AGENDA #11

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: Larkspur Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval

(File No. 7.18..14)

Date: February 25, 2002

Introduction

Adoption of the attached Resolution A would authorize a 86-lot cluster subdivision on 39.5-acres located between Weaver Dairy Road and the University Branch Southern Railroad.

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, discusses key issues and offers recommendations for Council action.

· Attachments: Includes a list of questions raised during the Public Hearing, a checklist of requirements for this development, advisory board comments, resolutions of approval and denial, Public Hearing memorandum and applicant’s materials.

BACKGROUND

November 19, 2001 The Council held a Public Hearing to consider the major subdivision application for Larkspur Cluster Subdivision. At the Public Hearing, questions arose regarding the affordability objective of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Public Hearing on the subdivision application recessed until January 14, 2002.

December 20, 2001, In response to inquiries regarding the affordability objectives raised at the November 19, 2001 Public Hearing, the applicant submitted a letter to the Town Council requesting consideration of a text amendment and rescheduling of the January 14, 2002 Public Hearing. The proposed text amendment would offer possible consideration of an affordable housing component or a payment-in-lieu of such a proposal to substitute for the restricted floor area requirement of the Development Ordinance.

January 14, 2002 The Council held a public hearing on the applicant’s request for consideration of a text amendment and continuation of the Public Hearing on the subdivision application. The Council adopted a resolution calling a February 18, 2002 Public Hearing on the text amendment. A second adopted resolution continued the Larkspur Public Hearing to February 25, 2002.

PROCESS

This is an application for a Preliminary Plat. 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 on November 19^th we submitted our report and 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 of 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 and attached to the November 19^th Public Hearing Memorandum.

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.

We note that this preliminary plat application proposes a Cluster Development. The Development Ordinance defines a Cluster Development as:

“A subdivision in which building lots are grouped together through a transfer of allowable density within the subdivided tract. Cluster development permits more efficient development by creating lots with gross land areas smaller than those required for conventional lot-by-lot development, yet maintains application of normal lot density standards to the subdivided tract as a whole by requiring that land area saved by lot size reductions be reserved as permanent recreation area.”

Cluster development authorization is a discretionary decision by the Council.

If, after consideration of the evidence presented at the November 19^th Public Hearing and additional evidence submitted this evening, the Council decides that the application meets all the Development Ordinance requirements, the Ordinance directs that 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.

Although the primary purpose of tonight’s meeting is to receive staff and applicant responses to the questions raised during the November 19^th Public Hearing, we note that further evidence may be submitted this evening.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

Evaluation of this application centers on compliance with the subdivision regulations and standards in the Development Ordinance. The subdivision is proposed as a cluster development. The Town Council may, as a discretionary decision, allow reductions in lots size and clustering of lots. We have included with this memorandum a checklist of the Town’s subdivision regulations. The checklist indicates which of the Town’s regulations are satisfied with the applicant’s proposal, and recommended conditions. We note that in this case, compliance is contingent upon the Council’s finding that this is acceptable as a cluster subdivision.

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.

KEY ISSUES

We believe that the key issues raised during the November 19 Public Hearing focused on access and the Small House Ordinance and affordable housing component. We offer additional information on these issues below. We have also provided a list of other questions raised during the Hearing, followed by comment from the applicant and/or Town staff, as Attachment 2 to this memorandum.

Access: Several key issues concerning access were raised at advisory board meetings and the November 19^th Public Hearing. Those issues concerned:

· Access between Hunter Hill Road and the proposed development;

· Accessibility needs of community service vehicles to the proposed development from Hunter Hill Road;

· Existence of public right-of-way between Hunter Hill Road and the proposed development;

· Future access between the proposed development and Eubanks Road; and

· Possibility of reservation of right-of way for future access to the Greene Tract.

Access between Hunter Hill Road and the proposed development: The proposed subdivision includes two points of vehicular access and two future potential points of access. One vehicular access is proposed at the southern end of the proposal at Weaver Dairy Road. A second access is proposed from Hunter Hill Road. The preliminary plat application and site plan dated October 29, 2001 identifies access from Hunter Hill Road as limited to one-way travel. This proposal by the applicant to restrict access would permit vehicles to enter the Larkspur development from Hunter Hill Road while prohibiting vehicles from exiting the Larkspur development at this location. The plans accompanying the November 19, 2001 memorandum proposed Hunter Hill Road with this one-way travel restriction.

At the November 6, 2001 Planning Board meeting, the applicant informed the Planning Board of a revised proposal that would prohibit all vehicular travel into and out of Larkspur from Hunter Hill Road. The propose change to the plan would permit pedestrian and emergency service vehicles only between Northwood and Larkspur. This proposal to restrict all vehicular travel, except for emergency vehicles, was recommended by the Planning Board and is included as Resolution B (Planning Board’s Recommendation) and Resolution E (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board). The Planning Board and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that access between Larkspur and Hunter Hill Road include a 12-foot paved emergency vehicle driveway with bollards. This 12-foot wide access would permit bicycle and pedestrian access, between Larkspur Way and Hunter Hill Road.

We understand that the applicant continues to seek the Council’s approval of this limited access configuration.

Comment: As proposed by the applicant during the November 6, 2001 Planning Board meeting, the Larkspur development would include 86 residential lots with one point of vehicular access (Weaver Dairy Road). We note that the Town’s Design Guidelines (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) recommends two points of access for developments with more than 25 dwelling units. Examples of recently approved developments with more than 25 dwelling units and multiple access points include The Homestead, Chapel Ridge, Providence Glen, Parkside, Parkside II and Rogers Road Subdivision.

With 86 residential lots proposed, we are concerned that a single, vehicular access may be inadequate. We believe that multiple points of access for residential development such as this proposed subdivision are desirable for public safety, emergency access, efficiency of movement of public and private service vehicles and connectivity between neighborhoods. For additional discussion on service vehicles and access at Hunter Hill Road, please refer to the section below on Community Service Vehicles and Hunter Hill Road.

We recommend that the Hunter Hill Road connection between Northwood and Larkspur allow full vehicular and pedestrian access between Hunter Hill Road and the Northwood neighborhood. Resolution A, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, and Resolutions C and D, would require full two way vehicular movements between the Northwood neighborhood and the proposed development from Hunter Hill Road. Resolution B, the Planning Board recommendation, and Resolution E, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommendation, would restrict the connection to pedestrian and emergency vehicle access. Resolution F, the Transportation Board recommendation, defers a Hunter Hill Road connection and recommends a connection between the proposed subdivision and Eubanks Road. A discussion on this recommended connection to Eubanks Road follows the section Community Service Vehicles and Hunter Hill Road.

