's Watershed Protection. 

Resource Conservation District:  A 300-foot corridor zone associated with the Resource Conservation District is shown on the plans.  At the western end of the Resource Conservation District, the stream becomes an intermittent stream changing the corridor width to 50 feet.

The applicant is proposing approximately 4,500 square feet of land disturbance within the Resource Conservation District including the extension of a sanitary sewer line.  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.  A stipulation has been included in Resolution A that states that prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, requirements and standards of Section 3.6.3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be met.

The Resource Conservation District also extends onto proposed lots 5, and 6.  We recommend that no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance in order to be built upon.  We recommend that all residential construction, including clearing, grading, and construction be located entirely outside the Resource Conservation District.  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, vegetated buffers, easements, and any applicable building setback limits.  A stipulation has been included regarding the buildable area of each lot has been included in Resolution A.

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 in the Resource Conservation District shall be in accordance with Land Use Management Ordinance.”  This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.

With the above recommended stipulations, we believe land disturbance within the Resource Conservation District will be minimal.

Stormwater Management:  The applicant is proposing to construct bioretention structures to manage the stormwater from the street and public impervious area.  Two bioretention basins are proposed along with two 20-foot storm drainage-ways easements.  The storm drainage easements are proposed between lots 1 and 2 and between lots 3 and 4.  Runoff from the subdivision streets is proposed to be collected by curb inlets and piped through a “stormceptor” unit to remove 85% of the total suspended solids.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring that the applicant submit proposals of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) features to intercept and treat stormwater runoff from developed areas.  Final design and locations to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Individual lots will manage the stormwater run-off from residential impervious surface area on a lot by lot basis.  A stormwater impact statement for each lot will address the individual stormwater at the time of construction and will be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 

We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan.  We recommend that the plan be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate not exceeds the pre-development rate.  We recommend that the plan provide for the retention of stormwater run-off volume for the 2-year storm.  We also recommend that engineered stormwater facilities also 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.

We recommend that all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, be located inside reserved stormwater drainageway easements, per Town guidelines.  We have included this recommendation as a stipulation in Resolution A.

We recommend 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 and must be approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect.

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 this as a stipulation 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.  We recommend that the applicant  hold a pre-demolition and pre-construction conference with the Orange County Solid Waste staff and that a note to this effect be placed on the plans.  We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Utilities:  The existing 30 foot OWASA easement abutting the subdivision is proposed to be used to extend sanitary sewer lines to the proposed development. A new 30 foot sewer easement on the site is proposed along the eastern property line.  In order to install sanitary sewer in this proposed easement, we anticipate that most of the existing vegetation in this proposed easement will be cleared.  The proposed installation of sewer line in the development will involve some land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District.  We recommend that tree protection fencing be installed along the clearing limit lines along this proposed easement and have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.

We recommend that the necessary easements for sewer line infrastructure be dedicated.  We recommend that this plat be reviewed and approved by OWASA prior to recordation.  This stipulation has been included in Resolution A.

Lots 6 and 7, as proposed, would share a 30 foot OWASA easement. The proposed sewer line stubs out at the northern property line.

 

An 8-inch water line is proposed to serve the development and is proposed to be located in the middle of the road.  No new utility easements are proposed with this improvement.

Local utility companies have indicated that they can serve the site. We recommend that the final utility/lighting plans be approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, Time Warner Cable, Public Service Company, BellSouth, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Power lines are required to be placed underground in accordance with Section 5.12 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.  The applicant is proposing that new utility lines be placed underground.  We recommend that the final plans indicate that all new utility lines shall be placed underground.  A stipulation to this effect has been included in Resolution A.

Fire Safety:  Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a fire flow report, prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, shall be review and approval by the Town Manager.  We recommend that the maximum spacing between fire hydrants not exceed 400 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 this as a stipulation 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 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 applicant to conduct a “plant rescue” after the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to 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.