Finding Regarding Compliance with all applicable regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations.

 

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to the February 18^th Public Hearing memorandum).   We note the following key points raised by the applicant.

·        “The proposed design complies with the Chapel Hill Zoning Ordinance with regard to Use Regulations, Article 4; Intensity Regulations, Article 5; Design Standards, Article 6 as well as the approved Master Land Use Plan and the approved Meadowmont Design Guidelines.”  [Applicant Statement]

·        “The principal use of these buildings will be residential use group R, which is a permitted use in the R5-C zone.”  [Applicant Statement]

·        “Compliance with Article 5 is evidenced through information contained on supporting documents to this request.”  [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition:  No one who spoke at the Public Hearing offered evidence in opposition.

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

KEY ISSUES

We believe that the key issues raised during the February 18^th Public Hearing focused on affordable housing, differences between the Master Land Use Plan and the Hilltop Condominium site, and pedestrian access at the Greenway Condominium site.    We offer additional information on these issues below.  We also have provided a list of other questions raised during the Hearing, followed by comment from the applicant and/or Town staff, as Attachment 1 to this memorandum. 

Affordable Housing:  Two key issues concerning affordable housing were raised at the February 18^h Public Hearing.  Those issues concerned:

·        Clustering affordable units within the Greenway Condominium buildings; and

·        Use of a Land Trust to ensure affordability.

Clustering affordable units within the Greenway Condominium buildings:  Some Council members expressed a concern about the proposal to locate all of the affordable housing units that are proposed within the Greenway Condominium building.  A Council member stated that it did not seem appropriate to segregate all of the affordable units within one building.  Another noted that the affordable units were next to the recycling center and behind the grocery store.

Comment:  This Special Use Permit application for 64 multi-family residential units includes a proposal by the applicant addressing the Town’s objective of increasing affordable housing opportunities.  The applicant is proposing that 15 percent of the 64 multi-family units (10 units) be available at prices affordable to low and moderate income households.  The applicant has proposed 10 affordable units within the 16-unit Greenway Condominium portion of the development.

We believe that this proposal, to locate the 10 affordable units within the Greenway portion of the development, is reasonable and addresses the objective of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to multi-family developments and affordable housing provisions.  We note that this will be the second location within the Meadowmont development where affordable housing is being developed.

We recommend that Resolution A include a stipulation that identifies and reserves no less than ten (10) affordable housing units (collectively the “Reserved Units”). 

Use of a Land Trust to ensure affordability: The Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation included a stipulation that, in order to ensure the future affordability of the affordable units in the Greenway Condominium building, each deed conveying title to such units include restrictions on resale addressing affordability of said unit.  Several Council members expressed support for use of a land trust as the mechanism insuring future affordability.

Comment:  We note that previous developments approved by the Council (Providence Glen, Meadowmont Affordable Housing, Scarlette Drive Townhomes, The Homestead), have addressed the affordability questions in one of two ways.

One approach involves placing the site within a land trust.  Meadowmont Affordable Housing, Scarlette Drive Townhomes and a portion of The Homestead are structured such that the land is owned by Orange Community Housing and Land Trust. The second approach, approved by the Council most recently with the Providence Glen Special Use Permit, involves placing deed restrictions on the sale and re-sale of individual units identified as affordable. 

We have discussed the issue of a condominium/land trust model with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.  Attachment #2 of this memorandum is a letter to the Council from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.  Although Orange Community Housing and Land Trust is researching how the land trust model can be used with future condominium projects, at this time, it is unable to accommodate the Council’s request to include the Greenway Condominiums in the land trust.

We believe that the approach used with the Providence Glen project (deed restrictions on the sale and re-sale) is workable for this proposed development.

Resolution A stipulates that the 10 “Reserved Units” shall be offered for sale at a price not to exceed a base price of $130,000.  Resolution A stipulates that the 10 “Reserved Units” shall be subject to deed restrictions regulating the resale price to ensure future affordability.

Resolution A also stipulates that the 10 “Reserved Units” shall be constructed and available for occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 25^th Hilltop Condominium unit.