Community Service Vehicles and Hunter Hill Road: During the November 19, 2001 Public Hearing, a Council member asked how community service vehicles (fire, police, refuse and recycling public school bus, public transportation) would be affected by restricted vehicular travel between Hunter Hill Road and the proposed development. The Council member asked about anticipated number of trips/day/week by each service. The Council member was also interested in the impact that a “controlled” (electronic gate, bollards, etc.) connection would have on each service.

Comment: In response to the Council member’s concern, the following set of questions was presented to Town and County departments: Fire, Police, Public Works, Recycling, and Transportation.

· Does your department currently provide service to the adjacent developments (Northwoods, Northwoods V, Parkside, Parkside II)?

· Will your department provide service to this development prior to its annexation into Town limits?

· Will your department provide service to this development after annexation?

· Anticipate the number of trips per day/week after annexation?

· Type of access preferred between Hunter Hill Road and proposed development?

· If access is limited, type preferred.

A tabulated response to these questions appears as Attachment 1 to this memorandum.

A more general question concerning this access was posed to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District. The question and the School District’s response is included as part of Attachment 2 (List of Questions and Issues raised during the November 19, 2001 Public Hearing)

In summary, all departments prefer full and unrestricted access between the proposed development and Hunter Hill Road. This preference was most strongly voiced by the Fire and Police Departments. We also note that the Public Works and County’s Recycling departments expressed opposition to limited access from Hunter Hill Road.

In light of the response noted on Attachment 1 and discussions with representatives from each department, we believe that the use of bollards or a controlled gate would effectively restrict the Public Works and Recycling departments from using Hunter Hill Road to access the proposed development. If the Council decides to limit access, both departments have expressed a preference for one-way access between Hunter Hill Road and the proposed development.

When the Police and Fire departments were asked to voice a preference for limited access the Fire Department continued to support full access only and the Police department reluctantly suggests bollards.

We also note that based on the response from the School District, at this time unless an unrestricted connection is provided between Hunter Hill Road and the proposed development, it is unlikely that school buses will enter the Larkspur development. A school bus stop for students living in the proposed development would likely be located at the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Larkspur Way.

Eubanks Road Access: During the Public Hearing, several citizens mentioned that the adjoining property owner to the north has stated his intent to develop his property and provide access for the proposed Larkspur development to Eubanks Road. We also note that this property owner, Gary Buck, presented a letter to the Transportation Board during its December 4, 2001 meeting. This letter, included as an Attachment to this memorandum, states that Mr. Buck plans to develop his property and is prepared to work with the applicant to extend a roadway between the proposed development and Eubanks Road.

We also note that the Transportation Board, in its Summary of Action, comments on a roadway connection between the proposed development and Eubanks Road. The Board recommends that a roadway connection be constructed between the proposed development and Eubanks Road. The Board also recommends that the connection should be completed within 3 years of approval of the preliminary plat; and, that if this connection is not made within 3 years, the Council should revisit the issue and considers requiring that the Hunter Hill Road access be made a permanent point of access.

Comment: We note that the property owner to the north has not submitted a formal application for development or dedication of public right-of-way on his land. We also note that the applicant’s proposal does not include a connection to Eubanks Road at this time or at a future date. Without a formal application submission by the Mr. Buck or a proposed revision to the applicant’s submission, the construction of this roadway can not be guaranteed or planned for.

We believe that a public roadway connection between this proposed development and Eubanks Road is desirable. When the property between Larkspur and Eubanks Road is proposed for development, we anticipate encouraging a design that includes this connection. However there is not a mechanism available now to require and assure that potential future connection. If in the future this roadway connection is made, it would substantially obviate the need for a connection at Hunter Hill Road. If that connection were to occur in the future, the Council could at that time revisit the Hunter Hill connection and could decide to close that connection.

We continue to recommend that the Hunter Hill Road connection between Northwood and Larkspur be required now, allowing full vehicular and pedestrian access from Hunter Hill Road and the Northwood neighborhood.

Hunter Hill Road Right-of-Way: A question was raised during the November 19, 2001 Public Hearing about the existence of public street right-of-way. A citizen questioned whether the public street right-of-way for Hunter Hill Road extended all the way to the east property line of the proposed development.

Comment: We have determined, based on research at the Orange County Land Records Office that the right-of-way for Hunter Hill Road through the Northwood development, extends fully to the property line that divides Northwood and the proposed development. This right-of-way would permit the applicant, if required by the Council and as recommended by Resolutions A, C and D, to construct and extend Hunter Hill Road so as to connect Larkspur and Northwood.

Greene Tract Access: During the Public Hearing a citizen and a Council member asked if the approval of this proposed development should require the dedication of public right-of-way for a future roadway connection to the Greene Tract.

Comment: We believe that the approval of this proposed development should include the dedication of right-of-way to preserve the opportunity for a future roadway connection to the Greene Tract. Although we note that a future roadway connection to the Greene Tract would require crossing Railroad property and the railroad tracks, we believe that it is desirable to dedicate the right-of-way at this time so as not to preclude this possible future connection. We believe that right-of-way for this future connection should be located between the railroad right-of-way and Larkspur Way, near the southern end of Larkspur Way.

Resolution A stipulates that the final plat include the dedication of a public right-of-way between Larkspur Lane and the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way. The final location and dimension of the right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

Small House Ordinance and Affordable Housing Component: 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 must restrict the size of houses that may be constructed on 22 of the 86 residential lots. Thirteen of these lots must have restrictions limiting the initial construction of houses to 1,100 square feet in size. Nine lots shall have houses with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area. The submitted site plan identifies 22 lots on which a size-limited unit must be constructed.

At the Public Hearing on November 19, 2001, the Council discussed the inclusion of an affordable housing component for the proposed Larkspur development. In response to this discussion on affordability, the applicant submitted a letter to the Town Council requesting consideration of a text amendment that would offer possible consideration of an affordable housing component as a substitute for the restricted floor area requirement of the Development Ordinance.

