Agenda #6c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Chapel Ridge – Application for Special Use Permit
DATE: November 13, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from September 18, 2000, regarding the Special Use Permit application for a multi-family development on 23.6 acres of land located west of Northfield Drive and south of Brookstone Drive. Adoption of Resolutions A, B or C would approve a Special Use Permit application. Adoption of Resolution D would deny the request.
Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for a discussion of the Zoning Atlas Amendment application that is accompanying this Special Use Permit application. The Zoning Atlas Amendment application proposes to rezone the northern 18.3 acres of this site from Residential-2 (R-2) and Residential-4 (R-4) to Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C) zoning.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows: ¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, and offers recommendations for Council action. ¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, comments on issues raised during the September 18 Public Hearing, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments. |
Background
On September 18, 2000, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit application to authorize construction of a multi-family development on 23.6 acres of land located west of Northfield Drive and south of Brookstone Drive. Questions regarding the application were raised during the Public Hearing, and the Hearing is being reopened tonight to receive applicant and staff responses to these questions. We note that, on September 18, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties within 1,000 feet of this site.
This is an application for a Special Use Permit. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on September 18, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit.
If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Development Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.
Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based around the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.
|
Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. |
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #1 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “That a Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that “the proposed Chapel Ridge Apartments will have no adverse impacts on the flow of traffic in this area.”
· “Urban services are readily available to the site.”
· “On-site stormwater detention will be provided in accordance with Town of Chapel Hill Stormwater Guidelines.”
Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition of Finding #1 for this application include the following issues that were raised at the Public Hearing:
· Pedestrian safety for residents who will be crossing Airport Road.
· Traffic safety on Airport Road and Homestead Road.
Please see Attachment # 1 for additional information on these issues.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations. |
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “The site meets all Development Ordinance requirements, assuming that the accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment application is adopted to rezone the northern 18.3 acres of the site to Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C).”
· “Recreational areas and open space are provided to meet or exceed Town standards.”
Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition of Finding #2 for this application would include the fact that, if the accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment application is not approved, that the proposed development does not meet the Development Ordinance requirements for (1) number of dwelling units, and (2) permitted floor area on the site.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #3: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity; |
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “The project is bounded to the north by Brookstone Apartments, a similar use.”
· “The site is bordered to the east by commercial uses along Airport Road.”
· “A 5-acre open space buffer is provided between the proposed development and the neighboring Glen Heights neighborhood to the south.”
· “Appropriate buffering is provided on all sides of the proposed development.”
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #4: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan. |
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key point raised by the applicant:
We also note that the applicant is also proposing to provide 24 “affordable” units (13.3%) as part of the development.
Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition of Finding #4 for this application includes the following issues that were raised at the Public Hearing:
· Pedestrian safety for residents who will be crossing Airport Road.
· Traffic safety on Airport Road and Homestead Road.
Please see Attachment # 1 for additional information on these issues.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
KEY ISSUES
We believe that the key issues brought forth during the September 18 Public Hearing were related to bus service, parking, affordable housing, stormwater and buffers. We have provided a list of individual questions/issues raised during the Hearing, followed by responses from the applicant and/or Town staff, as an attachment to this memorandum.
Please note that Advisory Board recommendations are summarized below. Detailed descriptions of these recommendations are included in the attached September 18, 2000 Public Hearing Memorandum.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on September 5, 2000, and voted 7-2 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution C.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on August 15, 2000, and voted 4-3 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on August 16, 2000, and voted 7-2 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution C.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on August 16, 2000, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on August 8, 2000, and voted 7-2 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution D.
Staff Comment: We note that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendation included the stipulation that “one or more Chapel Hill Transit bus routes be rerouted through the development.” We do not believe that it is appropriate for the Council to determine Town bus routes via a stipulation of approval for a development proposal. Such a scenario binds the applicant to the Town’s provision of such a route, and provides no flexibility for future adjustments, if needed.
Presently there are no plans to provide bus service through this site via Brookstone Drive and Northfield Drive. We would note that as part of the Town’s 2001-2006 Short Range Transit Plan, we will review changes to existing transit routes and the possible addition of new routes. We believe that this process is the appropriate venue for the Council to review the utility of routing bus service through this development. We have not included this stipulation in Resolution A (Manager’s Revised Recommendation).
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the four findings required to approve the Special Use Permit, if the northern 18.3 acres of the site are rezoned to Residential-5-Conditional.
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.
Resolution B would approve the application based on the Recommendations of the Transportation Board and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Resolution C would approve the application based on the Recommendations of the Planning Board and the Community Design Commission.
Resolution D would approve the application based on the Recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Resolution E would deny the application.
|
ISSUE |
Resolution AManager’s Revised Recommendation |
Resolution BTransporation Board and Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation |
Resolution CPlanning Board and Community Design Commission Recommendation |
Resolution DBicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation |
|
That the developer construct 24 one-bedroom, one-bathroom “affordable” units that shall be available to HUD Section 8 renters and/or renters with incomes below 80% of area median. |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
That the developer provide bicycle parking in accordance with the Town’s new guidelines. |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
That a median, center refuge island, or pedestrian crossing light be created on Airport Road at the developer’s expense, subject to the approval of NCDOT. |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Delete the northern loop road from buildings #7 to #11, and limit construction to 530 parking spaces. |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
That the northern loop road be constructed as proposed by the applicant, including a total of 565 parking spaces. |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
That the northern loop road be constructed as proposed by the applicant, with parking limited to a total of 318 parking spaces. |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
That one or more Chapel Hill Transit bus routes be re-routed through this development. |
No |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
That the developer be required to pay any additional costs associated with bringing bus transit through this site, and any additional costs associated with making connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site. |
No |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
That the developer pay a percentage of the costs associated with maintenance and/or construction of bicycle lanes and sidewalks near the development in order to improve connectivity. |
No |
* |
* |
Yes |
1. Questions/Issues Raised during the September 18, 2000 Public Hearing (p. 9)
2. Resolution A – Approving the Application (p. 21)
3. Resolution B – Approving the Application (p. 30)
4. Resolution C – Approving the Application (p. 32)
5. Resolution D – Approving the Application (p. 34)
6. Resolution E – Denying the Application (p. 36)
7. Applicant’s Statement of Justification (p. A-l)
8. Revised Project Fact Sheet (p.A-6)
9. Letter from Paul Wilson, September 18, 2000 (p.A-8)
10. Letter from Dan Coleman, September 18, 2000 (p.A-14)
11. Letter from Roscoe Reeve, September 22, 2000 (p.A-16)
12. Letter from David Ekstrom, October 16, 2000 (p.A-18)
13. Petition for Glen Heights Neighborhood Buffer, October 23, 2000 (p.A-19)
14. Letter from Bill Alexander, October 28, 2000 (p.A-20)
15. Letter from Robert Dowling and Others, November 7, 2000 (p.A-21)
16. Federal Register, Fair Market Rents, September 25, 2000 (p.A-23 )
17. Issues Raised and Answers from Applicant, November 10, 2000 (p.A-24)
18. Memo from John Falls, October 17, 2000 (p.A-29)
19. Memo from John Falls, November 1, 2000 (p.A-32)
20. Traffic Impact Analysis (excerpt), November 16, 1999 (p.A-33)
21. Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (excerpt), October 27, 2000 (p. A-36)
22. Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (excerpt), November 9, 2000 (p. A-41)
23. September 18, 2000 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1)
ATTACHMENT 1
CHAPEL RIDGE
Questions/Issues Raised at the September 18, 2000 Public Hearing
1. Several Council members and citizens expressed concern about vehicular access to Airport Road and driveway conflicts. In particular, concern was expressed regarding Airport Road/Northfield Drive ingress/egress to the site and turning conflicts with neighboring driveways.
