AGENDA #10b

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT:       The Homestead – Application for Special Use Permit

DATE:             June 25, 2001

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from May 14, 2001, regarding the Special Use Permit application for a multi-family residential development on a 48.11-acre site.  The site is located north of Homestead Road, east of the University Branch Southern Railroad, west of Homestead Park and south of the recently approved Parkside II subdivision.  Adoption of Resolutions A, B, C, D or E would approve a Special Use Permit application.  Adoption of Resolution F 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 this site from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-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 May 14 Public Hearing, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.

 

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2001, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit application to authorize construction of a 191-unit multi-family residential development on a 48.11-acre site that is located north of Homestead Road, east of the University Branch Southern Railroad, west of Homestead Park and south of the recently approved Parkside II subdivision.  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 May 14, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties 1,500 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 May 14, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

Evaluation of the Application

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 supportof Finding #1 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).

Evidence in opposition:  We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

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 supportof Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).

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, the proposed development does not meet the Development Ordinance requirements for maximum 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 supportof Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).

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 supportof Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).

Evidence in opposition:  We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.

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 May 14 Public Hearing were related to transportation improvements, public vs. private streets, number of parking spaces, the organization of the Homeowners’ Association, and potential use of the land proposed to be deeded to the Town.  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. 

Recommendations

Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on April 3, 2001, and May 1, 2001, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with conditions.  Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

Resolution B includes the following recommended conditions of the Planning Board:

q       That 433 parking spaces (113.4% of the minimum required) shall be approved, as proposed by the applicant’s site plan.

Staff Comment:  We recommend that the applicant be limited to a maximum 420 parking spaces (110.0% of the minimum required).  For more information, please see pages 7-8 of the attached May 14 Public Hearing Memorandum.

q       That the developer shall not be responsible for making any road improvements on Homestead Road.

Staff Comment:  We recommend that the applicant make improvements along this site’s Homestead Road frontage, in accordance with Town policies.  For more information, please see page 7 of the attached May 14Public Hearing Memorandum.

q       That the developer shall only pay for a percentage of the cost of the Homestead/Weaver Dairy Road intersection traffic signal, and this payment-in-lieu shall be returned if the signal has not been installed after 5 years.

Staff Comment:  We note that by construction of this development, the developer will be creating a new intersection on Homestead Road.  We believe that a traffic signal will be needed at this intersection, to move traffic in a safe and orderly manner.  We believe that this applicant should submit a payment-in-lieu for a percentage of the cost for this signal, proportional to the amount of traffic that this development will contribute to the new Weaver Dairy Road Extension/Homestead Road intersection.  We believe that the payment-in-lieu should be returned if the signal has not been installed after 10 years.  For more information, please see the discussion on this issue in Attachment #1 – “Questions/Issues Raised during the May 14, 2001 Public Hearing.”

q       That required bicycle parking shall be limited to a total of ten U-racks (one for each overflow parking area), and 30 covered bicycle spaces in the affordable housing units.

Staff Comment:  We believe that this requirement would not provide the number of Class I (secured, covered and illuminated) bicycle parking spaces as recently approved by the Town Council as a component of the Town’s Design Manual.  In accordance with the Town’s Design Manual, Resolution A accepts that 161 Class I bicycle parking spaces can be provided in garages, and requires that 49 additional external, secured, covered and illuminated Class I bicycle parking spaces be provided on the site.  Resolution A also requires that 23 Class II bicycle parking spaces be provided by stationary “U-Racks” distributed throughout the site, being reasonably accessible to all dwelling units.

q       That the developer shall only be required to construct the pedestrian path to the stream and to install the pedestrian bridge that crosses the stream.  The developer shall not be responsible for constructing the pedestrian path from the stream to the gym building.

Staff Comment:  We believe that an informal pedestrian path should be extended to provide complete access from the proposed townhomes to the existing building in the southwestern corner of the site.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring the developer to construct a 5-foot informal path consisting of Chapel Hill gravel or other suitable material from the stream down to the gym building.

The Planning Board also recommended the following conditions of approval, which are included in Resolution A:

q       That the developer shall not be required to install a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Roads ‘B’ and ‘D.’

q       That no minimum size shall be required for the 30 affordable dwelling units.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on April 17, 2001, and voted 4-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with conditions.  Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.

Resolution C includes the following recommended conditions of the Transportation Board:

q       That parking shall be reduced to a maximum of 400 spaces.  The 33 spaces that are deleted from the site plan shall not be removed from the affordable housing area.

Staff Comment:  We recommend that the applicant be limited to 420 parking spaces (110.0% of the minimum required).  For more information, please see pages 7-8 of the attached Public Hearing Memorandum.

q       That the affordable housing shall be integrated throughout the development.

Staff Comment:  We note that there is not a formal rule or policy regarding the location of affordable units within a development, but that the Council in previous discussions has indicated an interest in seeing such units scattered throughout a development.  Since we believe that the applicant’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with Council policies, we have not included this stipulation in Resolution A.

Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on May 8, 2001, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application without reference to a specific resolution. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action to the Council.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on April 10, 2001, and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with conditions.  Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action to the Council.

Resolution D includes the following recommended conditions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board:

q       That contrasting pavement material be used for sidewalks where they are crossed by driveways.

Staff Comment:  We have not included this recommendation in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, because we believe that with 161 driveways located at close intervals along a public street, it is not practical to implement this idea.  Furthermore, we believe that the number and frequency of driveways would minimize any beneficial impact from this endeavor. 

 

q       That the Council require construction of Weaver Dairy Road with an 11-foot travel lane and a 15-foot travel lane, and no striped bicycle lane.

Staff Comment:  We note that this discussion of striped bike lanes versus wide outside lanes is ongoing.  The Town’s Standards, which we continue to believe are appropriate and desirable, call for bike lanes on a major street such as Weaver Dairy Road Extension. Although a 15-foot wide travel lane does provide room for the experienced bicyclist to share space with vehicular traffic, we do not believe that this situation provides a comfortable and reasonable bicycle travel lane for the typical bicycle rider.  Consequently, we believe that the recommended Weaver Dairy Road Extension parameters (two 12-foot travel lanes and a 4-foot bike lane) provide greater benefit to the majority of the bicycle riders in the community.  We also note that the cross-section included in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation (Resolution A) also matches that cross-section recently approved by the Town Council for the Parkside II portion of Weaver Dairy Road Extension.

q       That a payment-in-lieu of a bus stop be expanded to include pad, bench, shelter and bicycle racks.