On February 18, 2002 the Council held a Public Hearing on a Development Ordinance Text Amendment regarding Small House and Affordable Housing Options. This Public Hearing was called for the Town Council to consider a proposed Development Ordinance text amendment. The proposed text amendment would provide affordable housing options to the current regulation requiring that a percentage of homes in new residential developments be below a particular size. The proposed text amendment offered an alternative to the Small House requirement, allowing substitution of affordable housing and/or provision of a payment in lieu for floor area restrictions. Action by the Council on the proposed text amendment is on tonight’s agenda.

Attached to this memorandum is a February 19, 2002 letter from the applicant’s representative. The letter is a formal request by the applicant to amend the application. The stated amendment is a commitment by the developer to build 13 affordable homes as defined by the proposed Text Amendment, Article 13.11. The attachment also includes a reduced site plan identifying the location of the 13 lots. The letter requests that the following stipulation be inserted in the Resolution of approval adopted by the Council:

“The developer proposed, and the Council accepts the offer, to build (13) thirteen affordable homes as defined in Article 13.11 of the Development Ordinance with continuing affordability to be maintained through an agreement with Orange County Community Housing and Land Trust, said agreement to be reviewed by the Town Attorney and recorded prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit for any phase.”

Comment: Depending on Council action tonight, alternatives to the Small House Ordinance may be available for this applicant. We believe that, if the proposed Text Amendment, as recommended by the Town Manager, is adopted tonight by the Council, it would be appropriate for the Council to consider the applicant’s request to provide 13 affordable housing units with the approval of this development. If the Council does not act on the Development Ordinance amendment, the applicant’s affordable housing alternative may not be considered.

Resolution A includes a stipulation that the applicant may substitute an affordable housing component for the Floor Area Restrictions. The proposed stipulation, outlined below, is the Manager’s recommended Text Amendment “13.11.1 Substitution of Affordable Housing for Floor Area Restrictions” as proposed from tonight’s agenda item.

· The affordable housing component shall provide initial and continued affordability of at least 15% of the dwelling units. The dwelling units shall be affordable to individuals and families who have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded with the dwelling unit(s) to ensure the continued and ongoing affordability of the dwelling unit(s).

· The minimum number of affordable units shall be determined as described in Section 13.11 with the number of units based on the permissible units on each lot and with resulting fractions dropped.

· The subdivision preliminary and final plats and the Planned Development-Housing proposals minor subdivision plats shall indicate clearly each lot on which an affordable unit must be constructed, and the builder, developer and purchaser shall be bound by the restriction

Resolution A also includes a stipulation that if the submission of the final plans include an affordable housing component, the final plans and plat shall identify the following as lots on which an affordable unit must be constructed: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 25, 26, 31, 32, 23, 34, 49, 50, and 51. These are the lots that the applicant identifies on the above mentioned reduced site plan submitted with the February 19, 2002 letter and attached to this memorandum.

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 November 6, 2001 and voted 6-2 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B.

Resolutions A and B include the following recommended condition of the Planning Board.

· Board Recommendation: That the Type “C” landscape bufferyard for “Open Space Areas M and N” is enlarged from 20 feet wide to 40 feet wide.

Comment: The original submittal of site plans to the Town included a proposal that “Open Space Area M and N” be 20 feet in width. During the Planning Board meeting the applicant indicated a desire to increase this buffer width to 40 feet. We understand that this increase in buffer width by 20 feet is in response to concerns expressed by those residents who home back up to the proposed development. We believe that the applicant may be presenting a revised site plan tonight that reflects this wider bufferyard width. The Planning Board recommended that the Council approve the preliminary plat with this 40-foot bufferyard. Resolution A, the Manager’s revised recommendation includes this recommendation.

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

· Board Recommendation: That in lieu of a full access public street, the final plan and plat include a 12-foot paved emergency vehicle driveway with bollards, also capable of bicycle and pedestrian access, between Larkspur Way and Hunter Hill Road, in Northwood Subdivision.

Comment: Resolution A, the Town Manager’s revised recommendation does not include this recommended condition. Please refer to the discussion above under Key Issues for additional discussion of this recommendation.

Resolution B differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, on issues concerning access to Hunter Hill Road, and the relocation of lot lines and sewer lines outside the Resource Conservation District, right-of-way dedication to the Greene Tract and affordable housing. These issues were either raised after the Planning Board’s review of the application or were not discussed at its meeting. Please refer to the above discussion under the Key Issues and the attachment on Questions Raised at the November 19^th Public Hearing for additional information. A copy of the Planning Board Summary of Action is attached to the November 19, 2001 memorandum.

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on September 27, 2001 and voted unanimously 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution C.

Resolutions A through F include the following recommended conditions of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

· Commission Recommendation: That the recreation area be dedicated to a Homeowners’ Association.

Comment: Resolution A, the Town Manager’s revised recommendation, includes this recommended condition. Please refer to the attachment on Questions Raised at the November 19^th Public Hearing for additional information.

· Commission Recommendation: That a greenway easement be dedicated to the Town over a portion of recreation area needed for the future “Rail Trail” greenway.

· Commission Recommendation: That portions of the bed of the future greenway be graded and constructed to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

Comment: We believe that it would be desirable for the applicant to construct a portion of the “Rail Trail,” near Larkspur Way, and a portion of a pedestrian trail north of Lot 35. We understand that the applicant has agreed to construct these trail and pedestrian improvements during preliminary roadway and infrastructure construction. We recommend that the portion of the completed trail and pedestrian bed constructed by the applicant, be a minimum of 16-feet in width and meet all AASHTO standards for construction of a bicycle facility. We note that the remaining portion of these trail segments will be completed by the Town and will be constructed to AASHTO standards.

Resolution C differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, on issues concerning landscape bufferyards, and the relocation of lot lines and sewer lines outside of the Resource Conservation District, right-of-way dedication to the Greene Tract and affordable housing. These issues were either raised after the Commission’s review of the application or were not discussed at its meeting. Please refer to the attachment on Questions Raised at the November 19^th Public Hearing for additional information. A copy of the Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action is attached to the November 19, 2001 memorandum.

Greenways Commission Recommendation: The Greenways Commission reviewed this proposal on September 12, 2001 and voted unanimously 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution D.

Resolutions A through F include the following recommended conditions of the Greenways Commission.

· Commission Recommendation: That the recreation area be dedicated to a Homeowners’ Association.

