AGENDA #4

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: Public Hearing: Cross Creek Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 25.2 and 2C)

Date: February 18, 2002

Introduction

We have received a request for Preliminary Plat approval of the Cross Creek Subdivision located on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road between Timberlyne Drive and Cedar Hills Drive approximately one mile east of Airport Road. The 12.78-acre site is immediately west and north of the Cedar Hills neighborhood and east of the Kitchen property (AKA Britt Farm). The applicant is proposing to develop 17 residential lots. Proposed access is from Weaver Dairy Road.

The proposal involves two parcels owned by Charles C. and Linda Pulliam. Two houses exist on the site and are proposed to be incorporated into the subdivision. The site is located in the Residential (R-1) zoning district. Portions of the site are located in two areas of Resource Conservation District comprising 3.2-acres. Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the application.

This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:

· Cover Memorandum: Introduces application, describes process for review, summarizes staff and advisory board comments, and offers recommendations for Council action.

· Staff Report: Offers detailed description of site and proposed development.

· Attachments: Includes a checklist of requirements for this development, resolutions of approval and denial, advisory board comments, and applicant’s materials.

Background

Preliminary Plat approval authorizes the division of land. Assuming approval of the Preliminary Plat, we expect the lots in this subdivision to be used for construction of single-family homes. However, we note that two-family dwellings, places of worship, child day care facilities, and non-profit recreation facilities are permitted uses on lots in the Residential-1 zoning district.

PROCESS

This is an application for a Preliminary Plat approval. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of a Preliminary Plat application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it against Town standards; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.

We note that review of subdivision proposals differs from review of Special Use Permits in that the question of compliance with regulations and standards is the basis for approval or denial, rather than the four findings of fact listed in Article 18 of the Development Ordinance. However, the Council’s review and action on a subdivision is quasi-judicial, with sworn testimony and evidence entered into the record. Please see the attached summary of key differences between legislative and quasi-judicial zoning decisions, prepared by Mr. David Owens of the Institute of Government.

The standard of review and approval of a Preliminary Plat application involves comparing the application with the regulations and standards in the Development Ordinance. The review typically focuses on vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, traffic impact, public improvements, lot standards, and recreation area.

Information regarding this application will be presented at tonight’s Public Hearing. The Development Ordinance directs that if, after consideration of the information, the Council decides that the application meets all the Development Ordinance requirements, the application must be approved. If the Council decides that the application does not meet all the Development Ordinance requirements, the application accordingly must be denied.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The application is for a preliminary plat to subdivide 12.78 acres into a residential subdivision. The applicant is proposing to develop 17 lots. Currently, two houses exist on two separate tracts owned by Charles C. and Linda Pulliam. Tract 1 is 2.2 acres and contains a single family dwelling. Tract 2 is 10.73-acres and also contains a single-family home. Both of these homes are proposed to be incorporated within the proposed subdivision and are proposed to have access to the new subdivision road. Currently, the two homes share a joint driveway off of Weaver Dairy Road. In accordance with the restrictions in Section 13.11 of the Development Ordinance (“Major Subdivision and Planned Development-Housing Floor Area Restrictions”) house size limits are proposed for 3 of the lots. One of the three restricted size homes is proposed to be the existing dwelling on Tract 1.

A total of .91 acres of recreation area is required for this subdivision. The applicant is proposing to comply with the minimum recreation requirements be providing a payment-in-lieu of dedicating land.

A portion of the site is located in two separate areas of Resource Conservation District. The Resource Conservation District width for this site is 75 feet. The source of Cedar Fork Creek is east of Timberlyne Shopping Center. The site is in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

Evaluation of this application centers on compliance with the subdivision regulations and standards in the Development Ordinance. We have included as an Attachment of this memorandum a checklist of the Town’s subdivision regulations. The checklist indicates which of the Town’s regulations are satisfied by the applicant’s proposal and recommended conditions.

The Council may find that the proposal meets the subdivision regulations and other pertinent Town regulations, or may find that the proposal does not meet the regulations. Please refer to the attached Staff Report for detail on compliance with subdivision regulations.

KEY ISSUES

Based on our staff evaluation and comments received from Advisory Boards, we believe that the seven key issues concerning this proposed development are:

· Weaver Dairy Road improvements;

· Proposed subdivision road design;

· Location of the pedestrian easement;

· Deconstruction/reconstruction of the existing house for compliance for size-restricted housing;

· Location of the drainage easement;

· Stormwater management; and

· Planning Board’s secondary recommendation

Weaver Dairy Road Improvements: On January 14, 2002, the Council voted to request that:

That the NCDOT immediately suspend all planning, including engineering planning, for the widening of Weaver Dairy Road; and
Ask that any funds allocated by NCDOT not be allocated away from Chapel Hill until the Town communicates the result of its reconsideration of this issue; and
That the planning remain suspended until such time as the Chapel Hill Town Council reconsiders its earlier decision, and formally communicates the results of its reconsideration to the NCDOT.

A staff evaluation of the Cross Creek Subdivision proposal was conducted by staff and prepared for advisory board review prior to this January 14 action. Our January Planning Staff Report, that was transmitted to advisory boards, indicated that the applicant is proposing to dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way along the project’s 460 feet of Weaver Dairy Road frontage and provide a payment-in-lieu for improvements to this Weaver Dairy Road frontage. The payment-in-lieu, as proposed, was to be based on one-half of the four-lane, median divided cross-section, to include a planted median of 15.5 feet, an eleven foot travel lane, an outside lane widened to include bicycle passage at 14 feet, 30-inch curb and gutter, and a 10-foot area to include a sidewalk and landscape strips on each side of the sidewalk. The January 8 Staff Report recommended approval of the right-of-way dedication and proposed payment-in-lieu for road improvements.

Comment: The Manager’s preliminary recommendation, Resolution A, reflects the January 14 Council action. We recommend that the applicant dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way on the Weaver Dairy Road frontage and provide a payment-in-lieu for curb and gutter and for sidewalk with no payment for road widening because the ultimate cross-section of the roadway continues to be discussed. Resolution A includes this recommendation.

2. Subdivision Road Design: The applicant’s proposed subdivision road does not contain the Town standard cross-section for a subdivision street. At issue is the curb and gutter dimension. The Town’s standard for curb and gutter is 30-inches and the applicant is proposing a 24-inch curb and gutter. Other street standards have been met with the applicant’s proposal including a 50-foot right-of-way, a 22-foot pavement section, and a 5-foot sidewalk.

At the January 15, 2002 Transportation Board meeting, the Board proposed the subdivision street be constructed with two 10’ travel lanes in order to reduce the amount of impervious surface. The Board also recommended that the subdivision road have 5’ sidewalks on both sides of the street. The applicant proposes to have sidewalks on one side.