Applicant’s Response: “The revised traffic study by Phil Post & Associates, a copy of which has been furnished to Town Staff, addressed four specific questions raised during the initial Town Council meeting on this project:”
A. “Analysis of the Airport Road and Critz Street/Taylor Street intersection. This analysis incorporated change in the directional splits, traffic generation due to bus ridership, extension of the build-out date to the year 2002, and the addition of background traffic from the approved Parkside II and VILCOM projects. These changes resulted in no change in the Level of Service from the original study for this intersection for the AM peak hour. The PM peak hour movements from the side streets (Critz and Taylor) and left turns from Airport Road to these streets did experience declines in level of service in the ‘no-build’ scenario as a result of background traffic growth. Analysis of the two entrances in the original study found that the Chapel Ridge Apartment project would have little impact on the through traffic on both Airport and Homestead road from traffic entering or exiting from the apartments and that this continued to be the case in the revised study. Furthermore, the close proximity of a signalized intersection to each of the entrances produces sufficient gaps in the background traffic to allow these vehicles to enter the traffic stream.”
B. “Analysis of a scenario where all of the traffic generated by the proposed project through the existing Brookstone Apartment project and onto Homestead Road. The revised traffic study found that all of the traffic from Chapel Ridge apartments could use the connection through Brookstone Drive onto Homestead Road with no effect on the Level of Service for that intersection. The report noted, however, that only one point of access raises concerns regarding adequate emergency access, and the Town Development Ordinance and Design Guidelines require two points of access.”
C. “An analysis of the existing driveways from businesses onto Airport Road, between Critz Street and Homestead Road. The revised study concluded that the project would have no discernible effect on the existing Level of Service for the driveways in this section of Airport Road. The existing left turns across traffic are anticipated to have the same moderate delay in both the existing and the proposed conditions. No major delays were observed during any of the six hours of driveway traffic counts. The longest wait observed was 30 to 45 seconds for turns that crossed three lanes of traffic to reach the desired travel lane.”
D. “An analysis of NCDOT historical accident data for the study area. The revised traffic analysis indicates that Chapel Ridge Apartments will add approximately 61 trips or 5% during peak hour, which the report calculates would increase the accident rate by less than one accident per year.”
Staff Comment: We note that the applicant’s revised Traffic Impact Analysis is based on a total of 168 dwelling units. The applicant has revised the development proposal to include an additional 24 “affordable” units, creating a total of 180 dwelling units. Although the revised analysis is based on 168 units rather than 180, we believe that the revised traffic analysis is reasonably accurate and acceptable for this development.
We note that based on the analysis conducted by the developer and the accident history for this portion of Airport Road, the Town Traffic Engineer recommends that the Council consider initiating a feasibility study regarding the construction of a landscaped median with turnouts, on Airport Road. We recommend that the study area include Airport Road between Homestead Road and Estes Drive. We will bring the Council a resolution regarding this issue, at the Council’s next business meeting.
2. Council members expressed concern about northbound bus riders getting dropped off on the east side of Airport Road, and then becoming pedestrians who are crossing Airport Road to return to this development. Council members suggested some type of median, center refuge island, or pedestrian crossing light on Airport Road to serve this development.
Staff Comment: Based on past experiences, we believe that a center island would help facilitate pedestrian crossings for this portion of Airport Road. We recommend a stipulation that will require the applicant to install (a) some type of median, (b) a center refuge island, or (c) a pedestrian crossing light, subject to the approval of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Town Manager. We note that the applicant would have no responsibility to make improvements on Airport Road if NCDOT refuses to approve one of these three alternatives. If one of these alternatives is approved by NCDOT, the applicant shall be responsible for installing the improvement(s) prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development.
This stipulation is included in Resolution A (the Manager’s Revised Recommendation) and Resolution D (the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation).
3. A Council member inquired as to what is the likelihood that bus service will be routed through this site.
Applicant’s Response: “The Interim bus director indicated that they could consider using the underutilized A or T route at the direction of the Town Council. Chapel Ridge apartments are located beyond the two-mile radius, which would allow students to purchase a parking permit. Freshmen are not allowed to park on campus.”
“Phil Post and Associates is quoted as saying “Observations at other student oriented apartment projects have shown when bus service is available, bus ridership levels are very high, do to the shortage of available parking on and around campus.”
Staff Comment: We do not believe that it is appropriate for the Council to determine Town bus routes via a stipulation of approval for a development proposal. Such a scenario binds the applicant to the Town’s provision of such a route, and provides no flexibility for future adjustments, if needed.
Presently there are no plans to provide bus service through this site via Brookstone Drive and Northfield Drive. We would note that as part of the Town’s 2001-2006 Short Range Transit Plan, we will review changes to existing transit routes and the possible addition of new routes. We believe that this process is the appropriate venue for the Town to review the utility of routing bus service through this development.