Comment: Resolution A, the Town Manager’s revised recommendation includes this recommended condition. Please refer to the attachment on Questions Raised at the November 19^th Public Hearing for additional information.

· Commission Recommendation: That a greenway easement be dedicated to the Town over a portion of recreation area needed for the future “Rail Trail” greenway.

· Commission Recommendation: That approximately 200-feet of the bed of the future greenway trail be graded and constructed at the point where Larkspur Way comes closest to the railroad tracks. The work should be done in conjunction with road construction. The completed trail bed should be a minimum of 16-feet in width and meet all AASHTO standards for construction of a bicycle facility, except that the developer would not be responsible for paving the trail.

Comment: We believe that it would be desirable for the applicant to construct a portion of the “Rail Trail,” near Larkspur Way. We understand that the applicant has agreed to construct this trail and pedestrian improvements during preliminary roadway and infrastructure construction. We recommend that the portion of the completed trail and pedestrian bed constructed by the applicant, be a minimum of 16-feet in width and meet all AASHTO standards for construction of a bicycle facility. We note that the remaining portion of these trail segments will be completed by the Town and will be constructed to AASHTO standards.

· Commission Recommendation: That approximately 200-feet of the bed of the future greenway be graded and constructed west of Hunter Hill Road near the northern property line of the development. This would allow a spur trail to access the northern portion of the site in an area that is proposed to contain a stormwater drainage easement and stormwater basin. The completed trail bed should be a minimum of 16-feet in width and meet all AASHTO standards for construction of a bicycle facility, except that the developer would not be responsible for paving the trail.

Comment: We believe that it would be desirable for the applicant to construct a portion of the “Rail Trail,” and pedestrian trail north of Lot 35. We understand that the applicant has agreed to construct these trail and pedestrian improvements during preliminary roadway and infrastructure construction. We recommend that the portion of the completed trail and pedestrian bed constructed by the applicant, be a minimum of 16-feet in width and meet all AASHTO standards for construction of a bicycle facility. We note that the remaining portion of these trail segments will be completed by the Town and will be constructed to AASHTO standards.

Resolutions D and F includes the following recommended condition of the Greenways Commission. Resolution A does not include the following recommended condition of the Greenways Commission.

· Commission Recommendation: That a conservation easement be dedicated to the Town over the portion of the site within the Resource Conservation District, excluding areas of the Resource Conservation District within private lots.

Comment: We understand that the intent of this recommendation is to grant the Town the right to enter properties in order to implement a program of controlling invasive plant species. As of this time, the Town has no such program to control invasive plant species on private properties. Although we recognize the objective of controlling invasive plant species, we believe that the dedication of this type of easement is not warranted absent an established town wide landscape management program.

Resolution D differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, on issues concerning landscape bufferyards, conservation easement and, the relocation of lot lines and sewer lines outside of the Resource Conservation District, right-of-way dedication to the Greene Tract and affordable housing. Some of these issues were either raised after the Commission’s review of the application or were not discussed at its meeting. Please refer to the attachment on Questions Raised at the November 19^th Public Hearing for additional information. A copy of the Greenways Commission Summary of Action is attached to the November 19, 2001 memorandum.

Bicycle and Pedestrian’s Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this subdivision application on November 13, 2001 and voted unanimously 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution E.

Resolutions B and E include the following recommended condition of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

· Board Recommendation: That the final plan and plat include a 12-foot paved emergency vehicle driveway with bollards, also capable of bicycle and pedestrian access, between Larkspur Way and Hunter Hill Road, in Northwood Subdivision.

Comment: Resolution A, the Town Manager’s revised recommendation does not include this recommended condition. For additional information on this issues please refer to the discussion above on access under the Key Issues section of this memorandum.

Resolution E differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, on issues concerning the Hunter Hill Road access and the relocation of lot lines and sewer lines outside of the Resource Conservation District, right-of-way dedication to the Greene Tract and affordable housing. Some of these issues were either raised after the Board’s review of the application or were not discussed at its meeting. Please refer to the above discussion under Key Issues and the attachment on Questions Raised at the November 19^th Public Hearing for additional information. A copy of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Summary of Action is attached to the November 19, 2001 memorandum.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this subdivision application on November 20, 2001 and on December 4, 2001. On December 4, 2001 the Board voted 5 to 4 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution F.

Resolution F includes the following recommendation of the Transportation Board.

· Board Recommendation: That a connection to Eubanks Road should be completed within 3 years. If no connection is made to Eubanks Road within 3 years the Council should revisit the issue and consider requiring that the Hunter Hill access be made a permanent point of access.

Comment: Resolution A, the Town Manager’s revised recommendation, does not include this recommended condition. For additional information on this issue please refer to the discussion above on access under the Key Issues section of this memorandum.

Resolutions D and F included the following recommendation of the Transportation Board.

· Board Recommendation: That a conservation easement be dedicated to the Town over the portion of the site within the Resource Conservation District, excluding areas of the Resource Conservation District within private lots.

Comment: We note that the Greenways Commission also included this recommendation in their Summary of Action. Please refer to the discussion above under the Greenways Commission Recommendation for additional information and comment on this issue.

Resolution F differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, on issues concerning the access at Hunter Hill Road, access to Eubanks Road, the conservation easement and relocation of lot lines and sewer lines outside of the Resource Conservation District, right-of-way dedication to the Greene Tract and affordable housing. These issues were either raised after the Board’s review of the application or were not discussed at its meeting. Please refer to the above discussion under Key Issues and the attachment on Questions Raised at the November 19^th Public Hearing for additional information. A copy of the Transportation Boards Board’s Summary of Action from November 20, 2001 and December 4, 2001 is attached to this memorandum.

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: That the Council approves 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 Parks and Recreation Commission.

Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Greenways Commission.

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

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

Resolution G would recommend that the Council deny the application.