Staff Comment:  We have included a stipulation in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation requiring the submittal of a payment-in-lieu for a bus stop that includes pad, bench and shelter.  The Manager’s Revised Recommendation does not require bicycle racks at the bus stop.  We note that a total of 233 bicycle parking spaces are being required for this development, in accordance with the Town’s Design Manual.  In particular, 23 of these spaces are Class II Stationary ‘U’ Racks that will be scattered throughout this development.  We believe that the amount of bicycle parking proposed on this site is sufficient to meet the needs of transit riders who will utilize this future bus stop.

q       That the 30 affordable dwelling units be constructed with storage units that would meet the Class I bicycle parking requirements.

Staff Comment:  We note that the Council has adopted bicycle parking requirements as part of the Town’s Design Manual, as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.  These standards do not specify that storage units are required as part of each dwelling unit.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board also recommended the following condition of approval, which is included in Resolution A:

q       That stationary U-racks be scattered and clustered throughout the site to meet the Class II bicycle parking requirements.

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: On March 21, 2001, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with conditions.  Please see the attached Memorandum from the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Resolution A includes the following recommended conditions of the Parks and Recreation Commission:

q       That the land proposed to be deeded to the Town should be enlarged to allow construction of a future greenway trail.  In general, the land should be enlarged in the northwest corner and along the perennial stream that lies on the west side of Weaver Dairy Road Extension.

q       That the developer should correct safety problems related to the gymnastic school’s entrance drive.

q       That the developer should build a trail (or provide payment-in-lieu for a trail) from Street B to the gymnasium building.  The developer should also reserve any necessary access easements from the street to the property that is proposed to be deeded to the Town.

q       That the gymnasium building should be deeded to the Town and the developer should either repair existing damage to the structure or provide the Town appropriate funding to make the repairs.

We note that on March 21, 2001, the Parks and Recreation Commission delayed making a recommendation on whether to retain the existing man-made pond on the site or to fill in the pond and create a playing field.  The Commission discussed this issue on April 19, 2001, however a quorum was not present.  The four members present on April 19, 2001, did vote 4-0 to express support for retaining the pond in its natural state.   We note that Resolution A proposes to leave the pond in its natural state.  

Greenways Commission Recommendation:  On March 14, 2001, the Greenways Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with conditions.  Please see the attached Memorandum from the Greenways Commission.

Resolution E includes the following recommended conditions of the Greenways Commission: 

q       That the developer should remove the existing security fence, fill in the pond, and create a level field on the site of the pond.

Staff Comment:  We note that further inspection has identified jurisdictional wetlands on this site, which would require mitigation if the pond were filled in.  We believe that the environmental and wildlife benefits associated with the pond presently outweigh the benefits of converting it to a recreational playing field.

Resolution A includes the following recommended conditions of the Greenways Commission:

q       That the land proposed to be deeded to the Town should be enlarged in a manner that would better allow construction of a future greenway trail.  In general, the land should be enlarged in the northwest corner and along the perennial stream that lies on the west side of Weaver Dairy Road Extension.

q       That the developer should correct safety problems related to the gymnastic school’s entrance drive.

q       That the developer should build a trail (or provide payment-in-lieu for a trail) from Street B to the gymnasium building.  The developer should also reserve any necessary access easements from the street to the property that is proposed to be deeded to the Town.

Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the four findings to approve the Special Use Permit, if the site is rezoned to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C).

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.

Based on information presented at the Public Hearing, we have revised Resolution A in the following manner:

Ø      Stipulation 5(B) has been modified to require that a payment-in-lieu of $24,000 (40% of the total cost) shall be provided for a traffic signal at the Homestead Road/Weaver Dairy Road intersection.  In the event that the traffic signal is not installed after 10 years, the payment shall be refunded.  (Preliminary recommendation was for 100% of the cost.)

Ø      Stipulation 35 has been revised to require the construction of an informal 5-foot wide pedestrian path, consisting of Chapel Hill gravel or other suitable material, from Street ‘B’ to the building/gym.  (Preliminary recommendation did not specify what type of path.)

Ø      Stipulation 36 has been revised to clearly indicate that a single Homeowners’ Association, including all dwelling units constructed on this site, shall be created for this development.  (Preliminary recommendation was not this specific.)

Resolution A is also recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Resolution B would approve the application based on the recommendation of the Planning Board.

Resolution C would approve the application based on the recommendation of the Transportation Board.

Resolution D would approve the application based on the recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

Resolution E would approve the application based on the recommendation of the Greenways Commission.

Resolution F would deny the application.

THE HOMESTEAD SPECIAL USE PERMIT

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

*This issue was not discussed at this particular advisory board’s meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1.                  Questions/Issues Raised during the May 14, 2001 Public Hearing  (p. 12)

2.                  Resolution A – Approving the Application  (p.22 )

3.                  Resolution B – Approving the Application (p. 33)

4.                  Resolution C – Approving the Application  (p. 35)

5.                  Resolution D – Approving the Application  (p. 37)

6.                  Resolution E – Approving the Application  (p. 39)

7.                  Resolution F – Denying the Application  (p. 40).

8.                  June 14, 2001 Letter Regarding Applicant’s Concerns with May 14^th Stipulations with Resolution A  (p. 41)

9.                  May 14, 2001 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1)

ATTACHMENT # 1

THE HOMESTEAD

Questions/Issues Raised at the May 14, 2001 Public Hearing

1.      At the Public Hearing, the applicant noted objection to five of the Manager’s preliminary recommendations.  The five issues are:

(A)                           Homestead Road Improvements

(B)                           Traffic Signal at Homestead Road and Weaver Dairy Road Ext.

(C)                           Requirement that all streets be Public Streets

(D)                           Proposed Number of Parking Spaces

(E)                            Alternate Pavement at Intersections

Each issue is discussed separately below.