Comment: We do not recommend the cross-section proposed by the Transportation Board. We recommend the Town standard with two 11-foot travel lanes and 30-inch curb and gutter. With 17 lots proposed, we believe the 11-foot travel lanes proposed by the applicant are appropriate. We recommend the 30-inch curb and gutter for better control of stormwater as well as improved long term maintenance. The additional 6 inches is added to the gutter width increasing the carrying capacity for accumulated storm water in the gutter. The increased width also provides for a larger area for vehicle tires when circumstances arise that require vehicles to get close to the curb. Cracking of the concrete gutter is also a problem with a width less than 30 inches.

We recommend that either the Town standard cross-section or the recommended alternative cross-section be selected for the subdivision road design. The alternative cross-section is described as follows:

· a 30-foot right-of-way

· a 22-foot pavement section

· 5-foot sidewalk adjoining the street on one side

· a 3-foot shoulder and

· swales in a drainage easement outside the right-of-way.

The Town standard subdivision road is typical in new subdivisions in Chapel Hill. The recommended alternative cross-section provides a response to issues raised concerning impervious surface and stormwater runoff as they affect downstream drainage concerns. Swales allow for stormwater runoff to be slowly absorbed into the ground close to its source rather than collected by gutters and inlets to pipes and released at a farther destination contributing to runoff farther away from the source. Resolution A, the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, would allow either the Town standard cross-section or the recommended alternative cross-section. Furthermore, we note that an additional condition requires a shifting of the street alignment, so that a 31-inch oak tree located centrally on the site be preserved.

3. Location of Pedestrian Easement: A platted pedestrian easement exists abutting the eastern property line of the proposed Cross Creek Subdivision. The easement was located at its current location when Orange County had planning jurisdiction over this area. Such pedestrian easements are typical of others recorded during this same time period in order to ensure the connectivity of existing neighborhoods to future parcels remaining undeveloped. The existing pedestrian easement is located on terrain that is hilly and wet. No improvements have been made in the existing easement.

Comment: We believe that though the location is not in desirable terrain for a pedestrian easement, techniques for designing pedestrian connections that are safe and environmentally sound are available and could be applied to this location. We believe that it is important to retain these opportunities for links between neighborhoods, neighborhood amenities, schools, and other pedestrian connectors. We don not recommend any improvements to the existing easement at this time.

We recommend that a 20-foot, unimproved pedestrian connection be incorporated into the proposed subdivision design. This unimproved pedestrian corridor would connect to the existing pedestrian easement in the Cedar Hills neighborhood. The recommended pedestrian easement is to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association. Resolution A includes the requirement.

4. Deconstruction/Reconstruction of Existing House for Compliance with Restricted House

Size: We note that the use of an existing house to meet the Development Ordinance requirements for a restricted house size lot (Article 13.11) is a new approach to complying with the ordinance. The existing house on Lot 16 is proposed to meet the ordinance by deconstructing existing floor area to limit overall floor area to 1,350 square feet. The applicant has proposed a method for down-sizing the existing dwelling. Currently, there appears to be approximately 2,127 square feet of floor area, on two floors. On the first floor approximately 1,287 square feet of floor area exists and on the second floor approximately 840 square feet of floor area. The applicant proposes to:

1. Deconstruct the existing stairway to the second floor and replace it with a pull-down ladder; remove all plumbing fixtures from the second floor; and cap the water pipe leading to the second floor; and,

2. Enclose a portion of the side porch adjacent to the sunroom to bring the total square footage of the first floor to 1,350 square feet of floor area.

The Development Ordinance requires that the size limitation must remain in effect for one year following issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy for each structure.

Comment: We believe that this approach meets the ordinance requirement for restricted house size on the proposed Lot 16. Resolution A, the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, would authorize the proposed deconstruction of the existing house.

5. Location of the Drainage Easement: The drainage easement located along the eastern top of the Resource Conservation District buffer, is shown on the plans as being 30 feet in width overall, with 20 feet outside the Resource Conservation District and 10 feet inside the Resource Conservation District. The drainage easement is proposed to contain constructed stormwater facilities, vegetated swales and level spreaders.

Comment: The Development Ordinance requires that land disturbance proposed in the Resource Conservation District shall be kept minimal. We believe that for maintenance of the proposed stormwater structures, 10 feet must be available for equipment to clean, regrade, and perform regular maintenance of these structures to ensure effective functioning. We recommend that the drainage easement be located entirely outside the Resource Conservation District in order for the Resource Conservation District to remain undisturbed. Resolution A includes a stipulation to this effect.

Stormwater Management: Throughout the review of this subdivision proposal, downstream stormwater impact has been a key issue. Downstream properties experience flooding.

Comment: Stormwater management is an issue reviewed at several stages during the development review process. Initially, a stormwater impact analysis is required as a Preliminary Plat submittal requirement. The applicant’s original stormwater impact analysis was inadequate. During our initial staff review, we requested additional information about the adequacy of the existing waterways to handle the stormwater flows. The applicant responded with additional information. In response, the developer has provided the following information in a follow-up letter to staff dated October 16, 2001:

We believe that the portion of the drainage channel immediately downstream of this property is a manmade drainageway constructed at the time of the initial development of Cedar Hills Subdivision. On the Alster series topographic maps, commissioned by UNC in 1974, the natural drainageway can be clearly seen crossing the now existing lot downstream of the project in a diagonal manner. An already flat slope for this stream therefore became even flatter when a ditch for the stream was constructed along the north and east edges of that lot, as exists today. The Town of Chapel Hill recently participated in upsizing the drainage pipes beneath the downstream owner’s driveway, but the remaining constriction of flow, if any, might well be the pipe beneath Cedar Hills Drive, where Cedar Fork Creek meets an unnamed tributary and then proceeds on the south side of Silo Drive. Our observation is that the drainage pipe beneath Cedar Hills Drive has a circular cross-section and may not be providing sufficient cross-sectional area until the backwater off that pipe reaches a critical depth.

The design response of the applicant, given the belief that the problems identified downstream are related to existing construction in the natural floodplain of Cedar Fork Creek, has been to institute stormwater detention and stormwater quality measures into the subdivision design, even though not required to do so under the existing Development Ordinance. We believe, as outlined in separate materials included with the resubmittal, that we have at least, by minimizing the onsite impervious surface, by utilizing oversized stormwater pipes and restricted outlets, and by providing vegetated swales and level spreaders outside the RCD, made the drainage situation downstream no worse than it is today. We also believe that it is not the burden of this applicant to provide the solution for mistakes made by regulatory jurisdictions in the past.” [Applicant’s materials]

In the above statement the applicant provides information about the downstream conditions and proposes on-site stormwater facilities with a commitment to not make drainage situation downstream worse. Accordingly, we have included stipulations in the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, Resolution A, that would require the proposed on-site drainage facilities and require that documentation be provided demonstrating that off-site conditions after development will be no worse than they are today. Our standard stipulation has been modified to read as follows:

Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall demonstrate that the drainage situation downstream with the subdivision proposal is no worse than it is on the date of this adopted resolution, according to methodology approved by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainageway easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

Planning Board Secondary Recommendation: The Planning Board has recommended that the Council ask the Town Manager to arrange for a study of the downstream stormwater management issues, particularly as they relate to the size of the culvert under Cedar Hills Drive. The study, as recommended, would not be tied to this subdivision proposal.