A table comparing these alternative resolutions follows immediately.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Community Service Vehicles: Preferred Access via Hunter Hill Road (p. 36)

2. List of Questions and Issues raised during the November 19, 2001 Public Hearing (p. 37)

3. Summary of Transportation Board Action (p. 42).

4. November 30, 2001 letter from Gary Buck to the Transportation Board (p. 44).

5. November 19, 2001 letter from Scott Radway to Mayor and Council (p. 45).

6. February 19, 2002 letter and reduced site plan applicant amending application (p. 48).

7. Letters from citizens (p. 50).

8. November 19, 2001 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (p. 55).

Larkspur Cluster Subdivision

Preliminary Plat

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE

Resolution A

Manager’s Revised Recommendation

Resolution B

Planning Board’s Recommendation

Resolution C

Parks and Recreation Commission’s Recommendation

Resolution D

Greenways Commission’s Recommendation

Resolution E

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation

Resolution F

Transportation Board’s Recommendation

Full Vehicular Access: Hunter Hill Road from Northwood

Yes

(Restricted to pedestrians and emergency vehicles)

Yes

No

(Restricted to pedestrians and emergency vehicles

No

40-foot bufferyard adjacent to Northwood

Yes

Conservation Easement over Resource

Conservation District

Yes

Connect to Eubanks Road within 3 years of preliminary plat approval

Yes

(When plans are approved for intervening property)

Yes

(Otherwise Council should revisit Hunter Hill Road access)

Relocate lot lines outside of the RCD

Yes

Relocate sewer main behind lots 35- 47 to public street

Yes

Right-of-way dedication to the Greene Tract

Yes

Provide 13 affordable homes

as defined by Article 13.11.1

Yes

(With Council approval of a Text Amendment to the Development Ordinance)

*Issue was not discussed at this particular advisory board’s meeting and is therefore not included in this Resolution

RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s Revised Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (2002-02-25/R-14a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Larkspur Cluster Subdivision, proposed by Cazco Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 18, Lots 14 and 14A, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated May 1, 2001, revised July 10, 2001 and October 29, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance and specifically with the following cluster development requirements from Subsection 17.8.2 of the Development Ordinance:

1. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;

2. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;

3. The total number of lots proposed for the tract, excluding parcels of reserved recreation area, is not greater than the number determined by dividing the total gross land area by the minimum gross land area established in Section 13.11 for that zoning district;

4. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Subsection 17.9 of this article; and

5. The minimum amount of land reserved as recreation area shall be the sum of all reductions in minimum gross land area as a result of the cluster form of development, combined with the minimum recreation area reservation required in Subsection 17.9.7.

These findings are based on the following:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That this approval shall authorize the creation of 86 single-family lots, two private recreation areas and three opens spaces areas.

2. Floor Area Restrictions: That unless noted otherwise, the provisions of Section 13.11, “Major Subdivision and Planned Development-Housing floor Area Restrictions” shall apply to this development. That the final plans and plats shall indicate the specific lots and floor area restrictions for each lot on which size limitations are placed.

3. Affordable Housing: That the applicant may substitute an affordable housing component for the Floor Area Restrictions regulations in accordance with Section 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance. That the following concerning Affordable Housing shall apply to this development:

· The affordable housing component shall provide initial and continued affordability of at least 15% of the dwelling units. The dwelling units shall be affordable to individuals and families who have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded with the dwelling unit to ensure the continued and ongoing affordability of the dwelling unit. The restrictive covenants shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded concurrently with the final plat(s).

· The minimum number of affordable units shall be determined as described in Section 13.11 with the number of units based on the permissible units on each lot and with resulting fractions dropped.

· The subdivision final plat(s) shall be approved by the Town Manager and shall indicate clearly each lot on which an affordable unit must be constructed, and the builder, developer and purchaser shall be bound by the restriction

4. Affordable Housing Lots: That the submission of the final plans and final plats shall include an affordable housing component. The final plans and plats shall identify the following as lots on which an affordable unit must be constructed: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 25, 26, 31, 32, 23, 34, 49, 50, and 51.

Required Improvements

5. Internal Streets/Sidewalks: That all internal streets are constructed to the following design standards:

Street Name	Right-of-Way Width	Street Width-Back of Curb to Back of Curb	Sidewalks
Ross Place	50 feet	25 feet	None
Bodega Court	50 feet	25 feet	One Side
Paradise Court	50 feet	27 feet	One Side
Simi Valley Road	50 feet	31 feet	One Side
Larkspur Way (north of Hunter Hill Road)	50 feet	31 feet	One Side
Larkspur Way (south of Hunter Hill Road)	60 feet	35 feet	Two Side (except on the west side south of Lot 6)

6. Hunter Hill Road Construction (Northwood subdivision): That the 80 foot long unimproved section of Hunter Hill Road, in the Northwood subdivision, be improved with a 20-foot wide asphalt surface with ditches on both sided. The roadway sub base and asphalt-driving surface must be built to Town standards.

7. Hunter Hill Road Access: That the final plan and final plat include full vehicular and pedestrian access on Hunter Hill Road between the proposed development and the Northwood subdivision

8. Weaver Dairy Road Construction: That the portion of Weaver Dairy Road, as approved on the final plans for Northwoods V Phase II, be completed prior to the issuance of the second Certificate of Occupancy.

9. Right-of-Way Dedication to the Greene Tract: That the final plans and plat include the dedication of a public right-of-way between Larkspur Way and the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way, near the southern end of Larkspur Way. That the final location of the right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation with the Orange County Register of Deeds.

Stipulations Related to Recreation

10. Minimum Recreation Requirements: That a minimum of 12.74 acres of recreation area shall be provided for this development. Within this area the applicant shall dedicate public easements for the “Rail Trail” and the pedestrian trail. The applicant or Homeowners’ Association shall remain responsible for the recreation area, unless and until the Town assumes responsibility.

11. Dedication of Recreation Areas: That the applicant provide for Town Manager review and approval, a deed conveying to the Homeowners’ Association the 12.74 acres identified as “Private Recreation and Open Space Areas A and B.” These documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and cross-referenced on the final plat.

12. Dedication of “Rail Trail Easement”: That prior to the recordation of a final plat, the applicant shall dedicate to the Town a blanket construction, maintenance, and access greenway easement for the University Southern Railroad “Rail Trail.” The easement shall permit access for pedestrians, non-motorized vehicle use, and motorized wheelchairs. Unless determined otherwise by the Town Manager, the blanket easement shall encumber the entire 11.34-acre tract identified as “Private Recreation and Open Space Area A.” The easement document and boundary shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and cross-referenced on the final plat.

13. “Rail Trail” Construction: That except as note below, the Town shall be responsible for constructing and maintaining the “Rail Trail” between the southern and northern property line. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the following portion of the “Rail Trail;”

· Approximately 200-feet of the “Rail Trail” where Larkspur Way comes closest to the railroad tracks. Location and length of this improvement shall be determined by the Town Manager.