(A)  Homestead Road Improvements

Applicant’s Response:  “The applicant acknowledges that requiring road improvements along a project’s exterior road frontage is certainly the usual means by which a development project is asked to contribute to the community infrastructure, in lieu of an impact fee.  However, in this instance, there are mitigating factors that should be considered.”

“The Homestead is already making multiple significant contributions to the community infrastructure.  The developer is not only building 1,740 feet of Weaver Dairy Road, and therefore completing the missing link to Homestead Road, but is also donating 14 acres of property to the Town, over half of which is non-RCD and Prime Buildable.  In addition, the project provides 30 affordable townhomes for ownership with a mechanism to keep the price of the homes affordable for subsequent owners.”

“The widening of Homestead Road is a funded project on NCDOT’s Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) list, with right-of-way acquisition scheduled for 2003 and construction scheduled for 2005.  We do not believe that any significant public good will be gained by this developer attempting to build 640 feet of improvements in the face of this funded project, nor is a payment-in-lieu fair or equitable, considering everything else this project is accomplishing.  However, The Homestead will agree to dedicate the additional right-of-way needed along its frontage for the widening of Homestead Road, without cost to NCDOT or the Town.”

“The same arguments apply to lane improvements being requested at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Homestead Road.  The Homestead has agreed to construct an additional temporary left turn lane on Weaver Dairy Road as it meets Homestead Road, but there is both insufficient right-of-way and too little project frontage on Homestead Road for the project to do any construction on Homestead Road itself in this location.” 

“Additionally, we do not feel that a payment-in-lieu of construction is appropriate in this instance since the requested turn lane construction on Homestead Road is related to community-wide traffic movements at this intersection of two arterial roads, and not this project’s minimal traffic impact on that intersection.  We believe that the rational nexus principal applies.”

Staff Comment:  We continue to believe that the applicant has submitted an incomplete Traffic Impact Analysis for this development.  Therefore, the staff has presumed a worst case-scenario regarding additional improvements that are needed in the Homestead Road corridor, to ensure future acceptable Levels of Service at the completion of this project.  Accordingly, we continue to recommend that the following Homestead Road improvements be required as part of this development:

·        That one-half of a 90-foot right-of-way be dedicated along all portions of this site’s  Homestead Road frontage. 

·        That Homestead Road be improved along all portion’s of this site’s Homestead Road frontage, to one-half of a 49-foot cross-section, with curb and gutter, a 4-foot bike lane, a 3-foot wide planting strip, and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk, to the extent that right-of-way is available.  If it can be shown that sufficient right-of-way is not available to make these improvements in a reasonable manner, then a payment-in-lieu may alternatively be submitted for the construction of these future improvements.

·        That exclusive left and right turn lanes shall be constructed on Homestead Road and on Weaver Dairy Road Extension at the Homestead Road/Weaver Dairy Road Extension intersection, to the extent that right-of-way is available.  If it can be shown that sufficient right-of-way is not available to make these improvements on Homestead Road, then a payment-in-lieu may alternatively be submitted for these improvements.

We have included stipulations to this effect in Resolution A.  In particular, we have stipulated that the payments-in-lieu be paid and right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that all road improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development.  We note that Homestead Road is scheduled on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for widening and lane improvements beginning with right-of-way acquisition in 2003.   Accordingly, we have worded these stipulations to require that these improvements be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development – we have not specified who is required to make each improvement.  Therefore, if NCDOT acquires the required right-of-way and/or makes other improvements prior to the applicant’s development of the site, the applicant would not bear the financial burden of each such respective stipulation. 

(B)  Traffic Signal at Homestead Road and Weaver Dairy Road Extension

Applicant’s Response:  “Again, we believe there is no rational nexus between this project’s impact on the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Homestead Road that would justify The Homestead bearing the entire cost of a traffic signal at this location.  Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not a traffic signal warrant study would even indicate the need for one until the connection southward to the Horace Williams tract is made by the University.”

“We will, however, agree to pay our proportional share of the installation cost, utilizing a formula used in the past by the Town in similar instances.  It is agreeable to the applicant that the percentage of the total cost paid to the Town can be based upon this project’s percentage of the total traffic flowing through the intersection.” 

“We do ask that if the traffic signal has not warranted in five years that the money to be held in escrow by the Town be refunded to the applicant.  We also ask that the amount of money being requested of the applicant be calculated in advance of the applicant being asked to agree to this condition.”

Staff Comment:  As noted previously, we believe that the applicant’s traffic impact analysis does not accurately reflect the future traffic conditions on Weaver Dairy Road Extension. However, the Town has received another traffic impact analysis for the proposed Larkspur Subdivision on Weaver Dairy Road Extension (please Figure 1).  We have estimated the number of trips on Weaver Dairy Road Extension for the proposed developments based on the traffic impact analysis submitted by the Homestead and the Larkspur Subdivisions. The estimated number of trips using Weaver Dairy Road Extension are presented in the following table.

           

Based on the above estimated trips, we believe that the Homestead Subdivision will contribute at least 40% of the trips (572 trips out of a total of 1297 trips) on Weaver Dairy Road Extension at Homestead Road. We believe that a traffic signal will be desirable at

FIGURE 1

Location of Proposed Developments on Weaver Dairy Road Extension

this intersection to provide for the safe and orderly movement of traffic;
however, we will not know if the traffic signal is warranted at this location until we see the actual cut-through traffic.  Based on these traffic estimates and the desirability of a traffic signal at this intersection, we recommend that the developer provide a payment-in-lieu in the amount of 40% of the cost of a traffic signal ($24,000 payment towards a $60,000 signal installation) at the intersection of Homestead Road and Weaver Dairy Road Extension.   We also recommend that, in the event that a traffic signal has not been installed after 10 years, the payment-in-lieu shall be returned to the developer.  

(C)   Requirement that all streets be Public Streets

Applicant’s Response:  “The applicant has met with the Town staff and we believe that we are in agreement on this issue.  This issue was raised in reaction to a concern that the affordable homes residents may be asked to pay a disproportionate share of Homeowners’ Association dues because of the need for private maintenance of the parking lot associated with those 30 townhomes.  The question was could this area be somehow made into a public street so that tax dollars could maintain it instead of just those 30 owners.”