We note that all resolutions of approval include a stipulation requiring the applicant to make a payment-in-lieu so that two full bus stops (with shelters) can be constructed.
4. A citizen suggested that this development be connected to Airport Road across from Taylor Street (not using Northfield Drive), in order to provide a signalized intersection. This scenario assumed the removal of the Airport Road BP Station at Critz Drive. (Please see Attachment # 9.)
Applicant’s Response: “This suggested scenario is outside the scope of our project and does not represent a workable solution at this time.”
5. Council Members and citizens inquired as to why 565 parking spaces were being considered? In particular, it was noted that the Council has a goal of not exceeding 110% of the minimum parking requirement.
Staff Note: Please see John Falls Report (Attachment #20).
Applicant’s Response: “The John Falls report indicates that 318 parking spaces would, “likely produce a wholly unworkable result that could jeopardize project feasibility and would almost certainly represent a public safety nuisance or hazard”. Falls analyzed five student oriented apartment projects in the market area and found a variety of parking ratios, however, the closer the ratio came to one parking space per bedroom, the fewer problems were encountered. Anything significantly less than one parking space per bedroom caused considerable nuisance, if not hazard. His report further found that it is simply not practical to limit the number of students with automobiles.”
“John Falls is quoted as saying “Mill Creek, which both the Fire Marshall for the Town of Chapel Hill and public service officials acknowledge as a nuisance if not a hazard, provides only 2.254 spaces per unit and 0.87 spaces per bedroom.”
“The Planning Board and the Community Design Commission and Staff all recommend 1 space per bedroom (550 parking spaces).”
“Council has a ‘goal’ of not exceeding 110% of minimum parking (318 x 110% = 350).”
“Chapel Hill Development Ordinance Section 14.6.7 requires 1 space per resident for fraternities & sororities (550 bedrooms/residents). This use is much more similar to fraternity/sorority housing than typical apartments.”
“Staff comments, “ given the proposed student orientation of this development and the proposed number of bedrooms, we believe that a goal of just under one parking space per resident may be appropriate.”
Staff Comments: Based on the revised number of proposed dwelling units (180), the Development Ordinance requires that a minimum of 336 parking spaces be provided on this site. (The applicant’s original submittal included 168 dwelling units, and required a minimum of 318 parking spaces.) The requirement number of spaces is determined as follows:
|
Use |
Minimum # Parking Spaces |
Total # Parking Spaces Required |
|
48 One and Two-Bedroom Dwelling Units |
1.5 Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit |
72 |
|
132 Three & Four Bedroom Dwelling Units |
2.0 Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit |
264 |
|
Total # Parking Spaces Required by the Development Ordinance |
336 |
The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 565 parking spaces on this site. Based on the applicant’s target student tenants, the applicant believes that a parking ratio of 1.1 parking spaces per bedroom/resident (similar to a fraternity or sorority) is more appropriate for this site. Because the applicant is proposing a total of 550 bedrooms on this site, the applicant consequently has requested 565 parking spaces (one per bedroom plus 15 parking spaces for the clubhouse), for a ratio of 1.03 parking spaces per resident. We understand the applicant’s intent to rent by the bedroom, and to provide slightly more than one space per bedroom. Consequently, given the proposed number of bedrooms, we believe that a goal of one parking space per resident may be appropriate.
We note that we have recommended that a portion of the exterior loop road be removed from the plans: from Building 7 around to Building 11. We recommend the deletion of this northern loop road in the interest of (1) reducing the amount of impervious surface on this site by approximately 33,750 square feet, or approximately 3/4 of an acre, (2) reducing the amount of grading and increasing the quality of the buffer between this development and the Brookside Apartments development to the north, and (3) preserving several significant trees in the northwestern portion of the site.
Our recommended elimination of the exterior connector street from Building 7 around to Building 11 reduces the applicant’s proposed number of parking spaces by 35 spaces. We believe that this reduction is acceptable, still providing a ratio of .96 parking spaces per resident. We have included this parking space reduction in Resolution A, restricting parking to 530 parking spaces.
6. A Council member inquired about the number of proposed compact parking spaces.
Applicant’s Response: “20% of the parking spaces (115 spaces) will be compact parking.”
“Full size: 346 61%
Handicap: 16 3%
Parallel: 88 16%
Compact: 115 20%
Total 565 100%”
7. Several Council members questioned how the developer is proposing to ensure that at least 15% of the units will be affordable? What guarantee does the Town have that these units will be affordable?
Applicant’s Response: “We have revised our site plan to include 24, 1-bedroom 1-bath units. The monthly rental amount will be based on the HUD Section 8 “Fair Market Rent” of $643 per month. We will accept Section 8 vouchers on these 24 units. These units will be in situated in two buildings. The units will be approximately 500 square feet and will include a complete kitchen.”
“Applicant is willing to enter into a restrictive use agreement pertaining to the 24 1-bedroom 1-bath units in order to ensure the long-term affordability of the designated units. The agreement will be recorded in the public records and bind all successors in title as covenants running with the land. It is our intention to present the Town Council with a draft of the agreement on 11/13/00.”
Staff Comment: We offer the following stipulations in Resolution A (Manager’s Revised Recommendation) that incorporate the applicant’s offer:
· That the owner shall construct 24 one-bedroom, one bath rental units situated in 2 buildings located in the Chapel Ridge development. The rental units shall consists of a minimum of 500 square feet of floor area, and shall include a complete kitchen.
· That the 24 rental units shall be permanently affordable and available to “eligible renters,” who shall be defined as households earning less than 80% of the area median income as published periodically by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The owner shall also agree to accept Section 8 vouchers for these units.
· That the 24 rental units shall be rented to eligible renters at a maximum rent (including utilities) not to exceed the Section 8 Fair Market rents for a one-bedroom apartment as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
· That the owner/management company shall execute deed restrictions that will be recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, as approved by the Town Manager and Orange Community Housing Corporation, to ensure that the 24 rental units remain affordable to eligible renters, in perpetuity.
· That the owner/management company shall work with local non-profits to help advertise and recruit prospective tenants on an on-going basis. A “good-faith” marketing agreement shall be developed between the owner/management company and local non-profits to ensure that these 24 units are rented to eligible renters.