The construction by the applicant shall include grading and stabilization of the trail bed only. This portion of the trail bed shall be a minimum of 16-feet in width and meet all AASHTO standards for construction of a bicycle facility. The construction of Larkspur Way shall include this trail improvement.

14. Dedication of Pedestrian Easements: That prior to the recordation of a final plat, the applicant shall dedicate to the Town, public pedestrian access easements at the following pedestrian trails:

a) The pedestrian trail south of Lot 65 (pedestrian access only);

b) The pedestrian trail at the end of Paradise Court (pedestrian access only); and

c) The pedestrian trail north of Lot 35.

The pedestrian easement for (c) shall permit Town maintenance and public access for pedestrians, and non-motorized vehicle use, and motorized wheelchairs. At a minimum this easement shall be 16-feet in width and shall intersect with the “Rail Trail.”

The easement documents and boundaries shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and cross referenced on the final plat.

15. Pedestrian Trail Construction: The that applicant, or Homeowners’ Association, shall be responsible for the entire construction and maintenance of the following pedestrian trails:

a) The pedestrian trail south of Lot 65;

b) The pedestrian trail at the end of Paradise Court; and

c) The pedestrian trail in the “Private Recreation and Open Space Area B.”

Pedestrian trail (a) and (b) shall be constructed as a natural 2 to 3 foot wide footpath, involving minimal land disturbance. Instead of constructing trail(s) (a) or (b), the applicant may provide a payment-in-lieu, in an amount to be determined by the Town Manager.

The applicant shall be responsible for construction of a portion of the following pedestrian trail;

d) The pedestrian trail north of Lot 35.

The portion of this trail constructed by the applicant shall include approximately 200 feet of the trail. Location and length of this improvement shall be determined by the Town Manager. Construction by the applicant shall include grading and stabilization of the trail bed only. This portion of the trail bed shall be a minimum of 16-feet in width and shall meet all AASHTO standards for construction of a bicycle facility. The construction of the adjacent stormwater basin shall include this trail improvement

Stipulations Related to Resource Conservation District

16. Relocate Lot Lines outside the Resources Conservation District: That no residential lot, residential lot line or portions thereof shall be located within the Resource Conservation District.

17. 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.”

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Construction Standards: That for encroachment(s) into the Resource Conservation District, including the Eubanks Road pump station project, 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 sub section 5.8.

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

Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

21. 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.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

22. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That, unless the Community Design Commission approves alternate bufferyards, the following landscape buffers are required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage with Weaver Dairy Road and along the University Southern Railroad right-of-way;

· Type “C” landscape bufferyard (minimum 20-foot wide) along the north property line, adjacent to the property zoned Mixed-Use Office/Institutional-1; and

· Type “C” landscape bufferyard (minimum 40-foot wide) in “Open Space Areas M and N.”

23. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve any proposed alternate landscape bufferyards, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

24. 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) The land designated for open space and recreation areas;

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

d) Between construction and all rare and specimen trees.

That all tree protection fencing shall be installed at a distance from the base of the tree equal to at least one foot per dbh

25. 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

26. 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

27. Relocation of Sewer Line: That sewer main, proposed behind lots 35-47, shall be relocated into the street right-of-way, subject to approval of the Orange County Water and Sewer Authority.

28. Eubanks Road Pump Station: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, final plans for the installation of the pump station on Eubanks Road and the off-site sewer infrastructure necessary to provide service for this proposed subdivision be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager and OWASA. That, the final plan application includes a recordable plat dedicating all of the necessary easements for the pump station and associated sewer line infrastructure.

29. 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.

30. 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.

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

32. 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.

33. 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

34. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submits 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 reserved storm drainageway easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

35. Best Management Practices: That the applicant submits proposals of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) features to intercept and treat stormwater runoff from developed areas. 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.

36. Storm Drainage Inlets: That all 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

37. 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 Northwood subdivision.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

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

43. 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.

44. 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.

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

46. 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.

47. 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

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

49. 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 Larkspur Cluster Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This the 25th day of February, 2002.

RESOLUTION B

(Planning Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR

LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (2002-02-25/R-14b)

1. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;

2. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;

4. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Subsection 17.9 of this article; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for Preliminary Plat for Parkside II Cluster Subdivision in accordance with the plans listed above and 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 stipulated below.

2. Deleted Stipulations: Delete stipulations related to Hunter Hill Road Construction (Northwood subdivision), Hunter Hill Road Access, Relocation of Sewer Line, and Relocation of Lot Lines outside the Resource Conservation District

3. Hunter Hill Road Bollards: That in lieu of a full access public street, the final plan and plat include a 12-foot paved emergency vehicle driveway with bollards, also capable of bicycle and pedestrian access, between Larkspur Way and Hunter Hill Road, in Northwood Subdivision.

This the 25th day of February, 2002.

RESOLUTION C

(Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR

LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (2002-02-25/R-14c)

1. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;

2. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;

4. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Subsection 17.9 of this article; and

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

2. Deleted Stipulations: Delete stipulations related to Relocation of Sewer Line, Relocation of Lot Lines outside the Resource Conservation District, Affordable Housing, Affordable Housing Lots, and Right-of-Way Dedication to the Greene Tract.

3. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That, unless the Community Design Commission approves alternate bufferyards, the following landscape buffers are required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage with Weaver Dairy Road and along the University Southern Railroad right-of-way; and

· Type “C” landscape bufferyard (minimum 20-foot wide) along the north property line, adjacent to the property zoned Mixed-Use Office/Institutional-1 and in “Open Space Areas M and N.”

This the 25th day of February, 2002.

RESOLUTION D

(Greenways Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR

LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (2002-02-25/R-14d)

1. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;

2. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;

4. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Subsection 17.9 of this article; and

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

3. Conservation Easement: That the applicant dedicated to the Town a conservation easement over the portion of the site within the Resource Conservation District, excluding areas of the Resource Conservation District within private lots. The easement shall grant the Town the right to enter the property in order to implement a program of controlling invasive plant species.

4. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That, unless the Community Design Commission approves alternate bufferyards, the following landscape buffers are required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage with Weaver Dairy Road and along the University Southern Railroad right-of-way; and

· Type “C” landscape bufferyard (minimum 20-foot wide) along the north property line, adjacent to the property zoned Mixed-Use Office/Institutional-1 and in “Open Space Areas M and N.”