“The applicant and the Town staff have examined the geometry that would be necessary to change that area into a public street and still maintain 90-degree parking off of it and found that solution to be a difficult one.  Either undue hardships would be placed on the homeowners’ use of their parking area or the creation of separate off-street 90-degree parking areas would inevitably force buildings closer to the adjoining Resource Conservation District area.”

“Alternatively, what the applicant proposes, and will accept as a condition, is that the privately maintained portion of The Homestead (the drive aisles and parking spaces within the affordable housing area, plus the scattered overflow parking areas) will be maintained by all 191 townhome owners, not just the 30 affordable townhome owners.  In fact, we now believe that only one Homeowners’ Association will be required for the project.  Therefore, the affordable townhome owners will enjoy the same landscape maintenance and pavement maintenance benefits of the market-rate townhome owners.  The cost for this landscape and pavement maintenance will be spread across a much wider base, thereby considerably lowering the potential impact on the affordable townhome owner’s homeowner association dues and secondarily insuring that this area will be maintained to the same degree as the remainder of the townhome community.”  

“The privately-maintained 26-foot wide parking lot drive aisle will be constructed within a dedicated public-access easement and the vertical pavement cross-section will be built to public road standards, as required by the Development Ordinance.  It will therefore function as well as a public street for both access and load-bearing purposes.”

Staff Comment:  We understand the applicant’s design concerns regarding Town standards and the inability to have 90-degree parking on a public street.  We continue to believe however, that it the best long-term solution is for all of the streets in this development to be public streets.  Such a scenario is simpler in terms of maintenance, and provides for uniformity of service.  In addition, we continue to believe that it is better to not burden the Homeowners’ Association (and thus the homeowners in affordable units) with the financial upkeep and maintenance responsibilities associated with a private road.

(D)  Proposed Number of Parking Spaces

Applicant’s Response:  “The applicant’s position, backed by the Planning Board’s unanimous resolution of approval, was that only 111 of the 433 proposed “parking spaces” are actually ground surface parking spaces, therefore the policy of limiting parking spaces to 10 percent over the required minimum does not directly apply to this situation.  The vast majority of the “parking spaces” being proposed are within the attached garages supplied with each of the market-rate townhomes.”

“Noting that the impervious surface of The Homestead is well under 30 percent, including the public roads, and that over 40 percent of the project is undisturbed by grading, we do not believe that a further limitation on the scattered overflow off-street parking areas being provided for guests of the townhome owners is either warranted nor needed.  We ask that the parking spaces, as proposed, be approved.”

Staff Comment:  The Council has adopted a policy of limiting parking to 110% of the minimum number of parking spaces required.  Our recommendation to eliminate 13 parking spaces is consistent with this Council policy.  We note that the Council could choose to change this policy and/or make an exception for this particular project given unique circumstances.

(E)  Alternate Pavement at Intersections

Applicant’s Response:  “The applicant has also met with Town staff on this issue and believes we are in agreement on a traffic-calming solution for the two intersections on the road that cross-connects to Parkside II.  Rather than use texturized pavement, to be maintained by either the Town or the Homeowners’ Association, the applicant now proposes that a roundabout be built in each of these two intersections.  The preliminary geometry discussed with the Town staff would result in a center circle diameter of approximately seventeen feet.  Even with a two-foot wide band of concrete around the center circle, as around the one on Pinehurst Drive, there will therefore be sufficient room for at least one tree and additional landscaping within the circle, to be maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.  We believe this design solution will have aesthetic benefits beyond the traffic-calming function roundabouts perform.”

Staff Comment:  We believe that Stipulation #9 in Resolution A provides the flexibility for such traffic-calming solutions (including round-a-bouts) to be approved as part of Final Plan Review. 

2.       A Council member asked how the Homeowners’ Association will be designed?  Will there be a separate Homeowners’ Association for the affordable units?  What assurance is there that the Homeowners’ Association dues will remain affordable in the future?

Applicant’s Response:  “After further legal research, we now no longer believe there will be a need for a separate Homeowners’ Association for the affordable townhome owners.  Those thirty affordable townhome owners will, instead, be a part of the one Homeowners’ Association for The Homestead.  Dues for the Homeowners’ Association will cover landscaping maintenance costs, private pavement maintenance costs, insurance, and the maintenance of commonly-owned facilities, such as the bike racks, tot lots, and the extended-detention stormwater pond.  Those costs should not increase other than at an acceptable cost-of-living background rate, as determined by vote of the Homeowners’ Association.”

Staff Comment:  We have revised Stipulation #36 in Resolution A to require a single Homeowners’ Association for the entire development.  We do not believe that there are any mechanisms in place to guarantee that Homeowners’ Association dues will remain affordable in the future.

3.       The preliminary recommendation from the Town Manager called for the applicant to construct a pedestrian path from Road B, across the creek, to the gym building located in the southwest corner of the site.  A Council member asked for discussion of the desirability of the pedestrian path from the bridge to the gym building.

Applicant’s Response:  “Applicant has agreed to both build a path from Street B to the creek and to provide a wooden pedestrian bridge over the creek.  Since the program for the fourteen acres of property to be deeded to the Town has not yet been determined, we do not believe we have any responsibility to build a path beyond that point.  Several advisory boards unanimously agreed with this position.  Indeed, the contemplated immediate use of the property appears to be a continuation of the private lease arrangement with the gymnastics school being conducted within the existing building on the site.”

“We offer, for consideration, the observation that an existing gravel driveway currently crosses the stream in this location, utilizing a 36” reinforced concrete pipe for the crossing.  For minimal Resource Conservation District disturbance, this existing driveway clearing and roadbed would appear to serve well.” 

“If, alternatively, some type of payment-in-lieu solution is contemplated, the applicant requests that the amount of this payment be calculated and announced in advance of the applicant being asked to agree to that condition.”

Staff Comment:  We continue to believe that a pedestrian path between the residential development and the southwestern corner (where the gymnastics building is located) of the land proposed to be deeded to the Town, is desirable.   We have revised Stipulation #35 of Resolution A to specify that the type of path shall be “an informal 5-foot wide pedestrian path, consisting of Chapel Hill gravel or other suitable material.”

We also believe that the point of RCD crossing noted by the applicant is desirable and consistent with the stipulations included in Resolution A. 