Comment: We have included a resolution representing the Planning Board’s secondary recommendation. If the Town Council adopts the resolution, we will add this to the list of items requiring study and conduct further study of the downstream situation as time permits.

The attached Resolution F, if adopted, would ask the Town Manager to arrange for such a study.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. The key special conditions that we recommend are described in detail in the accompanying staff report. With this application, we believe that the Council could recommend approval.

The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

SUBSEQUENT REGULATORY STEPS

Following is a brief outline describing the next steps in the development review process, should the Council approve the Preliminary Plat application:

1. Applicant receives the clerk-certified copy of the Council-adopted resolution;

2. Applicant submits detailed Final Plans and documentation, complying with Council stipulations. Information is reviewed by Town departments and the following agencies:

· Orange Water and Sewer Authority,

· Duke Power company,

· Public Service Company, and

· BellSouth.

3. Upon demonstration of compliance with remaining Council stipulations, Town staff issues a Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing site work. Permit includes conditions specific to the development and requires pre-construction conferences with Town staff;

4. Engineering Department issues an Engineering Construction Permit, authorizing work within the public right-of-way;

5. Applicant submits final plat application for Town review and approval. Once approved, the plat is recorded; and

6. Inspections Department issues Building Permits for development on individual lots and Certificates of Occupancy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this proposal on January 8, 2002 and voted 6-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the following conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

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

· Board Recommendation: That stipulation #6 requiring an alternative road design in order to preserve the 31” white oak be deleted. The applicant and Planning Board both felt that the road in this portion of the site was proposed in the best location following the contours across the property. The applicant stated that he had looked at several different designs for the road.

Comment: We have included the stipulation requiring preservation of the 31-inch oak in the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, Resolution A. It is a specimen deciduous tree in moderate condition. It is also the only deciduous tree on the property of such proportion. The subdivision road realignment would change the configuration of several lots on the southern portion of the site. Resolution A requires the retention of the white oak tree and that the applicant include tree protection fencing around the critical root zone of the tree as a part of a Landscape Protection Plan.

· Board Recommendation: That the pedestrian connection be a twenty-foot, unimproved easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.

Comment: We have included this stipulation in the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, Stipulation # 8.

· Board Recommendation: That the stipulation requiring a Type “B” buffer along the western property line be deleted.

Comment: We have deleted this buffer requirement stipulation. It was made in error. No buffer is required between a major subdivision and vacant land or land used for a single dwelling.

· Board Recommendation: That the width of the drainage easement be 30 feet in a drainage easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association outside the Resource Conservation District.

Comment: We have included this stipulation in the Manager’s preliminary recommendation: The 30-foot drainage easement along the eastern top of the Resource Conservation District must have its full 30 foot width entirely out of the Resource Conservation District. It is anticipated that routine maintenance will require 10 feet around the constructed stormwater drainage structures. Given the area required for maintenance and to minimize land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District, the storm drainage easement should be located entirely outside the Resource Conservation District.

· Board Recommendation: That stipulation #27 describing construction vehicle traffic in the Construction Management Plan provide for an exception. The Plan states that no construction vehicles serving the site use streets in the Cedar Hills Subdivision. A sewer line extension from a sewer line located on Cedar Hills Drive is proposed to be accessed from the eastern property line.

Comment: We have included this exception to the Construction Management Plan (stipulation #27) in the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, Resolution A.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Board reviewed this application on January 15, 2002 and voted 4 – 3 to recommend that Council adopt Resolution C. Resolution C differs from the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, on the following issues:

· Board Recommendation: That the proposed local street be constructed with two 10’ travel lanes.

Comment: We believe that The Transportation Board’s recommendation for reduced width of travelway pavement from the recommended 11 feet to 10 feet reduces impervious surface but at the same time may impact maneuverability of normal subdivision traffic as well as service vehicle access to the subdivision. When there is on-street parking, the problem of clearance would be compounded. We have not included this stipulation in the Manager’s preliminary recommendation.

· Board Recommendation: The Board recommended that 5-foot sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the subdivision road.

Comment: We have not included this recommendation in Resolution A, the Manager’s preliminary recommendation. We believe that a single sidewalk is sufficient to serve this subdivision and the increase in impervious surface is not recommended.

· Board Recommendation: The Board recommended that the developer be required to provide a small neighborhood park rather than payment-in-lieu for recreation improvements.

Comment: We have not included this recommendation in Resolution A. We believe that a small park would not be justified. We believe that the community park, Cedar Falls Park, located within a mile of the subdivision, is better equipped to provide all ages with a wide variety of recreational opportunities.

Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission: The Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission met on January 18, 2002 to review this development proposal. They voted 8 – 0 to recommend that the Council approve the plan for the Cross Creek Subdivision with the following stipulation:

· That the developer provide a payment-in-lieu of providing recreation area. The Commission recommends that payment-in-lieu proceeds be used at Cedar Falls Park and/or the Dry Creek Greenway.

Comment: We have included this recommendation in Resolutions A, B, and D. The stipulation requires a payment-in-lieu for a minimum of .91 acres of recreation area for this development. We have included the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation that the proceeds be used at Cedar Falls Park and/or Dry Creek Greenway.

Bicycle and Pedestrian’s Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this subdivision application on January 22, 2002 and voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution D. The Board supported the pedestrian connection requiring an unimproved, 20-foot wide easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council approve the Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Resolution A.

Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board.

Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board.

Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

Resolution E would recommend that the Council deny the application.

Resolution F provides the secondary recommendation of the Planning Board regarding Town study of the Cedar Hills Drive drainage situation.

Cross Creek Subdivision

Preliminary Plat

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE

Resolution A

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation

Resolution B

Planning Board’s Recommendation

Resolution C

Transportation Board’s Recommendation

Resolution D

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation

Weaver Dairy Road Improvements

Payment-in-lieu of curb&gutter and sidewalk

Payment-in-lieu of ½ of a 4-lane median divided cross-section

Redesign subdivision road to preserve oak tree

Yes

*

Yes

Pedestrian easement 20’ & unimproved

Yes

Type “B” buffer requirement removed

Yes

Drainage Easement outside the RCD

Yes

Construction Management Plan to allow sewer extension

Yes

Subdivision street (2) 11’ travel lanes

Yes

No (10’ lanes)

Yes

5-foot sidewalks on one side of subdivision street

Yes

No (both sides)

Yes

Developer provide payment-in-lieu for recreation area

Yes

No (park)

Yes

Expanded Stormwater Management Stipulation

Yes

* Issue was not discussed at this particular meeting and is therefore not included in this Resolution

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Report (p. 14).