· That the recorded deed restrictions shall include a provision that if after working with local non-profits, the owner/management company is unable to find eligible renters with incomes below 80% of the area’s median income for any of these 24 rental units, the owner/management company may rent such units to other renters without restrictions for up to 12 months, if written authorization is provided in advance for each such unit rental from Orange Community Housing Corporation and approved by the Town of Chapel Hill.
· That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for units in this development until the 24 affordable units are constructed and available for occupancy.
We note that a letter is attached, signed by eight representatives of local service agencies, regarding this proposal.
8. A Council member requested that the applicant look at the possibility of including Single Room Occupancies or efficiency apartments as part of the development.
Applicant’s Response: “HUD SRO definition via the SRO Fact Sheet (http://www.hud.gov/cpd/sro/fact.html) “Single Room Occupancy (SRO)...SRO units - single-room dwellings, designed for the use of an individual, that often do not contain food preparation or sanitary facilities.... Due to their small size, SRO units are less expensive to rent than regular apartments, so they often serve as the only affordable housing option for many low-income individuals and homeless persons. Such units are in short supply, however, since they yield negligible profits for building owners. ...The [HUD] SRO program keeps some of these units available by providing rental assistance to owners for the cost of some rehabilitation, ownership and maintenance of SRO units. Rental assistance payments cover the difference between the tenant’s rental payment (generally 30 percent of the tenant’s adjusted income) and a unit’s rent, which must not exceed the fair market rent for the area.”
“We have spent many hours reviewing the construction aspect of building efficiency units. Our building design allows for the stacking of units to provide a cost efficient way to construct the buildings. The additional construction cost along with the decrease in revenue will not allow us to consider this option.”
Staff Comment: We believe that the applicant’s proposal to provide 24 one-bedroom, one-bathroom “affordable” units in perpetuity, is offered in lieu of Single Room Occupancy units.
9. A Council member requested an explanation of the Manager’s recommended stormwater management stipulation.
Applicant’s Response: “Applicant has agreed to design basin to meet these additional stipulations above and beyond what the Town engineering standards mandate. Basin designed to control 2 & 50 year events; for each storm condition, post-development 24-hour discharge rate shall not exceed pre-development rate.”
Staff Comment: We recommend that the Stormwater Management Plan for the site be designed with a detention basin to control the 2-year storm and the 50-year storm, such that for each of these design-year storms, the post-development 24-hour frequency stormwater discharge rate of water leaving the site shall not exceed the pre-development discharge rate. We note that this proposal is a new strategy that is designed to provide stormwater management for both small and large storm events.
We also recommend that the applicant be required to provide certification of storage capacity of the detention basins by a surveyor or professional engineer to the Town Stormwater Engineer on an annual basis, to ensure the long-term maintenance and functionality of the on-site detention basins. This new stipulation was recommended by the Community Design Commission, and is incorporated into the Manager’s Revised Recommendation.
10. One Council member inquired as to whether or not the proposed stormwater basin can handle 18 acres of impervious surface?
Applicant’s Response: “The total development consists of 23.57 acres. A total of 5.3 acres is proposed to remain undisturbed open space. The remaining 18.3 acres is proposed for development. Of the 18.3 acres, a total of 8.8 acres will be impervious surface (this includes building footprints, sidewalks, parking and drive aisle areas, and all streets). The remaining 9.5 acres that will be developed, consists of pervious surfaces (green areas around buildings, landscape islands, buffers, stormwater detention basin, etc.).”
“The proposed stormwater basin is designed to detain the 2 year and 50 year storm events from the 18.3 acres of contributing drainage area. Post-development stormwater discharge rates will be equal to or less than the pre-development offsite discharge rates. The stormwater management facility is intended to handle the runoff from the 18.3 acres of the site that will be developed (the other 5.3 acres being designated as undisturbed open space).”
Staff Comment: We recommend a stormwater management stipulation (which is included in all of the attached Resolutions of Approval) requiring that the on-site stormwater basin is correctly designed to ensure that post-development stormwater discharge rates will be equal to or less than the pre-development offsite discharge rates.
11. A Council member inquired as to what portion of the site is impervious surface. The Council member also wanted to know if the northern loop road is removed, what percent of the site would be impervious surface?
Applicant’s Response: “Eliminating northern loop road reduces total impervious by 8.8%, from 37.0% to 34.1%. (approximately 33,750 square feet reduction in impervious area).”
“Making all parking spaces pervious reduces the gross impervious area by 23% from 38.0% to 28.8%. (approximately 88,095 square feet reduction in impervious area).”
Staff Comment: We believe that the applicant’s calculations are correct. We also note that, for purposes of calculating stormwater runoff, so-called pervious paving is considered as if it were impervious pavement. For example, all parking areas that are proposed to be constructed with pervious paving, would be treated as impervious surface when determining the design of the stormwater detention basin.
12. A Council Member stated an interest in additional bio-retention ponds, including the use of landscape islands.
Applicant’s Response: “The applicant agrees to provide additional bio-retention as appropriate and technically feasible as determined in consultation with Town Staff. Conversation with Fred Royal of the Town Engineering Department indicates that the planned retention basin is the most likely additional location for bio-retention. The applicant will follow the North Carolina Best Management Practices Manual for stormwater management, and the forthcoming Town of Chapel Hill guidelines for bio-retention. Both Fred Royal and the Montgomery County Maryland Design Manual for the Use of Bio-Retention in Stormwater Management agree that bio-retention is ineffective in small areas such as parking islands. The minimum recommended size is 15’x40’.”
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to provide one bio-retention area in a parking lot landscaping area. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that encourages the applicant to develop additional bio-retention areas on the site, subject to the approval of the Town Manager. We believe that utilizing the stormwater detention basin as a bio-retention area would be a desirable and practical application in accordance with this stipulation.
13. A Council member inquired as to how we know that the 5.3 acre buffer will remain undisturbed and will not be damaged during construction. Several neighbors have also submitted a petition on this issue (see Attachment # 13).
Applicant’s Response: “Staff to present language already contained in stipulation. Applicant agrees to any language, which Town Council deems necessary.”
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing a 5.3-acre open space buffer between this development and the Glen Heights neighborhood to the south. We note that this area experienced damage in 1996 during Hurricane Fran. We believe that the dead wood in this area is deteriorating and enriching the soil though, while new growth is revegetating damaged portions of the area.