4.                  A Council member stated that Public Streets are desirable for this entire development, and that the affordable units should not experience any burden due to maintenance of private roads.

Applicant’s Response:  “While this question has been addressed within issue 1(C) above, we will reiterate that the burden of maintenance for the privately-maintained drive aisle through the affordable townhomes area will now be borne by all 191 townhome owners, and not just the 30 affordable townhome owners.  We believe we are in preliminary agreement with Town staff on this proposed solution, since the juxtaposition of 90-degree parking stalls off of a publicly-maintained road has been deemed undesirable.”

Staff Comment:  As noted previously under Question/Issue # 1(C), we continue to believe that all streets in this development should be public streets.  We also believe that angled parking can be substituted for the proposed 90-degree parking stalls and/or a parking lot could be designed off of Street ‘D’ that would resolve this issue.

5.                  A Council member asked for explanation of how the affordable units will incorporate long-term affordability and durability, particularly in terms of materials and energy efficiency.

Applicant’s Response:  “The affordable townhomes will be constructed with the same quality of materials utilized within the structural elements of the market-rate townhomes.  The only differences between the two would be associated with minor appurtenances such as the grade of plumbing fixtures provided.  Both the market-rate and the affordable townhomes will meet the efficiency standards necessary to qualify for the lower rate schedule offered by Duke Power’s energy efficient rate program.  Both the market-rate and the affordable townhomes will be covered under the same Centex Homes extensive homeowners warranty program.”

Staff Comment:  We believe that Stipulation #48 of Resolution A requires a mechanism to be developed that will “guarantee that the 30 affordable units shall be permanently affordable and available to qualified buyers, subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing Corporation.”  We believe that this stipulation is sufficient to provide for the long-term affordability of these dwelling units.  We would expect the mechanism utilized by the developer would be similar to other mechanisms utilized by other developers in similar situations.

6.                  The applicant is proposing to deed a parcel of land to the Town (located along Homestead Road).  A Council member asked for discussion of the range of potential Town uses for that land (square footage, etc.)?

(a)    Total land (s.f.) proposed to be deeded to Town of Chapel Hill (per stipulations proposed in Resolution A).    

Applicant’s Response:  “The applicant had originally proposed that 12.9 acres of land be deeded to the Town, with the stream forming the boundary between what would remain as The Homestead property and what would become the Town property.  The Town staff, backed by both the Greenways Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission, has proposed that the property line be shifted 25 feet east and north of the stream and that, additionally, all the land west of Weaver Dairy Road in the northernmost 125 feet of the property be deeded to the Town.  The applicant has agreed to this request, increasing the total amount of land to be deeded to the Town to 14.0 acres (609,700 square feet).”

(b)    Portion of land (s.f.) located in RCD.

Applicant’s Response:  “The total amount of the 14.0 acres (609,700 square feet) that is within Resource Conservation District (RCD) is 6.7 acres (291,400 square feet).  This includes all the area associated not only with the stream, but with the existing pond, with the pond accounting for approximately half of this area.”

(c)    Portion of land (s.f.) south of creek/pond that is not located in the RCD.

Applicant’s Response:  “The non-RCD portion of the property (south of the stream and pond) is therefore 7.3 acres (318,300 square feet) and contains an existing building, currently being utilized for a gymnastics instruction program, and an existing gravel parking lot.  The property proposed to be deeded to the Town is currently included within the applicant’s rezoning petition and would, therefore, be zoned R-4(C) at the time of conveyance.”

“The non-RCD portion, along with the remainder of the 14.0 acres to be deeded to the Town, is almost entirely within the Prime Buildable (0-10 percent) slope classification.  It is also presumed that a portion of the northern stream corridor (RCD) will be utilized for eventual construction of the Rail Trail greenway and that the pond (RCD), if retained, will be available for passive recreational uses, as well.”

Staff Comment:  Based on the information provided above by the applicant, a total of 14.0 acres is proposed to be deeded to the Town as part of this Special Permit application.  Approximately 6.7 acres of the 14.0 acres is located in the Resource Conservation District (RCD), while the remaining 7.3 acres could be developed.  Based on the proposed Residential-4-Conditional zoning, a total of approximately 78,700 square feet of floor area could be constructed on the portion of this land that is located outside of the Resource Conservation District. 

We believe that this 7.3-acre area is not large enough for use by the Town’s Public Works, Transit or Police Departments.  We do believe that this land could be used for additional Town office space and/or park and recreation uses (playing field, neighborhood park, and/or greenway access).  We anticipate that any of these uses would require accessory parking on the site.  We also note that any of these uses would require the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application.

7.          On June 14, 2001, the applicant submitted a list addressing the applicant’s position on each of the 58 stipulations included in Resolution A.  In particular, the applicant has addressed each of the 58 stipulations in Resolution A as “acceptable,” “acceptable with the understanding that…,” or with a noted concern/objection regarding the stipulation.  The attached list is hereby submitted into the record of this Public Hearing.

Staff Comment:  We continue to believe that the stipulations included in Resolution A are appropriate for the proposed development application, if the Council approves the proposed rezoning to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C).

 ATTACHMENT # 2 

RESOLUTION A

                                                                                                         (Parks & Recreation Commission

and Manager’s Revised Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOMESTEAD  (2001-06-25/R-19a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a Portion of Lot 12 (PIN#s: 9880-01-0417 and 9870-92-6174), if developed according to the site plan prepared on February 9, 2001, 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 this Resolution of Approval shall only be valid with the approval of a Zoning Atlas Amendment changing the zoning of the site listed above to Residential-4-Conditional, by both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Homestead in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1.                  That construction begin by June 25, 2003 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by June 25, 2006 (five years from the date of Council approval).

2.                  Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes the construction of a multi-family residential development, specified as follows:

                        Total # of Buildings:                                          41

                        Total # of Dwelling Units:                                  191

                        Maximum Floor Area Total:                              385,000 s.f.

            Minimum # of Bicycle Parking Spaces:  233

            Minimum Outdoor Space:                                 1,900,893 s.f.

                        Minimum Livability Space:                                1,615,299 s.f.

                        Minimum Recreation Space:                              545,806 s.f.