2. Checklist of Compliance with Subdivision Regulations (p. 25).

3. Resolution A (p. 26).

4. Resolution B (p. 33).

5. Resolution C (p. 34).

6. Resolution D (p. 35).

7. Resolution E (p. 36).

8. Resolution F (p. 37).

9. Summary of Planning Board Action (p. 38).

10. Summary of Transportation Board Action (p. 39).

11. Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action (p. 40).

12. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 41).

13. Summary of Key Differences Between Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Zoning Decisions (p. 42).

14. Subdivision Fact Sheet (p. 43).

15. Applicant Materials (p. 45)

16. Reduced Plans (p. 47)

17. Letters from Citizens (p. 51).

ATTACHMENT 1

Staff Report

Subject: Public Hearing: Cross Creek Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 7.25..2, 2C)

Date: February 18, 2002

Introduction

We have received a request for Preliminary Plat approval of the Cross Creek Subdivision located off Weaver Dairy Road between Timberlyne Drive and Cedar Hills Drive, about one mile east of Airport Road. The 12.78-acre site is immediately north and west of the Cedar Hills neighborhood and east of the property known as Britt Farm. The applicant is proposing to develop 17 residential lots. Access to the site is from Weaver Dairy Road.

Two areas of Resource Conservation District exist on the site associated with Cedar Fork Creek. Approximately 3.2-acres are in the Cedar Fork Creek Resource Conservation District. The greatest area of Resource Conservation District traverses the middle of the site. A smaller area of Resource Conservation District occurs at the extreme southern tip of the site. The property is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district. The site is in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C.

Attached are the Subdivision Fact Sheet, citizen letters, letter from the developer, and reduced plans.

Background

Preliminary Plat approval authorizes the division of land. Assuming approval of the Preliminary Plat, we expect the lots in this subdivision to be used for construction of single-family homes. However, we note that two-family dwellings (a dwelling unit with an accessory apartment), places of worship, child day care facilities, and non-profit recreation facilities are permitted uses on lots in the Residential-1 zoning district subject to some restrictions. In this case, the applicant’s proposal is based on single-family dwelling use of these proposed lots.

Evaluation

We have reviewed the application for compliance with the standards of the Development Ordinance and offer the following evaluation:

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Location: This 12.78-acre site involves two lots both owned by Charles and Linda Pulliam. Tract 1 is 2.2-acres and contains a single-family dwelling. Tract 2 is 10.375-acres and also contains a single-family home. Both of these homes are proposed to be incorporated within the proposed
subdivision and are proposed to have access to the new subdivision road rather than a driveway onto Weaver Dairy Road. Currently, the two homes share a joint driveway off of Weaver Dairy Road.

The site is located on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road and to the west and north of Cedar Hills Subdivision and to the east of the Kitchen property (AKA Britt Farm). The property is approximately one mile east of Airport Road between Timberlyne Drive, part of Timberlyne Subdivision and Cedar Hills Drive, part of Cedar Hills Subdivision. The site is crossed by Cedar Fork Creek and contains two associated Resource Conservation District areas. The creek is centered within a fifty foot drainage easement located in the middle of the site. An existing seventy-five foot wide area of Resource Conservation District extends on each side of the creek’s banks.

Access: The northern portion of the site is accessible by vehicle from a gravel driveway at Weaver Dairy Road. The two existing houses on the site share this joint access. The southern half of the site is undeveloped and accessible on foot.

Topography, Drainage and Vegetative Cover: The topography varies from steeply sloping above the creek banks to areas of relative flatness. Generally, the land starting at Weaver Dairy Road is slightly sloped to the south and remains generally flat for the first third of the site. The land begins to descend to the drainage area of Cedar Fork Creek with greater steepness and then to flatten out at the creek margins. The land climbs again in the second third of the site. The highest point on the site is 520 feet above sea level and occurs adjacent to the old Britt Farm property along a ridge line dividing the property into two mini watersheds. The southern third of the site south of the ridge line drains to a tributary of Cedar Fork Creek. The steepest slopes on the site, greater than 25%, occur along the tributary margins at the southern most portion of the site. Both the tributary and Cedar Fork Creek flow southeast to Eastwood Lake and the greater drainage basin of Booker Creek. Upstream of the development is the Cedar Fork Creek watershed. There are no 100-year flood areas on the site.

The site is a vegetative mix of immature and mature pine trees, mixed with hardwoods. A 31” diameter at breast height (dbh) white oak and a 33” diameter at breast height pine tree are the largest trees inventoried on the site. Several other significant pine trees exist primarily in the Resource Conservation District.

Existing Structures: There are two existing houses on the site. Both are occupied single-family structures, with outbuildings. They are both to be included as part of the proposed subdivision.

We understand the applicant proposes to utilize one of the two existing homes as fulfillment for the Housing Floor Area Restrictions requirement for a major subdivision application.

Easements: An existing 30-foot OWASA easement cuts across the extreme southern tip of the property through the Resource Conservation District occurring there.

There are two easements that abut the edge of the site on the eastern side of the development: a 30-foot pedestrian easement between Lots 7 and 7A of the Cedar Hills Subdivision and a thirty-foot OWASA sanitary sewer easement between lots 5 and 7 of the same subdivision.

Zoning: This property is located in the Residential -1 zoning district. Adjacent on both sides is Residential-1. Across Weaver Dairy Road is Coventry, a Residential-4 neighborhood. Carol Woods Retirement Center is located diagonally to the site and is zoned Residential- 5. Property zoned Residential-3 is also across the street.

Comprehensive Plan: The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this site and adjacent properties to the east, west, and south as Low Residential (1-4 units per acre). The Land Use Category for properties to the north across the street on Weaver Dairy Road is both medium (4-8 units/acre) and high residential (8-15 units/acres).

ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

Housing Floor Area Restrictions: As a Major Subdivision application, this proposal is subject to Article 13.11 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. Based on Section 13.11, this proposal is required to restrict the size of houses that may be constructed on 3 of the proposed residential lots. One of these lots must be restricted so that the house that is initially constructed does not exceed 1,100 square feet of floor area. Two lots must be restricted so that the houses initially built do not exceed 1,350 square feet of floor area. The submitted site plan identifies 3 lots on which a size-limited unit must be located: lots #2, #16, and #17.

The existing house on the west side of the property is proposed to be part of Lot 1 and the existing house on the east is to be Lot 16. Lot 17 is proposed to be a newly created lot between Weaver Dairy Road and the existing house. Lot 2 is proposed to contain a dwelling constructed of no more than 1,100 square feet of floor area. Both Lot 16 and 17 are planned to be size-restricted to 1,350 square feet each. The developer proposes to reduce the floor area of the existing house on Lot 16 in order to satisfy the limit of 1,350 square feet of floor area.