We also note that the applicant has agreed to place deed restrictions on six (6) Greenway Condominium units (collectively the “non-Reserved Units”).  The proposed deed restriction would regulate the re-sale price to ensure the future affordability of these units as well.  We recommend that Resolution A include a stipulation that identifies six (6) Greenway Condominium units as “non-Reserved Units” and that such units shall be subject to deed restriction regulating resale price.

Differences in the number of units between the Master Land Use Plan and the Hilltop Condominium Site:  The Council received a letter from a citizen expressing a concern with the proposed unit density at the Hilltop Condominiums site.  The letter states that the number of units proposed at the Hilltop site is a “significant change from the original (Master Land Use ) plan.”  A Council member also asked how many units were shown on the Master Land Use site plan in the area proposed as the Hilltop Condominium development. 

Comment:  We reviewed the adopted Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan Resolution and that portion of the Meadowmont Master Land Use site plan that is now proposed as the Hilltop Condominium site.  We note that unlike other portions of the Meadowmont Master Land Use site plan, the area encumbered by the Hilltop Condominium site does not include text referring to maximum units or floor area limitations.  We also note that the adopted Master Land Use Plan Resolution does not specifically address number of units in this area.

There is a maximum number of dwelling units for the entire Meadowmont development.  Dwelling units and floor area allocations were established for each Meadowmont parcel as part of final plans for the Infrastructure Special Use Permit.  We have been monitoring the different components of the Meadowmont development to assure compliance with these allocations; the Hilltop and Greenway sites as proposed here are consistent with these allocations.

We note however that the portions of the Meadowmont Master Land Use site plan include graphic representations of building footprints and lot lines.  The area of the Master Land Use site plan encumbered by the Hilltop Condominium site includes these building footprints and lot lines (please see Attachment #4).  We believe that the graphic representation of building footprints within this area include ten (10) single-family units , two (2) duplex units, one (1) four-plex unit, 21 townhome units, and ten (10) garage-apartment units.  In summary we believe the Master Land Use Plan showed approximately 49 dwelling units within the area proposed for the Hilltop Condominium development.  The applicant is proposing to construct 48 dwelling units within this area.

Pedestrian access at the Greenway Condominium site:  Pedestrian connectivity on the Greenway Condominium site was raised as an issue with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and noted as a concern with the Planning Board.  In response to that concern, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation included a stipulation requiring that the final plans for the Greenway Condominiums include additional pedestrian sidewalk connections.  The stipulation required the applicant to investigate additional pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk, the County’s recycling center and the adjacent grocery store. At the Public Hearing a Council member requested additional information on specific locations for these pedestrian connections.

Comment:  We believe that a sidewalk along the east side of the Greenway Condominium building, connecting the West Barbee Chapel Road sidewalk and the sidewalk network behind the building is appropriate.   A stipulation to that affect is included in Resolution A.  Resolution A also includes a stipulation that, if feasible, a landscape buffer be located between the east side of the Greenway Condominiums and this sidewalk.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are summarized below. Summaries of board actions are attached to the February 18, 2002 memorandum.

Planning Board’s Recommendation:  The Planning Board reviewed this proposal on January 15, 2002, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B.

Resolution A, the Town Manager’s Revised Recommendation, and Resolution B include the following recommended condition of the Planning Board:

·        Board Recommendation: That the stipulation concerning a Construction Management Plan delete the following text:

“Within the Meadowmont development no construction vehicles serving this site shall use Pinehurst Drive, south of Gurnsey Trail.  The Town Manager may restrict construction vehicles from other residential streets within the Meadowmont development if deemed necessary.”

The Board and the applicant agreed that in this case, prohibiting construction traffic within the Meadowmont development was unreasonable and restrictive.  It was noted that most of the Meadowmont development is and will remain an active constructive site for some undetermined time.  It was also noted by the Board and the applicant that construction vehicles must use Pinehurst Drive, south of Gurnsey Trail, to access and construct the southern entrance into the Hilltop site.   