                                   

3.                  Subdivision of Property: That this development (Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a portion of Lot 12), if proposed to be subdivided, must be subdivided in accordance with the Town’s townhouse development provisions.  Private parking, private drive aisles, open space, landscape bufferyards, and stormwater infrastructure shall all be common land area that is owned and maintained by a Homeowner’s Association.

Stipulations Related to Required Improvements

4.                  Weaver Dairy Road Extension:  That the following Weaver Dairy Road Extension improvements be constructed, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development: 

Ø      That 98 feet of right-of-way be dedicated for the extension of Weaver Dairy Road from Homestead Road to the Parkside II Subdivision.  The final right-of-way width shall extend at least one foot beyond the edge of the sidewalk.

Ø      That a divided four-lane cross-section with a median will be graded.

Ø      That one-half of Weaver Dairy Road (the eastern half) shall be constructed, extending from the southern to northern property line of this site, as a 32-foot wide cross-section from back-of-curb to back-of-curb, including curb and gutter, two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 4-foot wide bike lane, a 3-foot planter strip and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk.

Ø      That the Weaver Dairy Road Extension travel lanes, at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road Extension and Homestead Road, be constructed with temporary southbound left and right turn lanes, and one northbound travel lane.

5.                  Homestead Road Right-of-Way and Traffic Signal:  That the following Homestead Road improvements shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit

Ø      That one-half of a 90-foot right-of-way be dedicated along all portions of this site’s  Homestead Road frontage;

Ø      That a payment-in-lieu of $24,000 shall be provided for a traffic signal at the Homestead Road/Weaver Dairy Road intersection.  In the event that the traffic signal is not installed after 10 years (from the date that the payment-in-lieu is received by the Town), then the payment shall be refunded.

6.                  Homestead Road Improvements:  That the following Homestead Road improvements shall be approved prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and installed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for this development: 

Ø      That Homestead Road be improved along all portions of this site’s Homestead Road frontage, to one-half of a 49-foot cross-section, with curb and gutter, a 4-foot bike lane, a 3-foot wide planter strip, and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk, to the extent that right-of-way is available.  If it can be shown that sufficient right-of-way is not available to make these improvements in a reasonable manner, then a payment-in-lieu may alternatively be submitted for these improvements.

Ø      That exclusive left and right turn lanes shall be constructed at the Homestead Road/Weaver Dairy Road Extension intersection, to the extent that right-of-way is available.  If it can be shown that sufficient right-of-way is not available to make these improvements, then a payment-in-lieu may alternatively be submitted.

Ø      That the entrance drive to the recreational building on the southwestern portion of this site, shall be redesigned and built to provide safer ingress and egress, subject to the approval of the Town Manager.

7.                  Dedication of Public Streets:  That a 50-foot right-of-way shall be dedicated for all internal roadways that are proposed to be constructed as public streets (Streets A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H), and that these streets shall be built to Town standards, including a 5-foot concrete sidewalk.  Any on-street parking for Streets C and D shall be designed to meet Town Standards, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

8.                  Town Standards: That all streets, parking lots, drive aisles and sidewalks associated with this development shall be constructed to Town standards.

9.                  Traffic-Calming:  That standard asphalt shall be substituted for the alternative pavement treatment proposed at key intersections within the development, and that the applicant shall incorporate alternative traffic-calming measures at these intersections, possibly including round-a-bouts, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

10.              Bus Stop:  That the applicant submit a payment-in-lieu of a bus stop, including pad, bench and shelter, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Parking

11.              Vehicular Parking:  Parking shall not exceed 110% of the minimum parking requirements (2.0 spaces for each three-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for each one or two-bedroom unit).  A maximum of 420 parking spaces shall be allowed. 

12.              Removal of 3 Parking Spaces on Street B:  That the three perpendicular parking spaces at the intersection of Street B and Street D shall be removed. 

13.              Removal of Perpendicular Parking:  That all perpendicular parking spaces located on public streets shall be removed.  Alternatively, the plans may be revised to substitute angled parking, as long as the angle does not exceed 45 degrees.

14.              Bicycle Parking: That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 233 bicycle parking spaces, as follows:

The Class II Stationary ‘U’ Racks shall be distributed throughout the site, being reasonably accessible to all dwelling units.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

15.              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.

16.              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.

17.              Landscape Bufferyards: That the following landscape bufferyards shall be provided, and that if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirement, the vegetation shall be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:

18.              Preservation of Existing Vegetation:  That the plans shall be revised to retain existing vegetation in the northern and southeastern buffers, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  We note that limited use of retaining walls may be needed to accomplish this task.

19.              Supplement Buffer Plantings:  That supplemental evergreen shrubs shall be installed in the site’s perimeter buffers where needed to supplement the existing retained native vegetation, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20.              Weaver Dairy Road Extension Buffers:  That the plans shall be revised to retain a significant amount of the existing vegetation in the proposed Weaver Dairy Road Extension buffers (on both the east and west sides of the road).  Appropriate revisions shall be made to the proposed surface grading to retain more buffer vegetation, and/or limited use of retaining walls may be utilized to accomplish this preservation of existing vegetation along Weaver Dairy Road Extension, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  We note that the side slopes needed to construct the portion of the road that crosses the Resource Conservation District will significantly limit the amount of existing vegetation that can be retained in this specific portion of the buffer area.

21.              Preservation of 30-inch Red Oak:  That the plans shall be revised to ensure that a minimum of 80% of this tree’s critical root zone remain undisturbed.  This tree is located in the “Three-Story Townhome” open space area that is noted for preservation.

22.              Preservation of “Master Downs Townhomes” Open Space Pocket:  That the plans shall be revised to preserve a pocket of open space/existing vegetation in the northeastern “Master Downs Townhomes” section of the development, similar to the pocket of open space preserved in the “Three-Story Townhome” section of the development, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23.              Slopes in Buffer Areas: That all newly graded landscape buffer areas shall not exceed a 3:1 slope.

24.              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-inch to 2½-inch in caliper when installed.

25.              Planting Strips/Screening: That five-foot wide planting strips shall be provided between parking areas and each building, and that all parking areas shall be screened in accordance with Section 14 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.