The applicant has proposed a method for down-sizing the existing dwelling on Lot 16. Currently, there appears to be approximately 2,127 square feet of floor area, on two floors. On the first floor is approximately 1,287 square feet of floor area and on the second floor approximately 840 square feet of floor area. The applicant proposes to:

2. Enclose a portion of the side porch adjacent to the sunroom to bring the total square footage of the first floor to 1,350 square feet of floor area.

We recommend that the proposed deconstruction be completed prior to Town approval of the Final Subdivision Plat.

The size limitation must remain in effect for one year following issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy for each structure. We recommend that a stipulation of Resolutions A require that a note be placed on the final plans and plats indicating the specific lots and floor area restrictions for each lot on which size limitations are placed and that this restriction be included in restrictive covenants for the subdivision as well.

Steep Slopes: Subsection 14.4.2 (Site Design) of the Development Ordinance addresses proposed development and steep slopes. The provisions call for minimal grading and site disturbance as well as specialized site design techniques in areas of steep slopes. Several portions of this site contain land slopes of between 10 and 20 percent and some in excess of 25%. We recommend that any construction proposed in areas greater than 10% provide an explanation of how construction will address minimizing land disturbance on the steep slopes. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Intensity Regulations: The proposed lots meet the Development Ordinance standards for Minimum Gross Land Area and Minimum Lot Width under requirements of Section 13.11.

DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION

This proposed development is for a 17-lot development on 12.78 acres. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Weaver Dairy Road. The proposed development also includes a street stub-out to the Kitchen property on the west. A temporary turnaround easement is proposed to be constructed on Lot 7. It is believed that if the Kitchen Property is developed, a loop road could be designed to connect the two developments for better vehicular circulation.

As noted earlier, the applicant is proposing to limit the building footprint on 3 lots to satisfy the small house regulations of Section 13.11 of the Development Ordinance. Two of these size-restricted dwellings are proposed to be new construction and one is proposed to be a renovation of an existing home which will include a reduction in square footage. We note that all three of the size-restricted houses are clustered in the northern portion of the site at the entrance to the subdivision.

All homesites proposed for the development are outside the Resource Conservation District and the 100-year flood plain. The source of Cedar Fork Creek begins upstream of this development generally to the east of Airport Road and drains less than a mile. The drainage area includes the pond on the neighboring Britt Farm.

Recreation Requirements: The Development Ordinance requires that a certain percentage of subdivision land be set aside for recreation area for the residents. The minimum recreation area requirement in the Residential-1 zoning district for this development is .91-acres. The applicant is proposing to comply with the minimum recreation requirement by providing a payment in lieu of dedicating land. Should the Town Council approve the provision of a payment-in-lieu, the Town must use the money to acquire or develop recreation land to serve the residents of the subdivision or residents in the area.

We recommend that the Town Council authorize the provision of a payment-in-lieu because of the close proximity of Cedar Falls Park to the subdivision, and because of the small size of recreation area required with this subdivision, less than an acre. We recommend that the applicant provide documentation in support of the amount of payment anticipated. We note that costs associated with appraisal of the fair market value of land shall be borne by the developer and recommend that documentation associated with the appraisal be included with the Final Plan application. The amount of payment must be approved by the Town Manager. A stipulation that a payment–in-lieu for recreation area be approved by the Town Manager and provided prior to approval of the final plat is included in Resolution A.

Pedestrian Trails: A Pedestrian Easement is incorporated into the design of the subdivision. Presently, a designated pedestrian easement abuts the site from the Cedar Hills Subdivision at the location of proposed Lot 12. The application proposes to extend the pedestrian easement into this subdivision. A 20-foot wide pedestrian easement is proposed to be located between Lots 11 and 12. The 20-foot pedestrian easement is proposed to include a six foot concrete path bordered with 4 foot fence on both sides of the easement. The path is proposed to connect with the proposed sidewalk within the new street right-of-way. The applicant proposes to have this easement controlled and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association through the covenants and restrictions for the subdivision. The applicant proposes that the easement be a part of Lots 11 and 12.

We recommend approval of an unimproved pedestrian connection. However, we do not recommend that the pedestrian connection be located as an easement on individual lots. We recommend that the proposed pedestrian connection be located on land owned and controlled by a Homeowners’ Association. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

TRANSPORTATION: ACCESS AND CIRCULATION

Primary access into the development is proposed from Weaver Dairy Road. The proposed site plan also includes a stub-out to the Kitchen property for future access at the time that the property is developed.

Weaver Dairy Road: Vehicular access for this site is proposed from Weaver Dairy Road. The existing joint driveway onto Weaver Dairy Road is proposed to be closed. Access to the existing two houses is proposed to be provided from the new subdivision road.

The applicant is proposing to dedicate an additional 15 foot right-of-way along the project’s 460 feet of Weaver Dairy Road frontage and provide a payment-in-lieu for improvements to this Weaver Dairy Road frontage. We note that the Council has asked that a letter be sent to the State Department of Transportation requesting that work be suspended on Weaver Dairy Road. Given the small amount of Weaver Dairy Road frontage associated with this application, we recommend acceptance of the proposed payment. We do not recommend a payment for road widening at this time. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that the applicant make a payment-in-lieu equivalent to the payment for sidewalk and curb and gutter. We recommend that a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

New Subdivision Road: The applicant is proposing a cross-section for the subdivision’s main street that varies from typical Town Standards. We summarize the situation as follows, with our recommendation:

Town Standard Cross-Section

Applicant’s Cross-Section

Recommended Alternative Cross-Section

Right-of-way: 50-foot to include a 22-foot pavement section, 30-inch curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalk.

Right-of-way: 50-foot to include a 22-foot pavement section, 24-inch curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalk.

Right-of-way: 30-foot to include a 22-foot pavement section with adjacent 5-foot sidewalk and a 3-foot shoulder, swales in private drainage easement outside the right-of-way

The street cross-section proposed for the new subdivision road does not meet the Town’s standard for a typical local street. We recommend that the applicant employ the Town Standard cross-section or consider the use of an alternative cross-section that we believe may better address storm water issues and occasional on-street parking.

We note that the applicant is proposing to install sidewalk on the west side of the subdivision road.

A stipulation with the recommendation that either the Town Standard cross-section or the alternative cross-section requirement be employed for the design of the subdivision road is included in Resolution A.

Traffic Impact: The initial subdivision application included a traffic impact study for 12 lots on 8.9 acres. No impact on traffic was expected on Weaver Dairy Road with 12 lots. We expect no additional, significant impact on traffic on Weaver Dairy road with the increase of 5 additional lots.