Comment: Resolution A, the Manager’s Recommendation includes the above recommendation from the Planning Board.  We anticipate that travel by most of the heavy construction equipment associated with this proposed development will likely be concentrated on West Barbee Chapel Road.  We believe that the impact of construction traffic, associated with this proposal, on the overall Meadowmont neighborhood will be minimal and therefore the above noted restrictions would be unnecessary.  

We also believe that it is unreasonable to prohibit construction vehicles from traveling on the southern most block of Pinehurst Drive.  Access to the Hilltop site from Pinehurst Drive was shown and approved during the Infrastructure Special Use Permit. We believe that use of this portion of Pinehurst Drive by construction vehicles for this project should not be restricted.

Transportation Board Recommendation:  The Transportation Board reviewed this application on January 15, 2002, and voted 6-1 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution C.

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation:  The Parks and Recreation Commission Board reviewed this application on January 18, 2002, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution C.

Greenways Commission Recommendation:  The Greenways Commission reviewed this application on January 23, 2002, and voted 3-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution C.   

Comment: Resolution C differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, on the issue concerning a construction traffic management plan.   Please see the discussion under the Planning Board Recommendation for additional information on this issue.

Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 2002, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution D.

Resolution A, the Town Manager’s Revised Recommendation, and Resolution D include the following recommended condition of the Community Design Commission:

·        Board Recommendation:  That the steep slopes around Building #1 be stabilized with plantings and /or more significant techniques than just planting grass.

Resolution D differs from Resolution A because it includes the two following recommendations from the Community Design Commission:

·        Board Recommendation:  That bio-retention areas be created between the Meadowmont Hilltop Condominiums.

Comment: The Hilltop Condominium site drains into a retention/detention pond located near the southeast corner of the Hilltop development, between the southern end of Pinehurst Drive and NC 54 Highway.  This pond, part of the Meadowmont Infrastructure Special Use Permit, is just downhill from the Hilltop site and was constructed to retain stormwater and allow pollutants to settle out.  The pond will adequately accommodate the stormwater retention/detention requirements for this site. Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, does not include the above recommendation from the Community Design Commission.   

·        Board Recommendation:  That additional bicycle parking be provided in the common bicycle storage building at the Greenway Condominiums, in order to reduce the need for first-floor residents to park their bicycles on their porches.

The Commission expressed concern that if bicycles are parked on the porches of the Greenway Condominium buildings, it will adversely affect the appearance of the development.

Comment: In order to accommodate additional bicycle parking in the common storage building, it would be necessary to increase the size of the proposed storage building. Although a larger storage building could accommodate more bicycles, the available space would not prohibit some first floor residents from storing bicycle on their porch.  Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, does not include the above recommendation from the Community Design Commission. 

In addition to the above recommendations concerning bio-retention and bicycle parking, Resolution D differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, on the construction traffic management plan.   Please see the discussion under the Planning Board Recommendation for additional information on this issue.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on January 22, 2002, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution E.

Resolution A, the Town Manager’s Revised Recommendation, and Resolution E include the following four recommended conditions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board:

·        Board Recommendation:  For the Hilltop Condominiums, that pedestrian connection be provided between the parking areas and the buildings.

·        Board Recommendation:  For the Greenway Condominiums, that greenery be provided along the eastern edge of the property.

·        Board Recommendation:  For the Greenway Condominiums, that a crosswalk be provided across the western entrance into the project site.  The crosswalk should be designed consistent with similar crosswalks in the Meadowmont development.

·        Board Recommendation:  For the Greenway Condominiums, that a pedestrian connection be provided on the east side of the property, from the north side of the buildings south to a crosswalk connecting to the Village Center property.

Resolution E differs from Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, on the issue concerning a construction traffic management plan.   Please see the discussion under the Planning Board Recommendation for additional information on this issue.

Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our recommendation is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance, and is consistent with the approved Master Land Use Plan.  Accordingly, we continue to recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.