26.              Stormwater Detention Basin:  That the Landscape Plan shall provide details as to how the stormwater detention basin will be screened from the view of the surrounding public rights-of-way.  In addition, the plan shall provide a detailed landscaping plan for the detention basin.

Stipulations Related to Utilities

27.              Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan shall be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth, Time-Warner Cable, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

28.              Utility Lines: That all utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground.

Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety

29.              Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

30.              Fire Hydrants:  That all structures shall be located within 500 feet of a fire hydrant.  In addition, the plans shall be revised to include an additional sheet that functions as an overall site/utility plan to indicate all hydrant locations on one page, in order to verify that hydrants are properly spaced throughout the development.

31.              Sprinkler System: That the buildings shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.

32.              Fire Department Connections: That fire hydrants and fire department connections shallbe located in accordance with Town policies and regulations, and that fire department connections must be located on street side of buildings in visible, accessible locations.

Stipulations Related to Recreation Area

33.              Tot Lots:  That two “Tot Lots” shall be constructed as part of the development, one on each side of Weaver Dairy Road Extension.  The “Tot Lots” shall be designed and located in such a manner to be within reasonable walking distance for all dwelling units, and shall be approved prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

34.              Deed Land to the Town:  That the developer shall deed all of the following areas to the Town of Chapel Hill for municipal purposes, unless directed by the Town Manager to alternatively deed the following area (or portions thereof) to the Homeowners’ Association for this development:

Ø      The 12.5 acres of land on the western and southwestern portions of this site, consisting of all land that is located on this site south and west of the perennial stream, on the west side of Weaver Dairy Road Extension;

Ø      The first 25 feet of land running along the eastern side of the perennial stream, from the point where the perennial stream crosses the northern property boundary to the point where the stream intersects the proposed Weaver Dairy Road Extension right-of-way; and

Ø      Additional land in the northwestern corner of the site, including all land on this site that is located west of the following line:  That line beginning at the point where the western edge of the Weaver Dairy Road Extension right-of-way intersects the northern property line, and thus running south along the western edge of the Weaver Dairy Road Extension right-of-way for a distance of 125 feet, at which point said line runs due west to the edge of the Resource Conservation District, and then follows said Resource Conservation District boundary southward for a distance of 100 feet, at which point said line shall taper westward to a point that is 25 feet east of the centerline of the eastern bank of the  perennial stream that bisects the property.

35.              Pedestrian Path:  That the developer shall construct an informal 5-foot wide pedestrian path, consisting of Chapel Hill gravel or other suitable material, or provide a payment-in-lieu for such path, from Street ‘B’ to the building/gym in the southwest corner of the recreational area.  We note that such a pedestrian path will include a bridge crossing in the Resource Conservation District.  The developer shall be required to revegetate any portions of the Resource Conservation District that are disturbed while constructing the bridge crossing.

Stipulations Related to Homeowners’ Association

36.              Homeowners’ Association:  That a single Homeowners’ Association, including all dwelling units constructed on this site, shall be created that has the capacity to place a lien on the property of a member who does not pay the annual charges for maintenance of common areas, however designated.  The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be approved by the Town Manager, recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and cross-referenced on the final plat. 

37.              Stormwater Detention Facility:  That the Homeowners’ Association shall be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the stormwater detention facility .

38.              Ownership of Recreation Area:  That all common areas, including landscape bufferyards, open space and Tot Lots shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association for this development.

Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection

39.              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.

40.              Refuse Collection and Recycling:  That the developer shall provide bulk refuse and recycling collection facilities (including corrugated cardboard) throughout the site, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit;  OR that the developer shall contract with a private refuse collection and/or recycling collection service for curbside collection, and alternatively indicate how sufficient bulk refuse and recycling collection facilities would be constructed on the plans, in the event that public service is requested in the future.

41.              Heavy-Duty Paving: That all drive aisles that provide or potentially provide access to compactors, dumpsters or recycling facilities, shall be constructed with heavy-duty pavement.

42.              Pre-construction Conference: That the applicant will hold a pre-construction conference with Orange County Solid Waste staff prior to any construction activity on the site. A note indicating this conference shall be included on final plans.

Stormwater Stipulations

43.              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 include a detention basin designed (1) to capture the first one inch of runoff, and subsequently release it over a 2-5 day period, and (2) 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.    The detention basin shall

be designed and constructed in such a manner to avoid any intrusion into the adjoining Resource Conservation District (RCD).

44.              Certification of Storage Capacity:  That the Homeowners’ Associationshall 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.

45.              Bio-Retention: That the plans shall be revised to either (1) establish a bio-retention area on the site and provide the proposed bio-retention area design, including a list of acceptable plant species; or (2) incorporate bio-retention elements into the proposed detention basin, including a list of acceptable plant species, subject to the approval of the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

46.              Drainage Easements:  That all stormwater infrastructure shall be included a drainage easements that have a minimum width of 30 feet.  These easements shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

47.              Operations and Maintenance:  That a stormwater drainage operations and maintenance plan shall be developed, and approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  The Homeowners’ Association shall have sole responsibility for the implementation of the stormwater drainage operations and maintenance plan.

Affordable Housing Stipulations

48.              That the developer shall identify and reserve no fewer than 30 dwelling units in The Homestead development as “affordable units,” in accordance with the following conditions:

Ø      That the affordable units shall only be available for private ownership and occupancy.  Homeowner covenants shall be established to prevent rental of these units.

Ø      That the affordable units shall be priced so as to be affordable for Qualified Buyers.  Qualified Buyers shall be defined as individuals or families with gross incomes equal to 80% or less of the median family income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Ø      Each Qualified Buyer shall deliver to the Developer written evidence, acknowledged in writing by the Orange Community Housing Corporation (or alternative
organization as approved by the Town Manager), that such buyer has been officially determined to be a Qualified Buyer.

Ø      That mechanisms shall be established to guarantee that the 30 affordable units shall be permanently affordable and available to Qualified Buyers, subject to the approval of the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing Corporation (or alternative organization as approved by the Town Manager).

Ø      That 15 of the affordable units shall be constructed and available for occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 75^th unit.  All 30 of the affordable units shall be constructed and available for occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 120^th unit.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

49.              Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations and the lighting plan for the site, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

50.              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.