Recognizing the potential need in the future to permit normal maintenance activities however (i.e. removal of dead or hazardous trees), we recommend that the plans be revised to include the following note for this open space buffer:
“This 5.3 acre open space shall remain natural and undeveloped. Allowable uses include passive recreation and normal maintenance activities (i.e. removal of dead or hazardous trees), subject to the approval of the Town Manager. All effort shall be made to protect and preserve root zones for significant trees, and grading activities associated with the construction of Northfield Drive shall be designed to minimize disruption of root zones for significant trees.”
This note would prohibit any maintenance activity in the dedicated open space buffer without approval of the Town Manager. We believe that this language is sufficient to ensure the long-term preservation of this open space buffer.
We also believe that there is potential for damage to several significant trees in the northern portion of the proposed 5.3-acre open space area, in close proximity to the proposed construction area for Northfield Drive. Consequently, we are recommending that retaining walls, if needed, shall be provided to minimize disturbance to root zones of existing trees located in portions of the 10-foot Type ‘B’ Buffer on the south side of Northfield Drive.
14. One Council member inquired if the deletion of the northern loop road would save the two significant trees?
Applicant’s Response: “Engineering analysis indicates that deleting the northern loop road will not save the two significant trees near the northwest corner of the site. Site grades for the roadways are set at three connection points; the ends of Brookstone and Northfield Drives, and the proposed connection point to the UNC Horace Williams property. Site grades are further constrained by federal and state handicap accessibility requirements, which mandate a maximum allowable slope on sidewalks of 5%. These two factors set the building elevations. Removing the roadway in no way eliminates the mandatory handicap access to all ground floor units and amenities, so the sidewalks must stay. It is unfeasible to return to natural grade between the sidewalks and the no-disturb zone around the tree canopies with any reasonable slope.”
Staff Comment: We believe that the deletion of the northern loop road would save the two significant trees located in the northwestern corner of the site; however, retaining walls may be needed in this area, to mitigate the slopes required to provide handicap access.
15. A Council member encouraged the applicant to consider using plant “aprons” to maximize survival rate of landscape plantings.
Applicant’s Response: The applicant is willing to consider the use of tree aprons, as well as hardy native species, xeriscaping practices, and high-efficiency, water conserving irrigation systems and practices to protect critical buffer and other high intensity plantings.
16. A Council member inquired if the Town could require the applicant to chip the timber when the site is cleared.
Applicant’s Response: “Staff recommended stipulations already require no burning, so the trees removed will be chipped. The applicant is willing to offer the resulting mulch material free to anyone who will come and haul it away.”
17. Several Council members requested justification that this development will decrease pressure for student housing in the Northside neighborhood and other existing neighborhoods near the University’s main campus.
Applicant’s Response: “John Falls is quotes as saying “It is unlikely that the proposed Chapel Ridge Apartments would have any significant effect on congestion in the residential neighborhoods in close proximity to the UNC campus. Students will not willingly trade a two-block walk to campus for a two-mile commute. The reader should recognize that much of the congestion is the result of antiquated design standards (e.g. very small lots and narrow streets) in these older neighborhoods. Chapel Ridge will, however, help to absorb the growing student population (currently projected to increase from the current 24,872 to 27,500 in the fall of 2008).”
18. A Council member suggested that rainwater be collected from the rooftops in this development and used as graywater (restrooms, watering landscaping, etc.) for this site.
Applicant’s Response: “The applicant and consultants examined the possibility of incorporating such a gray water system in this project. The additional costs for collecting, storing, filtering, pumping, and piping this gray water are estimated to be potentially over $500,000, which would render this project instantly impossible financially.”
“The applicant will include low flow toilets throughout the project to minimize water wastage.”
“The applicant will also discharge all roof drains to grade in landscape beds and sheet flow the stormwater away from the buildings instead of collecting it in pipes.”
19. We note that the Council has recently adopted new design guidelines for bicycle parking.
Staff Comment: On October 11, 2000, the Council approved new design guidelines regarding the amount for required bicycle parking for developments. With regard to multi-family residential developments like this one, the new guidelines require the developer to provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit, plus additional bicycle parking spaces equivalent to 10% of the number of automobile spaces proposed on the site. Such bicycle parking facilities shall be covered, secure and illuminated.
The applicant has proposed to provide parking spaces for 130 bicycles. We have added a stipulation to the Manager’s Revised Recommendation that would require the developer to provide bicycle parking spaces in accordance with the new guideline (180 dwelling units + 10% of 530 parking spaces = 233 bicycle parking spaces). This stipulation is included in Resolution A.
20. We note that the Council has revised Development Review Fees since the Chapel Ridge development proposal was originally submitted.
Staff Comment: The complete Chapel Ridge Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit applications were both submitted to the Town on December 13, 1999. At that time the following application fees were paid:
|
Zoning Atlas Amendment |
$1,532 |
||
|
Special Use Permit |
$5,688 |
||
|
Total Cost: |
$7,220 |
On June 26, 2000, the Council adopted new Development Review Fees, effective July 1, 2000. If the current Chapel Ridge development proposal had been submitted under the new Review Fee structure, the applicant would have paid the following fees:
|
|
Zoning Atlas Amendment |
$1,744 |
|
|
Special Use Permit |
$49,169 |
||
|
Total Cost: |
$50,913 |
We note that the revised Development Review Fees also include the following provision:
For applications involving residential development in which documentation is provided that at least 15% of the dwelling units will be affordable to low-moderate income families (80% of area median income for a family of four), the development application fee shall be waived.
The applicant has recently revised the Chapel Ridge proposal to include 24 affordable units (out of 180 units). Thus, 13.3% of the proposed dwelling units are proposed to be affordable to low-moderate income families. This proposal does not exempt the applicant from future application fees (Final Plan Review); however, if the applicant were to revise the proposal to include 15.0% or more affordable units, then we believe that the applicant would be exempt from all Final Plan Review fees.
We anticipate that the proposed development, if approved by the Council as proposed (with 220,844 square feet of floor area), would require a Final Plan Review fee of $24,585, if submitted under the present fee structure.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION A
(Manager’s Revised Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHAPEL RIDGE (2000-11-13/R-11a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 38A (PIN # 9789-19-7250) and Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 41G (PIN # 9789-19-8802), if developed according to the site plan prepared on December 8, 1999, and revised on March 31, 2000, and conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin by November 13, 2002 and be completed by November 13, 2003.