This the 25th day of February, 2002.

RESOLUTION E

(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR

LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (2002-02-25/R-14e)

1. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;

2. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;

4. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Subsection 17.9 of this article; and

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

2. Deleted Stipulations: Delete stipulations related to Hunter Hill Road Construction (Northwood subdivision), Hunter Hill Road Access, Relocation of Sewer Line, Relocation of Lot Lines outside the Resource Conservation District, Affordable Housing, Affordable Housing Lots, and Right-of-Way Dedication to the Greene Tract.

4. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That, unless the Community Design Commission approves alternate bufferyards, the following landscape buffers are required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage with Weaver Dairy Road and along the University Southern Railroad right-of-way; and

· Type “C” landscape bufferyard (minimum 20-foot wide) along the north property line, adjacent to the property zoned Mixed-Use Office/Institutional-1 and in “Open Space Areas M and N.”

This the 25th day of February, 2002.

RESOLUTION F

(Transportation Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR

LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (2002-02-25/R-14f)

1. The tract proposed for cluster development is at least two (2) acres in size;

2. Public, separate water supply and sewerage connections are available for every subdivided lot;

4. The recreation area within the tract shall conform to the recreation area standards of Subsection 17.9 of this article; and

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

3. Eubanks Road Connection: That a connection to Eubanks Road should be completed within 3 years. If no connection is made to Eubanks Road within 3 years the Council should revisit the issue and consider requiring that the Hunter Hill access be made a permanent point of access.

4. Conservation Easement: That the applicant dedicated to the Town a conservation easement over the portion of the site within the Resource Conservation District, excluding areas of the Resource Conservation District within private lots. The easement shall grant the Town the right to enter the property in order to implement a program of controlling invasive plant species.

5. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That, unless the Community Design Commission approves alternate bufferyards, the following landscape buffers are required for this subdivision:

· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage with Weaver Dairy Road and along the University Southern Railroad right-of-way; and

· Type “C” landscape bufferyard (minimum 20-foot wide) along the north property line, adjacent to the property zoned Mixed-Use Office/Institutional-1 and in “Open Space Areas M and N.”

This the 25th day of February, 2002.

RESOLUTION G

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION (2002-02-25/R-14g)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Larkspur Cluster Subdivision, proposed by Cazco Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 18, Lots 14 and 14A, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated May 1, 2001, revised July 10, 2001 and October 29, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance and specifically with the following cluster development requirements from Subsection 17.8.2 of the Development Ordinance for the following reasons:

(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for Preliminary Plat Approval for the Larkspur Cluster Subdivision.

This the 25th day of February, 2002.

ATTACHMENT 1

COMMUMITY SERVICE VEHICLES

CURRENT SERVICE AREAS

PREFERRED SERVICE ACCESS

BETWEEN NORTHWOOD AND LARKSPUR

VIA HUNTER HILL ROAD

Department

Currently serves Northwood, Northwoods V, Parkside and Parkside II

Service after annexation (including Larkspur)

Include Larkspur as part of service route

Anticipated # of trips per week for Larkspur

Preferred type of access at Hunter Hill Road (full, limited, none)

If limited access stipulated, type preferred

(one-way, bollards, controlled gate)

County Recycling

Yes

2X per week

Full

One-way access

Fire

Yes

(Parkside neighborhoods only)

Yes

As needed basis

Full

Full access only

Public Works

(refuse/brush collection , street maintenance, snow removal)

(NCDOT responsible for street maintenance)

Yes

5X per week

Full

One-way access

(Larkspur to Northwoods)

Police

(Sheriff Dept)

Yes

As needed basis

Full

Bollards

Chapel Hill Transit

Bus Service

(Service available on Eubanks and Airport Roads)

Yes

(If direct link between Eubanks and Airport available)

Not planned at this time

Full

(If direct link between Eubanks and Airport available)

Controlled gate (similar to existing gates at the PR parking lot.)

ATTACHMENT 2

laLl

LARKSPUR CLUSTER SUBDIVISION

Questions/Issues Raised at the November 19, 2001 Public Hearing

Questions were raised at the Public Hearing on November 19, 2001 concerning access to adjoining properties, landscape bufferyards, recreation areas, Resource Conservation District, and overcrowded schools. Below is a response to these questions from the Public Hearing.

Access to adjoining undeveloped property to the east

1. The property owner of the undeveloped tract of land identified as Northwoods Phase V (adjacent to lots 7 -14) voiced opposition to the proposed street stub-out between Lots 13 and 14. The individual noted that existing access to his property from Weaver Dairy Road was previously approved by the Council. He also stated a belief that a street-stub out at this location would negatively impact the development of this Northwoods Phase V property.

Comment: We continue to recommend approval of the proposed street connection to this undeveloped tract. We believe the road stub-out provides an opportunity for a useful and desirable connection in the future when the undeveloped Northwoods Phase V parcel is proposed to be developed.

Landscape bufferyard

2. The Northwoods Phase V property owner asked if the Council would require the applicant to install a landscape bufferyard between the proposed development (Lots 6-14) and the adjacent undeveloped Northwoods Phase V property.

Comment: We note that the Development Ordinance does not require a landscape bufferyard between this proposed subdivision and the adjoining undeveloped properties. We do not believe that there is a compelling need for this applicant to install a landscape bufferyard in this situation.

Recreation Areas

3. A Council member voiced a concern with the applicant’s proposed recreation area. The Council member noted that most if not all of the proposed recreation area was either located within the Resource Conservation District or encumbered with future utility easements.

Comment: The Development Ordinance states that the recreation area must be centrally located and of a character, shape, and location suitable for use as a playground, playfield, or other recreation purpose, unless the recreation area is suitable for use in the Town’s overall greenway scheme, in which case there is an exemption allowed from the “high and dry” rule. This site, which is located in the Booker Creek Watershed, is referenced in the Chapel Hill Greenways Comprehensive Master Plan. A recommended greenway improvement of the Master Plan is identified on this site.