51.              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.

52.              Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, shall be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  A performance guarantee shall be required, in accordance with the Town Code of Ordinances, and the guarantee shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of any permit authorizing land-disturbing activity. 

53.              Open Burning: That no open burning shall be permitted during the construction of this development.

54.              Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

55.              Construction Sign Required: That the applicant shall post a construction site identification sign following the issuance of a building permit, prior to the start of any construction activity on the site. The sign’s message shall include the following:

A.  Project Name;

B.   Identification of Property Owner’s representative (including phone number);

C.  Identification of architects, engineers, contractors, and other individuals or firms involved with the construction (including phone numbers); and

D.  Identification of the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department (including phone number) as the contact for regulatory information.

The construction sign may have a maximum display area of 16 square feet, and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

56.              Plant Rescue: That the applicant is encouraged to conduct a “plant rescue” for this site, after issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to the start of construction.

57.              Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

58.              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 The Homestead.

This the 25^th day of June, 2001. 

ATTACHMENT # 3

RESOLUTION  B

                                                                                                       (Planning Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOMESTEAD  (2001-06-25/R-19b)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a Portion of Lot 12 (PIN#s: 9880-01-0417 and 9870-92-6174), if developed according to the site plan prepared on February 9, 2001, 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 this Resolution of Approval shall only be valid with the approval of a Zoning Atlas Amendment changing the zoning of the site listed above to Residential-4-Conditional, by both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Homestead 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.                  Traffic Signal:  That Stipulation #5(B) of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

“That a payment-in-lieu shall be provided for a percentage of the cost of the traffic signal at the Homestead Road/Weaver Dairy Road intersection, and this payment-in-lieu shall be returned if the signal has not been installed after 5 years.”

3.                  Homestead Road Improvements:  That stipulation #6 of Resolution A shall be deleted.

4.                  Vehicular Parking:  Stipulation # 11 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

“Parking shall not exceed 113.4% of the minimum parking requirements (2.0 spaces for each three-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for each one or two-bedroom unit).  A maximum of 433 parking spaces shall be allowed.”

5.                  Bicycle Parking:  That stipulation #14 of Resolution A be revised as follows:

“That required bicycle parking shall be limited to a total of ten U-Racks (one for each overflow parking area), and 30 covered spaces for the affordable housing units.”

6.                  Pedestrian Path:  That stipulation #35 of Resolution A be revised as follows:

“That the developer shall construct a pedestrian path or provide a payment-in-lieu for construction of an improved path from Street ‘B’ to the perennial stream that bisects the site, in order to provide access to the land in the southwest corner of the site.  We note that such a pedestrian path will include a bridge crossing in the Resource Conservation District.  The developer shall be required to revegetate any portions of the Resource Conservation District that are disturbed while constructing the bridge crossing.  The developer shall not be required to construct a pedestrian path on the south side of the bridge.”

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 The Homestead. 

This the 25^th day of June, 2001. 

ATTACHMENT # 4 

RESOLUTION  C

                                                                                              (Transportation Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOMESTEAD  (2001-06-25/R-19c)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a Portion of Lot 12 (PIN#s: 9880-01-0417 and 9870-92-6174), if developed according to the site plan prepared on February 9, 2001, 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 this Resolution of Approval shall only be valid with the approval of a Zoning Atlas Amendment changing the zoning of the site listed above to Residential-4-Conditional, by both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Homestead 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.                  Vehicular Parking:  That stipulation # 11 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

“Parking shall not exceed 104.7% of the minimum parking requirements (2.0 spaces for each three-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for each one or two-bedroom unit).  A maximum of 400 parking spaces shall be allowed.”

3.                  Integration of Affordable Housing:  That the affordable housing units shall be integrated throughout the development rather than being clustered in the northwest corner of the site. 

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 The Homestead. 

This the 25^th day of June, 2001. 

ATTACHMENT # 5 

RESOLUTION  D

                                                                   (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOMESTEAD  (2001-06-25/R-19d)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a Portion of Lot 12 (PIN#s: 9880-01-0417 and 9870-92-6174), if developed according to the site plan prepared on February 9, 2001, 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 this Resolution of Approval shall only be valid with the approval of a Zoning Atlas Amendment changing the zoning of the site listed above to Residential-4-Conditional, by both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Homestead 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.                  Weaver Dairy Road Extension:  That stipulation #4 (C) of Resolution A shall be as follows:

“That one-half of Weaver Dairy Road (the eastern half) shall be constructed, extending from the southern to northern property line of this site, as a 30-foot wide cross-section from back-of-curb to back-of-curb, including curb and gutter, one 11-foot wide travel lane, one 15-foot wide travel lane, a 3-foot planter strip and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk.”

3.                  Sidewalk/Driveway Crossings:  That contrasting pavement material be used for sidewalks where they are crossed by driveways.

4.                  Bus Stop:  That stipulation # 10 of Resolution A shall be as follows:

“That the applicant submit a payment-in-lieu of a bus stop, including pad, bench, shelter and bicycle racks, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

5.                  Bicycle Storage Units:  That the 30 affordable dwelling units be constructed with storage units that would meet the Class I bicycle parking requirements.

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 The Homestead. 

This the 25^th day of June, 2001. 

ATTACHMENT # 6 

RESOLUTION  E

                                                                                          (Greenways Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOMESTEAD  (2001-06-25/R-19e)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a Portion of Lot 12 (PIN#s: 9880-01-0417 and 9870-92-6174), if developed according to the site plan prepared on February 9, 2001, 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 this Resolution of Approval shall only be valid with the approval of a Zoning Atlas Amendment changing the zoning of the site listed above to Residential-4-Conditional, by both the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Homestead 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.                  Fill in Pond/Create Field:  That the developer shall remove the existing security fence, fill in the pond, and create a level field on the site of the pond.

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 The Homestead. 

This the 25^th day of June, 2001. 

ATTACHMENT # 7

RESOLUTION  F

(Denying the Application)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOMESTEAD  (2001-06-25/R-19f)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 16 and a Portion of Lot 12 (PIN#s: 9880-01-0417 and 9870-92-6174), if developed according to the site plan prepared on February 9, 2001, 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 The Homestead.

This the 25^th day of June, 2001.