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of 19 buildings, including 13 apartment buildings, consisting of a total of 220,844 square feet of floor area, specified as follows:
Total # of Buildings: 19
Total # of Apartment Buildings: 13
Total # of Dwelling Units: 180
Maximum # of Bedrooms: 550
Maximum # of Residents: 550
Maximum # of Parking Spaces: 530
Minimum Outdoor Space (s.f.): 957,042
Minimum Livability Space (s.f.): 705,885
Minimum Recreation Area (s.f.): 66,407
3. Open Space: That a 5.3-acre open space buffer shall be provided on the southern portion of this site, between the proposed western extension of Northfield Drive and the Glen Heights neighborhood. The plans shall be revised to include the following note for this open space buffer:
“This 5.3 acre open space shall remain natural and undeveloped. Allowable uses include passive recreation and normal maintenance activities (i.e. removal of dead or hazardous trees), subject to the approval of the Town Manager. All effort shall be made to protect and preserve root zones for significant trees, and grading activities associated with the construction of Northfield Drive shall be designed to minimize disruption of root zones for significant trees.”
4. Recombination Plat: That the two lots associated with this development (Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lots 38A and 41G) be recombined to form one lot, and that the final plat be recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds office, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
5. Specialty Paving: That the development shall be constructed with paver blocks or other specialty pavement intended to reduce impervious surface in the private property parking area, excluding drive aisles. In addition, a note shall be included on the plans indicating that the Town will not be responsible for any damage to the proposed “specialty paving” that may be caused by service vehicles.
6. Bus Stops: That the applicant is not required to construct the proposed on-site bus stop with shelter, bench and pad. Instead, the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu for the construction of two bus stops, including shelter, bench and pad. This payment-in-lieu may also be used for improvements to existing bus stops that may serve this site.
7. Airport Road Pedestrian Improvements: That the applicant install (a) some type of median, (b) a center refuge island, or (c) a pedestrian crossing light, subject to the approval of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Town Manager. If NCDOT does not approve one of these three alternatives, then the applicant shall have no responsibility to make improvements on Airport Road. If one of these alternatives is approved by NCDOT, the applicant shall be responsible for installing the improvement(s) prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development.
8. Timing Signal System Adjustments: That the applicant (a) conduct a signal timing progression analysis on Airport Road between Homestead Road and Hillsborough Street subject to Town Manager approval, or (b) provide a $5,000 payment-in-lieu of such study, to determine necessary timing adjustments and other changes that will be needed for the Town’s Traffic Signal System to accommodate the traffic generated by this development.
9. Provision of 24 Affordable Units: That the applicant shall provide 24 one-bedroom, one-bath dwelling units available for rental in accordance with HUD Section 8 “Fair Market Rent,” and that the owner/management company shall accept Section 8 vouchers. These units shall be provided with the following:
A. That the owner shall construct 24 one-bedroom, one bath rental units situated in 2 buildings located in the Chapel Ridge development. The rental units shall consists of a minimum of 500 square feet of floor area, and shall include a complete kitchen.
B. That the 24 rental units shall be permanently affordable and available to “eligible renters,” who shall be defined as households earning less than 80% of the area median income as published periodically by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The owner shall also agree to accept Section 8 vouchers for these units.
C. That the 24 rental units shall be rented to eligible renters at a maximum rent (including utilities) not to exceed the Section 8 Fair Market rents for a one-bedroom apartment as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
D. That the owner/management company shall execute deed restrictions that will be recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, as approved by the Town Manager and Orange Community Housing Corporation, to ensure that the 24 rental units remain affordable to eligible renters, in perpetuity.
E. That the owner/management company shall work with local non-profits to help advertise and recruit prospective tenants on an on-going basis. A “good-faith” marketing agreement shall be developed between the owner/management company and local non-profits to ensure that these 24 units are rented to eligible renters.
F. That the recorded deed restrictions shall include a provision that if after working with local non-profits, the owner/management company is unable to find eligible renters with incomes below 80% of the area’s median income for any of these 24 rental units, the owner/management company may rent such units to other renters without restrictions for up to 12 months, if written authorization is provided in advance for each such unit rental from Orange Community Housing Corporation and approved by the Town of Chapel Hill.
G. That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for units in this development until the 24 affordable units are constructed and available for occupancy.
Stipulations Related to Required Improvements
10. Town Standards: That all streets, parking lots, drive aisles and sidewalks associated with this development shall be constructed to Town standards. Specifically, all public streets shall be constructed with a 27-foot back-of-curb to back-of-curb two-lane cross-section with curb and gutter, utilizing standard crown with curb and gutter and adequately dimensioned shoulder sections, and including a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on at least one side of the street. In addition, catch basins and underground stormwater pipes (rather than drainage swales) shall be utilized to collect stormwater.
11. Rights-of-Way: That all proposed public rights-of-way shall be adjusted to include all sections of the public street, including any on-street parking, all streetside sidewalks and a minimum of one additional foot beyond all streetside sidewalks for utility purposes.
12. Northfield Drive: That the applicant shall dedicate a minimum of a 50-foot right-of-way and construct Northfield Drive to the western edge of the site. Any necessary off-site construction shall be completed as part of this development to ensure that vehicular traffic may access the site from Airport Road.
13. Brookstone Drive: That the applicant shall dedicate a minimum of a 50-foot right-of-way and construct Brookstone Drive from the northern edge of the site to its intersection with Northfield Drive. Any necessary off-site construction shall be completed as part of this development to ensure that vehicular traffic may access the site from Homestead Road.
14. Northern Panhandle: That the entire width of the northern panhandle of the property (approximately 60 feet) shall be dedicated as public right-of-way. In this right-of-way, a natural surface trail shall be constructed using hand-tools, to provide pedestrian access from the developed portion of this site to Homestead Road, with the final location being subject to the approval of the Town Manager. Trail signs (not to exceed 4 square feet in display area) shall be placed at both ends of the natural surface trail, identifying the pedestrian path.
15. Elimination of Portion of Exterior Loop Road: That the portion of the exterior loop road from Building 7 around to Building 11 shall not be constructed and shall be removed from the plans.