Construction Management Plan: Resolution A includes a recommendation that a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION

Buffer Requirements: The following landscape buffer is required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage with Weaver Dairy Road.

We note that the applicant has labeled the Weaver Dairy Road Type “D” buffer. The Weaver Dairy Road bufferyard is proposed to be deeded to the Cross Creek Homeowners’ Association and maintained through the covenants and restrictions of the subdivision.

Resolution A includes a stipulation that the applicant provide the minimum landscape bufferyard requirements, as listed above, and deed the area to the Homeowners’ Association.

Landscape and Tree Protection: A Landscape Protection Plan has been provided. Two specimen 25-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) pine trees and a specimen 31-inch dbh white oak are proposed to be removed for the construction of the subdivision road. There are few significant trees on the property. All of the significant trees are pines with the exception of the white oak. The white oak is in moderate condition. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring preservation of the 31-inch white oak.

A stipulation has been included in Resolution A that the Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

We recommend that the Landscape Protection Plan include protective fencing between construction and existing vegetation to be retained in the following locations:

a) The required landscape bufferyards;

b) The land designated for infrastructure construction; and

c) Adjacent to any construction within the Resource Conservation District.

We also recommend that tree protection fencing be installed between construction, including all required off-site infrastructure construction, and all specimen trees shown on the site plan as to remain. We recommend that all tree protection fencing be installed at a distance from the base of the tree equal to at least one foot for every inch of diameter at breast height (dbh).

We also recommend that Final Plans include a detailed planting plan indicating how the required bufferyards will be planted. These conditions have been included in Resolution A.

ENVIRONMENT

Watershed Protection District: This property is not within the Town's Watershed Protection District and, therefore, is not required to comply with either the low-density or high-density options of the Development Ordinance.

Resource Conservation District: Approximately 3.2 acres of Resource Conservation District are located on this site. The Resource Conservation District extends along Cedar Fork Creek drainage way through the middle of the site and at the southernmost tip of the property along a tributary of Cedar Fork Creek.

The applicant is proposing land disturbance within the Resource Conservation District in order to construct a bottomless pipe arched bridge to serve the new road which proposes to cross Cedar Fork Creek. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A that states that prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, requirements and standards of Subsection 5.6 of the Development Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be met.

We note that the Resource Conservation District extends onto proposed Lots 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15. We also note that the proposed site plan locates several infrastructure elements, (storm water drainage basins, drainage easements, and sewer lines) in close proximity to the Resource Conservation District boundary. Although not shown encroaching into the Resource Conservation District area, the infrastructure improvements and associated residential clearing and grading are close to the Resource Conservation District. We recommend that all required erosion control sediment basins, stormwater basins, infrastructure and residential construction, including associated clearing and grading, be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District. A stipulation restricting activities in the Resource Conservation District is included in Resolution A. With this recommended stipulation, we believe land disturbance within the Resource Conservation District will be minimal.

We recommend that the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be shown on the final plat and final plans with a note indicating that “Development in the Resource Conservation District shall be in accordance with Development Ordinance.” We recommend that no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District variance in order to be developed. These recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution A.

Stormwater Management:

Problems with flooding downstream from the proposed site, especially between the site and the adjacent residential lots along Cedar Hills Drive (on the west side of the street), have occurred in the past. The Town recently completed stormwater improvements in the area. The improvements included an upsized drainage pipe beneath a driveway on Cedar Hills Drive that carries the waters of Cedar Fork Creek downstream from the site.

The applicant has stated that problems identified downstream from the site are related to existing development in the natural floodplain of Cedar Fork Creek and secondly that a possibility exists that the pipe beneath Cedar Hills Drive may be constricting the flow where Cedar Fork Creek joins with an unnamed tributary.

The original channel of Cedar Fork Creek is believed to have been altered when the Cedar Hills Subdivision was developed. A 1974 topographic map shows Cedar Fork Creek crossing the property immediately downstream of the site in a diagonal direction. Today, the channel runs along the north and east edges of the lot at 110 Cedar Hills Drive.

Stormwater detention and stormwater quality measures are proposed on the subdivision site. Proposed measures include:

Utilizing oversized stormwater pipes and restricted outlets.
Providing vegetated swales outside the Resource Conservation District.
Providing level spreaders outside the Resource Conservation District.

The applicant has indicated that the drainage situation downstream will not be worsened, if this proposed development is accompanied by employment of these Best Management Practices.

The use of vegetated swales and level spreaders is designed to outlet the storm drainage water overland rather than through pipes. Level spreaders are proposed to act as settling basins for suspended solids and are proposed at the terminus of the grass swales. The stormwater is proposed to be released at the outer edges of the Resource Conservation District buffer via level spreaders that minimize point source impacts on the stream and maximize the natural vegetative scrubbing effect of the leaf litter within the stream buffer. The sand filter at the bottom of the level spreaders would include a drain pipe to release water into the Resource Conservation District. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A requiring that the level spreader be designed to adequately treat the first one inch of rainfall from the developed lots.

The grass swales are proposed to act as a biofilter due to the characteristics of the vegetation. The vegetation absorbs some pollutants and is intended to aid in the settlement of suspended solids within the runoff. The stormwater is given a chance to dissipate while the beneficial stormwater quality effect of the grass lining the swales occurs. Final design and locations are to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This stipulation is included in Resolution A.

The 20-foot wide drainage easements on the outside edge of each side of the Resource Conservation District are proposed to contain the swales that will be maintained by the Homeowners’ Association. We recommend that all stormwater management improvements outside the public right-of-way be located within storm drainage way easements in accordance with Town guidelines. These guidelines require a 30 foot minimum width drainage way easement. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that requires a 30 foot drainage way easement. We also recommend that these stormwater maintenance features not be permitted within an approved landscaped bufferyard area. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect.

The applicant has designed the creek crossing for the new road as a bottomless arch pipe structure. This design is believed to be an environmentally sensitive solution for the Resource Conservation District as it leaves a large area undisturbed.

Stormwater detention is proposed that will utilize oversized pipes and restricted outlets to maintain post-development discharge rates at pre-development discharge rates below a certain rainfall intensity.

We recommend that, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for Town Manager approval. The plan shall demonstrate that the drainage situation downstream with the subdivision proposal is no worse than it is on the date of this adopted resolution according to methodology approved by the Town Manager. We recommend that the plan be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate does not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. This stipulation is included in Resolution A.

Erosion Control: Resolution A includes a stipulation 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. The recommended resolution also requires that all erosion control sediment basins, including associated clearing and grading, be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.

UTILITIES AND SERVICES

Utilities: The proposed installation of sewer line in the development will not involve land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District. The existing 30 foot OWASA easement abutting the subdivision is proposed to be used to extend sanitary sewer lines to the proposed development. The new easement on the site is proposed between Lots 13 and 14. In order to install sanitary sewer, a thirty foot swath is cleared for the utility corridor. We recommend that tree protection fencing be installed along the cleared corridor.