In accordance with the permitted greenway exemption, the applicant is proposing to deed to the Town a 30-foot wide greenway easement for a “Rail Trail,” a pedestrian and bicycle path that would run alongside the railroad right-of-way. This easement, which is proposed on the submitted site plan along the eastern edge of the railroad right-of-way, extends the full length of this property, between the applicant’s southern and northern property lines. The dedication of the greenway easement would allow the Town to construct the trail at a later date. We recommend that the dedication of a blanket easement for the “Rail Trail” be considered adequate to satisfy the recreation area requirement for this development. This recommendation has been included in Resolutions A through E.

4. A Council member and citizen questioned why the staff was not recommending that all or a portion of the proposed recreation area be dedicated to the Town. It was noted that two projects recently approved by the Council in the immediate area (Parkside II and the Homestead) included the dedication of recreation areas to the Town.

Comment: We recommend that the proposed 12.74 acres of recreation area be dedicated to a homeowners’ association. We believe that acquisition of this property for Town ownership, or inclusion into the Town’s overall park system, has not been expressed as desirable by the Council or the Parks and Recreation Commission. We do not anticipate Town maintenance of this area within the subdivision, except for maintenance of a potential future “Rail Trail.” Accordingly, in this case, ownership by a homeowners’ association is preferred. We note that the applicant is proposing to dedicate the recreation area to a homeowners’ association.

We also note that the Town’s Master Greenway Plan identifies a potential greenway/trail improvement on this site. Identified as the University Branch Southern Railroad “Rail Trail,” this proposed greenway will eventually extend between Chapel Hill High School and the northern limits of the Town’s jurisdiction. A greenway easement, permitting the Town to locate, construct, access and maintain a trail is desired on this site. We believe that in this situation, the dedication of an easement for the “Rail Trail” is preferred in lieu of dedication of property for ownership by the Town for a linear greenway. Since the exact location of the greenway is not determined at this time, the applicant is proposing to deed to the Town a blanket greenway easement for the future “Rail Trail.”

5. A Council member noted that the applicant is considering developing a private recreation facility on this site sometime in the near future. The member asked about the possibility of requiring Council review and approval of this recreation facility.

Comment: We note that a private recreation facility, such as the type contemplated by this applicant would be a permitted use that would fall within the purview of the Planning Board as a Site Plan approval. The Development Ordinance in Section 19.2 states that the Planning Board shall conduct site plan review in a case like this. We do not believe that there is a mechanism to change that review and approval process to a Council action absent an amendment to the Development Ordinance.

6. A citizen questioned the applicant’s calculated minimum recreation square footage. The citizen noted that the recreation space requirements for a cluster development appeared to be incorrect.

Comment: We have reviewed the minimum recreation area calculations with the applicant and have confirmed that the information submitted with the application is correct.

Resource Conservation District

7. A citizen expressed a concern with the impact of the proposed development on the Resource Conservation District. It was noted that several proposed lot lines (lots 37, 38, 59, 60) encroach into the Resource Conservation District. It was also noted that the sanitary sewer line proposed behind lots 35 – 47 is adjacent to and at times encroaches into the Resource Conservation District. The citizen suggested that some of the lots encroaching into the Resource Conservation District should be reserved as recreation/open space, and questioned why the sewer line could not be relocated to the public street.

Comment: In response to this concern the applicant has agreed to revise the site plan. The revised site plan includes the removal of all lot lines from the Resource Conservation District. The revised plans also include relocating the sanitary sewer line from behind lots 35-47 to the street right-of-way. Preliminary sewer plans have been reviewed by staff and OWASA. Stipulated in Resolution A is a condition that lot lines are prohibited from encroaching into the Resource Conservation District. Resolution A also includes a stipulation that the sewer line is removed from behind lots 35-47 and relocated into the street right-of-way.

Schools

8. A Council member expressed a concern with the impact of this proposed development on the local schools and student enrollment. The Council member asked about the situation with overcrowding in the schools that would serve the Larkspur Development.

Comment: At the Council’s request we have contacted staff at the central office of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and obtained the following information.

Larkspur is proposed in an area that is within the following attendance zones for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. Capacity of each school and current membership (enrollment) is indicated:

Level School Capacity Membership, 2001-02 year

Elementary School: Seawell 498 676 (178 over capacity)

Middle School: Smith 732 521 (211 under capacity)

High School: Chapel Hill High 1,520 1,560 (40 over capacity)

Seawell Elementary is currently the most overcrowded school in the district. Relief is expected in the fall of 2003, approximately 18 months from now, with the opening of a new elementary school at Meadowmont and accompanying re-alignment of attendance zones. The Larkspur subdivision would result in 86 new homes, which would likely generate approximately 20-40 additional elementary students. The timing of the proposed new elementary school at Meadowmont is such that attendance zones are likely to be re-drawn at approximately the same time that houses in Larkspur would begin to be occupied, if the Larkspur Subdivision is approved this spring.

Smith Middle is currently under capacity, in large part because the school just opened in the fall of 2001. Attendance zones were re-drawn, but 8^th grade students at other Middle Schools had the option of remaining at their previous school for their final year of middle school. Membership at Smith is expected to be over 700 within two years.

Chapel Hill High School is basically at capacity right now, with membership expected to increase by close to 100 students per year over the next few years. There is ongoing discussion about how to add high school capacity to this school system, but no firm plans are yet in place.

9. In response to a Council member’s question concerning school bus access to Larkspur via Hunter Hill Road, the following question was asked of the staff at the central office of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. Following the question is a response.

What would be the impact on operation of school buses if Hunter Hill Lane were to be open to traffic between Northwood and Larkspur, compared to a design that would not allow access?

School buses for elementary, middle, and high school levels operate on different schedules. The rule is that, if a dwelling unit is far enough away from a school, the dwelling is entitled to bus service within a quarter-mile of the dwelling. At present all bus routes travel through the Northwood neighborhood: coming in off of Eubanks Road and exiting onto NC 86. If Hunter Hill Lane is not connected to Larkspur, buses likely would serve the Larkspur neighborhood by traveling west on Weaver Dairy Road, past Larkspur, and on down the new Weaver Dairy Road extension to Homestead Road (likely not entering the Larkspur subdivision, but picking up students on Weaver Dairy Road extension). If Hunter Hill were to be connected, the bus would likely use Hunter Hill to enter Larkspur directly from Northwood, drive through the Larkspur neighborhood, and exit onto Weaver Dairy Road extension. The main impact, then, would likely be that school buses would drive through Larkspur if Hunter Hill is connected, but drive past Larkspur on Weaver Dairy Road Extension if the connection is absent.