16. Western Road and Associated Right-of-Way: That a 50-foot corridor from the northern panhandle to the intersection with the new Northfield Drive (along the Orange County Southern Human Services and UNC Horace Williams Tract property lines) shall be dedicated as public right-of-way. A minimum of a 10-foot Type ‘B’ buffer shall be provided between the western edge of this right-of-way and the neighboring property lines. The applicant shall construct a western road, that shall extend northward from Northfield Drive to the second, northernmost east-west drive aisle through the site. This public western road shall generally terminate at the southeast corner of Building 7.
17. Sidewalks Along Northfield and Brookstone Drives: That sidewalk connections be provided along the new portions of Northfield Drive and Brookstone Drive to connect with the existing off-site sidewalks in order to provide continuous sidewalk access along at least one side of these streets to Homestead Road and Airport Drive, as appropriate. These improvements shall include any necessary off-site sidewalk construction to ensure that continuous pedestrian access is provide to the respective intersections of Northfield Drive/Airport Road and Brookstone Drive/Homestead Road.
18. Parking Spaces: That in accordance with the above-noted elimination of the portion of the exterior loop road from Building 7 around to Building 11, the proposed 35 parallel parking spaces along this road shall be removed form the plan, permitting a maximum of 530 parking spaces on the site.
19. On-Street Parking: That the plans shall be revised to remove all proposed 90-degree parking on public streets. Alternatively, the applicant may provide an alternative form of on-street parking (parallel, 45-degree or 60-degree parking) subject to the approval of the Town Manager.
20. Bicycle Parking: That secured, covered and illuminated bicycle parking spaces shall be provided according to the following formula: Total spaces = (one for each dwelling unit + 10% of the number of total parking spaces).
Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements
21. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed Landscape Plan and Landscape Maintenance Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
22. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees will be removed and preserved and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
23. Preservation of Existing Vegetation: That the applicant shall maximize the preservation of existing vegetation in landscape bufferyard areas, unless unless grading and replanting are approved by the Town Manager and the Urban Forester.
24. Landscape Bufferyards: That the following landscape bufferyards shall be provided, and that if existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirement, the vegetation shall be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:
|
Location of Bufferyard |
Type of Buffer Required |
|
|
Eastern Border (A Better Wrench) |
Minimum of 30’ Type ‘D’ Buffer |
|
|
Eastern Border (Wilco/Exxon) |
Minimum of 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer |
|
|
Northern Border |
Minimum of 10’ Type ‘B’ Buffer |
|
|
Western Border |
Minimum of 10’ Type ‘B’ Buffer |
|
|
Southern Border |
Minimum of 10’ Type ‘B’ Buffer |
25. Catch Basins and Stormwater Pipes: That catch basins and stormwater pipes be utilized as part of street construction, in order to minimize land disturbance in buffer areas. In particular, drainage swales shall not be established in the required landscape bufferyards on this site.
26. Slopes in Buffer Areas: That all newly graded landscape buffer areas shall not exceed a 3:1 slope.
27. Buffer Plantings: That all canopy trees installed in graded buffer areas shall be a minimum of 3” – 3½“ caliper when installed. Also, all small trees installed in graded buffer areas shall be a minimum of 8 feet in height.
28. Parking Lot Plantings: That all parking lot shade trees used to demonstrate compliance with the 35% parking lot shading requirement, shall be a minimum of 2” – 2½“ in caliper when installed.
29. Planting Strips: That five-foot wide planting strips shall be provided between parking areas and each building.
30. Preservation of 34-inch Oak Tree: That the applicant shall retain and preserve a 34-inch Oak Tree located in the southeast corner of the site. Grading and landscaping protection plans shall be revised to ensure that a minimum of 80% of this tree’s critical root zone remains undisturbed.
31. Preservation of 32-inch Hickory Tree and 27-inch White Oak Tree: That the applicant shall retain and preserve the 32-inch Hickory Tree and 27-inch White Oak Tree located in the northwest portion of the site. Grading and landscaping protection plans shall be revised to ensure that a minimum of 80% of these trees’ critical root zones remain undisturbed. Retaining walls may be needed in this area to preserve critical root zones, subject to the approval of the Town Manager.
32. Preservation of Southern Open Space: That retaining walls shall be utilized as necessary as part of the 10-foot Type ‘B’ buffer along the south side of Northfield Drive, in order to minimize disturbance to root zones of existing trees, subject to the approval of the Town Manager.
Stipulations Related to Utilities
33. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
34. Utility Lines: That all utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground.
Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety
35. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
36. Sprinkler System: That the buildings shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.
Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection
37. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for the management and minimizing of construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
38. Relocation of Refuse and Recycling Facilities: That the refuse and recycling facilities proposed for the northwest corner of the site be relocated, in accordance with the previously noted stipulation eliminating the construction of the exterior loop road from Building 7 around to Building 11. Specifically, the plans shall be revised to provide an alternative compactor location and to provide a minimum of 2 smaller alternative recycling facilities located throughout the site, subject to the approval of the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
39. Private Refuse Collection: That private refuse collection shall be provided for all compactor(s) utilized on this site, and that the applicant provide documentation that a private refuse hauling contractor can service the proposed compactor(s) and has approved the plans, as the plans relate to refuse collection, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
40. Alternative Dumpster Pad Locations: That the applicant identify potential alternative locations of possible future dumpster pads designed to Town standards, that would be necessary to service this development in the event that the owner requests public refuse collection service in the future.
41. Heavy-Duty Paving: That all drive aisles that provide access to the compactors, future dumpsters or recycling facilities, be constructed with heavy-duty pavement.
42. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan shall be designed with a detention basin to control the 2-year storm and the 50-year storm, such that for each of these design-year storms, the post-development 24-hour frequency stormwater discharge rate of water leaving the site shall not exceed the pre-development discharge rate. The detention basin shall also have an emergency spillway device safely conveying stormwater exceeding the maximum design capacity.
43. Certification of Storage Capacity: That the applicant be required to provide certification of storage capacity of the detention basins by a surveyor or professional engineer to the Town Stormwater Engineer on an annual basis, to ensure the long-term maintenance and functionality of the on-site detention basin.
44. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations and the lighting plan for the site, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
45. Bio-Retention: That a minimum of one bio-retention area be incorporated into the site plan, subject to approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Additional bio-retention areas and low-impact design strategies are encouraged on this site, subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
46. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are complete, 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.
47. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), and landscape plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans shall conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and design standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual.
48. Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provisions for maintenance of facilities and modification of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, and that a copy of the approval be provided to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
49. Open Burning: That no open burning shall be permitted during the construction of this development.
50. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
51. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The construction sign may have a maximum of 16 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.
52. Plant Rescue: That the applicant is encouraged to conduct a “plant rescue” for this site, after the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to the start of construction.
53. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
54. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge.
This, the 13th day of November, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION B
(Transportation Board Recommendation and
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHAPEL RIDGE (2000-11-13/R-11b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 38A (PIN # 9789-19-7250) and Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 41G (PIN # 9789-19-8802), if developed according to the site plan prepared on December 8, 1999, and revised on March 31, 2000, and conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of 19 buildings, including 13 apartment buildings, consisting of a total of 216,929 square feet of floor area, specified as follows:
Total # of Buildings: 19
Total # of Apartment Buildings: 13
Total # of Dwelling Units: 168
Maximum # of Bedrooms: 550
Maximum # of Residents: 550
Maximum # of Parking Spaces: 530
Minimum # of Bicycle Parking Spaces: 130
Minimum Outdoor Space (s.f.): 957,042
Minimum Livability Space (s.f.): 705,885
Minimum Recreation Area (s.f.): 66,407
3. Airport Road Pedestrian Improvements: Stipulation # 7 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
4. Timing Signal System Adjustments: Stipulation # 8 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
5. Provision of 24 Affordable Units: Stipulation # 9 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
6. Bicycle Parking: Stipulation # 20 of Resolution A shall be revised to require that secured, covered and illuminated bicycle parking shall be provided to accommodate a minimum of 130 bicycles.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge.
This, the 13th day of November, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION C
(Planning Board Recommendation and
Community Design Commission Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHAPEL RIDGE (2000-11-13/R-11c)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 38A (PIN # 9789-19-7250) and Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 41G (PIN # 9789-19-8802), if developed according to the site plan prepared on December 8, 1999, and revised on March 31, 2000, and conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of 19 buildings, including 13 apartment buildings, consisting of a total of 216,929 square feet of floor area, specified as follows:
Total # of Buildings: 19
Total # of Apartment Buildings: 13
Total # of Dwelling Units: 168
Maximum # of Bedrooms: 550
Maximum # of Residents: 550
Maximum # of Parking Spaces: 565
Minimum # of Bicycle Parking Spaces: 130
Minimum Outdoor Space (s.f.): 957,042
Minimum Livability Space (s.f.): 705,885
Minimum Recreation Area (s.f.): 66,407
3. Airport Road Pedestrian Improvements: Stipulation # 7 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
4. Timing Signal System Adjustments: Stipulation # 8 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
5. Provision of 24 Affordable Units: Stipulation # 9 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
6. Northern Loop Road: That the northern loop road from Building # 7 to Building # 11 shall be constructed in accordance with the plans prepared on December 8, 1999, and revised on March 31, 2000. Accordingly, Resolution A shall be revised as follows:
A. Stipulation # 2 shall be revised to allow a maximum of 565 parking spaces (as noted above).
B. Stipulation # 15 shall be deleted.
C. Stipulation # 18 shall be deleted.
D. Stipulation # 31 shall be deleted.
7. Bicycle Parking: Stipulation # 20 of Resolution A shall be revised to require that secured, covered and illuminated bicycle parking shall be provided to accommodate a minimum of 130 bicycles.
8. Recycling Facilities: Stipulation # 38 of Resolution A shall be revised to delete a reference to the northern exterior loop road, and instead require that the plans shall be revised to provide 2 or 3 recycling facilities located throughout the site, subject to the approval of the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge.
This, the 13th day of November, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION D
(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHAPEL RIDGE (2000-11-13/R-11d)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 38A (PIN # 9789-19-7250) and Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 41G (PIN # 9789-19-8802), if developed according to the site plan prepared on December 8, 1999, and revised on March 31, 2000, and conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of 19 buildings, including 13 apartment buildings, consisting of a total of 216,929 square feet of floor area, specified as follows:
Total # of Buildings: 19
Total # of Apartment Buildings: 13
Total # of Dwelling Units: 168
Maximum # of Bedrooms: 550
Maximum # of Residents: 550
Maximum # of Parking Spaces: 318
Minimum # of Bicycle Parking Spaces: 130
Minimum Outdoor Space (s.f.): 957,042
Minimum Livability Space (s.f.): 705,885
Minimum Recreation Area (s.f.): 66,407
3. Timing Signal System Adjustments: Stipulation # 8 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
4. Provision of 24 Affordable Units: Stipulation # 9 of Resolution A shall be deleted.
5. Northern Loop Road: That the northern loop road from Building # 7 to Building # 11 shall be constructed in accordance with the plans prepared on December 8, 1999, and revised on March 31, 2000. Accordingly, Resolution A shall be revised as follows:
A. Stipulation # 2 shall be revised to allow a maximum of 318 parking spaces (as noted above).
B. Stipulation # 15 shall be deleted.
C. Stipulation # 18 shall be deleted.
D. Stipulation # 31 shall be deleted.
6. Bicycle Parking: Stipulation # 20 of Resolution A shall be revised to require that secured, covered and illuminated bicycle parking shall be provided to accommodate a minimum of 130 bicycles.
7. Recycling Facilities: Stipulation # 38 of Resolution A shall be revised to delete a reference to the northern exterior loop road, and instead require that the plans shall be revised to provide 2 or 3 recycling facilities located throughout the site, subject to the approval of the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
8. New Bus Route(s): That one or more Chapel Hill Transit bus routes be rerouted through the development.
9. Bus Transit Costs: That the developer be required to pay any additional costs associated with bringing bus transit through this site, and any additional costs associated with making connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities adjacent to the site.
10. Bicycle Lane and Sidewalk Cost Sharing: That the developer pay a percentage of the costs associated with maintenance and/or construction of bicycle lanes and sidewalks near the development in order to improve connectivity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge.
This, the 13th day of November, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION E
(Denying the Application)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHAPEL RIDGE (20000-11-13/R-11e)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 38A (PIN # 9789-19-7250) and Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 41G (PIN # 9789-19-8802), if developed according to the site plan prepared on December 8, 1999, and revised on March 31, 2000, and conditions listed below, would not:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds:
(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit for Chapel Ridge.
This, the 13th day of November, 2000.