Lot 3, as proposed, would contain a 30 foot OWASA easement on the west side of the new subdivision road. The proposed sewer easement stubs out at the property line of the Kitchen property.

Power lines are required to be placed underground in accordance with Section 14.10 of the Development Ordinance. All new utility lines are proposed to be placed underground. An existing overhead Duke Power Company utility line runs along the back of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 serving the Kitchen property. The applicant is not proposing to place it underground and believes that the power line is located away from interference with proposed construction.

An 8-inch water line is proposed to serve the development and is down-sized to a 4 inch line at the termination of the new road. The line is located in the middle of the road. We note that OWASA has indicated that an 8-inch water line is required throughout the entirety of the development.

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

Local utility companies have indicated that they can serve the site. We recommend that the final utility/lighting plans be approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, Time Warner Cable, Public Service Company, BellSouth, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We also recommend that the final plans indicate that all new utility lines shall be placed underground. Stipulations to this effect have been included in Resolutions A.

Fire: It appears that the proposed hydrants are 600 feet apart. The maximum spacing between fire hydrants is not to exceed 500 feet from proposed of new hydrants. These recommendations are included in Resolution A.

A Fireflow Report sealed by an engineer registered in the State of North Carolina must be provided for Town Manager review and approved prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect.

Refuse Collection: Resolution A includes a stipulation that a solid waste management plan, including provisions for recycling, should be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Conclusion

We believe the proposal, if developed in accordance with the stipulations in Resolution A would meet or exceed all stated requirements in the Development Ordinance.

Resolution E would deny the request.

ATTACHMENT 2

Checklist of

Regulations and Standards

Application for Preliminary Plat

	STAFF EVALUATION
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION	COMPLIANCE	NON COMPLIANCE
Meets or Exceeds Minimum Lot Size	Ö
Meets or Exceeds Minimum Lot Width	Ö
Meets or Exceeds Minimum Lot Frontage	Ö
Lots Front on a Road Meeting Town Standards	Ö (with conditions)
Access Meets Section 14.5 of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual	Ö
Circulation Meets Section 14.5 of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual	Ö
Recreation Area Size Meets Section 17.9.2 of the Development Ordinance	payment-in-lieu proposed
Recreation Area Type Meets Section 17.9.3 of the Development Ordinance	payment-in-lieu proposed
If Cluster Subdivision, Meets Cluster Provisions	N/A
Meets or Exceeds Minimum Landscape Buffers	Ö (with conditions)
Public Water and Sewer Available	Ö
If County Health Department Approval Needed, Received	N/A
Resource Conservation District Regulations	Ö
Watershed Protection District Regulations	N/A
Homeowners’ Association Proposal	Ö
Reservation of a School Site, if Applicable	N/A
Drainage Plan	Ö
Floor Area Restrictions under Section 13.11 of the Development Ordinance	Ö

N/A = Not Applicable *With Sewer Plan prepared 2/13/02

ATTACHMENT 3

RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by Design Response, on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:

These findings are based on the following:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. Expiration of Preliminary Plat: That this Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one year from the date of approval subject to reapproval by the Town Manager in accordance with the provisions of the Development Ordinance.

2. Number of Lots and Floor Area Restrictions: That this approval shall authorize the creation of 17 lots on 12.78 acres with Lots 16 and 17 each restricted to a dwelling unit with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area and Lot 2 is restricted to a dwelling unit with no more than 1,100 square feet of floor area.

Lot 16 shall be deconstructed to comply with the 1,350 square foot restricted floor area size. Deconstruction shall be completed prior to Town Manager approval of the Final Subdivision Plat.

These restrictions shall be referenced in the Homeowners’ Association documents.

Required Improvements

3. New Road: That the new road shall be constructed either:

· To a 30-foot right-of-way to include a 22-foot pavement section, with adjacent 5-foot sidewalk on the west side of the road and a 3-foot shoulder, swales in drainage easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association outside the right-of-way; or

· To a 50-foot right-of-way to include a 22-foot pavement section, 30-inch curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalk.

4. Payment–in-Lieu for Weaver Dairy Road Improvements: We recommend that the applicant dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way on the Weaver Dairy Road frontage and provide a payment-in-lieu for curb and gutter and for sidewalk.

The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.

5. Weaver Dairy Road Right-of-Way: That the applicant shall dedicate an additional 15 feet of

right-of-way along the Weaver Dairy Road frontage.

6. Alternative Road Design for White Oak Tree Protection: An alternative subdivision road design shall be provided which would preserve the 31-inch white oak tree. The applicant shall include tree protection fencing around the critical root zone of the tree as part of the Landscape Protection Plan.

Stipulations Related to Recreation

7. Payment-in-Lieu for Minimum Recreation Requirements: That the developer provide a payment-in-lieu of providing a minimum of .91 acres of recreation area for this development. The payment amount shall be approved by the Town Manager in accordance with the Development Ordinance, Section 17.9.5.

The recreation payment amount shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat. We recommend that the payment-in-lieu proceeds be used at Cedar Falls Park and/or the Dry Creek Greenway.

8. Pedestrian Connection: That the pedestrian connection be provided as a twenty-foot wide strip of land, deeded to the Homeowners’ Association. The strip of land shall contain an unimproved public pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular easement.

Stipulations Related to Resource Conservation District

9. Boundaries: That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be indicated on the final plat and plan. A note shall be added to all final plats and plans, indicating, “Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.”

10. Variances: That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or Final Plan approval for the subject phase(s) of development.

11. Buildable Lots: That no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance in order to be built upon.

In addition, for each lot it must be demonstrated that there is sufficient buildable area outside the Resource Conservation District, slopes of 25% or greater, water quality vegetated buffers, other required landscape buffers, easements, and any applicable building setback limits.

12. Construction Standards: That for the roadway encroachment into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements and standards of Subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be adhered to, unless the application is granted administrative exemptions from provisions of Subsection 5.8.

All required erosion control sediment basins and stormwater improvements, outside the public right-of-way, including associated clearing and grading, shall be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District. All grading associated with the construction of a residence shall be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.

Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

13. Steep Slopes: That each submittal for Final Plan approval shall include a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10% or more, and indicating how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance:

· for slopes of 10 - 15%, site preparation techniques shall be used which minimize grading and site disturbance;

· for slopes of 15 - 25%, demonstrate specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation; and

· for slopes of 25% or greater, provide a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineering or environmental aspects of the site.

Each Final Plan application shall demonstrate compliance with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance. The Town Manager shall decide if the proposed building and site engineering techniques are appropriate. These restrictions shall be referenced in the Homeowners’ Association documents.