Resolution A has been revised to include a stipulation requiring that a pedestrian connection be provided on the east side of the Greenway Condominium building, from the north side of the building south to a crosswalk connecting to the village center property.

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

Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Greenways Commission.

Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Community Design Commission.

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

Resolution F would deny the application.

A table comparing these alternative resolutions follows.

Hilltop Condominiums and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont

Special Use Permit

Differences between Resolutions

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

ATTACHMENTS

1.      List of Questions and Issues raised during the February 18, 2002 Public Hearing (p. 31).

2.      March 15, 2002 letter from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (p. 33).

3.      February 18, 2002 letter from Jill Ridky-Blackburn (p. 34).

4.      Meadowmont Master Land Use site plan 1995 (Hilltop Condominium site) (p. 35).

5.      Area Map (p. 36).

6.      February 18, 2002 Public Hearing and Related Attachments (p. 37).

RESOLUTION A

(Town Manager’s Revised Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-03-25/R-15a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799), if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 08, 2001 and stamped December 21, 2001, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, and the conditions listed below, would:

1.      Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations; and

2.      Be consistent with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan that was approved on October 23, 1995.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont in accordance with the plans listed above and the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Developments

1.      That construction begin by March 25, 2004 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by March 25, 2005 (three  years from the date of Council approval).

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

* Bicycle storage building included in Total # of Buildings

That because the land area of the this Special Use Permit does not provide sufficient land to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use Intensity requirements of the Development Ordinance, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall obligate land within the bounds of the Master Land Use Plan to enable this development to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use Intensity requirements.  With any application for Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall provide document(s), to be recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office, that obligates allowable Land Use Intensity requirements of land located within the boundary of the Master Plan, but outside the boundary of this Special Use Permit, to ensure compliance of this application with the Land Use Intensity requirements of the Development Ordinance.

Stipulations Related to Affordable Housing

3.      Restriction of Sales Price of Units: That the Applicant shall identify and reserve ten (10) units in the Greenway Condominium project, collectively the "Reserved Units," for individuals or families with a gross income equal to one hundred percent (100%) or less of the Median Family Income by household size as published periodically by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (collectively, the "Qualified Buyers," and individually, a "Qualified Buyer").

The applicant shall identify and designate the remaining six (6) Greenway Condominium Units at this property as the “non-Reserved Units.”

Each Qualified Buyer shall deliver to the Applicant written evidence, acknowledged in writing by the Town Manager, that such buyer qualifies as a Qualified Buyer.  The Applicant shall have no further obligation to inquire about such buyer's qualifications for Qualified Buyer status.

That the 10 “Reserved Units” shall be offered for sale at a price not to exceed a base price of $130,000. The base price shall be applicable to all sales of “Reserved Units” during 2002.  The sales price of “Reserved Units” may be adjusted upward in future years for any “Reserved Units” not sold by the Applicant.  That any increase to the Base price shall be limited to the increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index during the previous year(s).

A.     Restrictions on Appreciation of “Reserved” and “non-Reserved” Units:  The following restrictions shall be contained in the Declaration of Condominium for all “Reserved Units” and “non-Reserved Units” and any other appropriate recorded document at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office for this property (or similar language as approved by the Town Manager):

If at any time prior to ninety-nine (99) years after the initial sale of a unit by the Applicant, an owner desires to sell a “Reserved” or “non-Reserved” Unit in the Greenway Condominium project to a third party, such sale shall be at a price not exceeding the sum of the following:

(a)    the purchase price owner paid for the Unit;  plus

(b)   documented reasonable and customary closing costs paid by the owner at time of acquisition of  the Unit; plus

(c)    documented permanent capital improvements to the Unit not exceeding an aggregate cost of Two Thousand, Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($2,500.00) per annum during the period the unit is owned;  plus

(d)   documented extraordinary assessments paid to the condominium homeowners association during the term of ownership by the owner; plus

(e)    documented reasonable and customary closing costs to the owner to sell the Unit; plus

(f)     an amount which shall be the product of (a) above and a factor which shall be one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index for the period of time the owner has owned the Unit through and including the proposed date of sale of the Unit to a third party. 