14. Required Landscape Bufferyard: The following landscape buffer is required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage with Weaver Dairy Road

The Landscape buffer shall be on land deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.

15. Landscape Protection Plan: That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Landscape Protection Plan shall include tree protection fencing between infrastructure construction and existing vegetation to be retained in the following locations:

a) The required landscape bufferyards;

b) Adjacent to any construction within the Resource Conservation District; and

c) Between construction and rare and specimen trees to remain.

That all tree protection fencing shall be installed at a distance from the base of the tree equal to at least one foot per diameter at breast height (dbh).

16. Landscape Planting Plan: That a Landscape Planting Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan must indicate how the required bufferyards will meet the minimum landscape planting standards. The Landscape Planting Plan shall also include a plant list, indicating type, size and number of proposed plant.

Stipulations Related to Homeowners’ Association

17. Homeowners’ Association: That a Homeowners’ Association be created that has the capacity to place a lien on the property of a member who does not pay the annual charges for maintenance of common areas, however designated. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and shall be cross-referenced on the final plat.

Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer, and Other Utilities

18. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Duke Power Company, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

19. OWASA Easements: That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded concurrently with the final plat. That the final plat shall be approved by OWASA prior to Town approval.

20. Placement of Utility Lines Underground: That the final plans indicate that all new utility lines shall be placed underground.

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

22. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet, unless modified by the Town Manager.

Miscellaneous Related To Stormwater Management

23. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the

applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall demonstrate that the drainage situation downstream with the subdivision proposal is no worse than it is on the date of this adopted resolution, according to methodology approved by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainageway easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

25. Best Management Practices: That the level spreader design utilize design methods, based on best available information from the NC State University Cooperative Extension. Final design and locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These features shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

The level spreader BMP’s shall be designed to adequately treat the first one inch of rainfall from the developed sites.

26. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way be located within reserved storm drainage way easements, of a 30 foot width minimum and be entirely outside the Resource Conservation District.

All proposed drainage swales and constructed stormwater facilities shall be in drainage easements deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.

26. Public and private stormwater drainage curb hood/covers shall be pre-cast stating, “Dump No Waste! Drains to Jordan Lake”, in accordance with the specifications of the Town Standard Detail SD-5A.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

27. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the Construction Management Plan specify that no construction vehicles serving this site may use any existing streets within the Cedar Hills Subdivision with one exception: that Cedar Hills Drive may be used for construction traffic to extend the sewer line from Cedar Hills Drive to the east side of the proposed subdivision.

28. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, and a plan for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

29. Open Burning: That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps and construction debris association with this development is prohibited unless it is demonstrated to the Town Manager or his designee that no reasonable alternative means are available for removal of the materials from the subject property. The Fire Marshall may establish safety standards, which must be met in order to receive a permit under this Article.

30. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), and landscape plans and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.

31. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

32. Plant Rescue: That the applicant consider conducting plant rescue activities on the site prior to initiation of development activity.

33. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy be issued until all required public improvements are completed; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

That if the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

34. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

That a performance guarantee be provided in accordance with Section 5-97.1 of the Town Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity.

All erosion control sediment basins, including associated clearing and grading, be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.

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

36. Street Names and Addresses: That the name of the development and its streets and house numbers be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

37. Construction Sign: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 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

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

39. 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 Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the _____ day of _______________, 2002.

ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION B

Planning Board Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (File # 7.25..2, 2C)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by Design Response, on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:

1. Resolution A: That all stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.

2. Removal of White Oak for Construction of Subdivision Road: That the white oak tree be removed for the construction of the subdivision road.

3. Weaver Dairy Road: That the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for Weaver Dairy Road improvements. These Weaver Dairy Road improvements shall be in accordance with one- half of the 89-foot approved cross-section. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.

4. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24- hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainage way easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision.

This the day of , 2002.

ATTACHMENT 5

RESOLUTION C

Transportation Board Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (File # 7.25..2, 2C)

1. Resolution A: That all stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.

2. Local Subdivision Road: That the subdivision road be constructed with two 10-foot travel lanes rather than two 11-foot travel lanes.

3. Subdivision Sidewalks: That 5-foot sidewalks be provided on both sides of the subdivision road.

4. Neighborhood Park: That the developer be required to provide a small neighborhood park rather than payment-in-lieu for recreation improvements, to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.

5. Weaver Dairy Road: That the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for Weaver Dairy Road improvements. These Weaver Dairy Road improvements shall be in accordance with one-half of the 89-foot approved cross-section. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.

6. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24- hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainage way easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

This the _____ day of _______________, 2002.

ATTACHMENT 6

RESOLUTION D

Bicycle and Pedestrain Advisory Board Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (File # 7.25..2, 2C)

1. Resolution A: That all stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.

2. Weaver Dairy Road: That the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for Weaver Dairy Road improvements. These Weaver Dairy Road improvements shall be in accordance with one-half of the 89-foot approved cross-section. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.

3. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24- hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainage way easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

This the _____ day of _______________, 2002.

ATTACHMENT 7

RESOLUTION E

Denying the Application

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION

(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the day of , 2002.

ATTACHMENT 8

RESOLUTION F

Planning Board’s Secondary Recommendation

A RESOLUTION REGARDING STORMWATER ISSUES IN THE CEDAR HILLS DRIVE AREA

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has received a recommendation from the Town Planning Board regarding storm drainage issues along Cedar Hills Drive, downstream from the proposed Cross Creek Subdivision; and

WHEREAS, the Council has been made aware of drainage concerns in this area, particularly as they relate to the size of the culvert under Cedar Hills Drive near Silo Drive.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to investigate the concerns and prepare a report to the Council.

This the ______ day of __________, 2002.

AGENDA #4

MEMORANDUM

PROCESS

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

KEY ISSUES

ISSUE

Weaver Dairy Road Improvements

Payment-in-lieu of curb&gutter and sidewalk

Payment-in-lieu of ½ of a 4-lane median divided cross-section

Payment-in-lieu of ½ of a 4-lane median divided cross-section

Redesign subdivision road to preserve oak tree

Yes

*

Pedestrian easement 20’ & unimproved

Type “B” buffer requirement removed

Drainage Easement outside the RCD

Construction Management Plan to allow sewer extension

Subdivision street (2) 11’ travel lanes

5-foot sidewalks on one side of subdivision street

Developer provide payment-in-lieu for recreation area

Expanded Stormwater Management Stipulation

ATTACHMENTS

3. Resolution A (p. 26).

Application for Preliminary Plat

STAFF EVALUATION

COMPLIANCE

NON

COMPLIANCE

ATTACHMENT 3

Stipulations Specific to the Development

Stipulations Related to Recreation

Stipulations Related to Resource Conservation District

Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

Stipulations Related to Homeowners’ Association

Miscellaneous Related To Stormwater Management

Miscellaneous Stipulations

ATTACHMENT 5