B.  Determination of Sale of “Reserved” and “non-Reserved” Units:  Before offering any “Reserved” or “non-Reserved” Unit for sale, owner shall deliver to the Town Manager, notice of its intention to sell its Unit along with the proposed selling price and documentation of the calculation thereof.  The Town Manager shall have ten (10) business days from receipt to review the proposed sales price and calculation to confirm that it is consistent with these restrictions.  If the Town Manager fails to respond within the ten (10) day period, consent shall be deemed to have been received and the owner shall be free to sell the Unit to a third party at its proposed sales price.  If during the ten day period, the Town Manager finds that the proposed sales price differs from that allowed by these restrictions, the Town Manager shall promptly advise owner what the approved maximum selling price should be.  The owner shall sell the Unit for the maximum price established by the Town Manager, subject to the restrictions below if the unit is a “Reserved Unit.”

C.  Restriction on Sale of “Reserved” Units:  Before accepting the Offer of a third party to buy a “Reserved” Unit, Buyer shall deliver to the Town Manager, two copies each of a purchase contract embodying the terms of the Offer, signed by the Buyer,  information on whether the offer is from a “Qualified Buyer,” together with written notice of Buyer's intention to make the Offer embodied in the contract if the Offer is not accepted by the Town Manager in accordance with the terms hereof.  The Town Manager shall have ten (10) business days from receipt of the contract and such notice to accept the Offer embodied in the contract.  If the Town Manager elects to accept the Offer, the Town Manager must do so by signing one copy of the contract and returning it to Buyer within the ten (10) day period. If the Town Manager does not accept the Offer embodied in the contract within the ten (10) day period, Buyer shall be free to sell the “Reserved” Unit to a third party on the same terms and conditions set forth in the Offer and subject to compliance with Paragraph B.  The term of this restriction (the "Restriction Term") shall be ninety-nine (99) years after the initial sale of a unit by the Applicant.

For its determination of what any proposed sales price shall be, the Town Manager shall rely solely upon those items (a) – (f) above and no other.  If the Greenway Condominium building is demolished prior to December 31, 2052 these restrictions shall expire at such time that the Greenway Condominium building is demolished.

D.  Other Provisions: This provision shall not be amended or changed without the prior approval of the Town Manager.  The Town may assign any  of its powers and obligations contained herein. 

A person offering a Greenway Unit for sale shall lawfully reference in the Grant Deed conveying title of any such unit, and record with the Orange County Recorder of Deeds Office, a covenant or Declaration of Restrictions in a form approved by the Town Manager.  Such covenant or Declaration of Restrictions shall reference applicable contractual agreements, restrictive covenants, and resale restrictions as are necessary.

All of the “Reserved Units” shall be constructed and available for sale and occupancy, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 25^th Hilltop Condominium unit.

Stipulations Related to on-site Recreation Space

4.      Recreation Space:  That the developer provides 3,000 square feet of improved recreation space on the Hilltop Condominium site. This improved recreation space is to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 

No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the Hilltop Condominium residential units until all the active recreation facilities for that development have been completed.

Stipulations Related to Access and Circulation

5.      Parking Lots: That all parking lots and drive aisles associated with the proposed development shall be constructed to Town standards.

6.      Hilltop Condominium Parking Lot Design:  That the final plans for the Hilltop Condominiums include a revised parking lot design incorporating pedestrian connections between the parking areas and the buildings.  The type, location and number of the pedestrian connections shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

7.      Greenway Condominium Crosswalk:  That the final plans for the Greenway Condominiums shall include a crosswalk across the western entrance into the project site.  The crosswalk should be designed consistent with similar crosswalks in the Meadowmont development.  The final crosswalk design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

8.      Greenway Condominium Pedestrian Connection to the Village Center:  That a pedestrian connection be provided on the east side of the property, from the north side of the buildings south to a crosswalk connecting to the village center property.

9.      Bicycle Parking:  That the development comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:

Stipulation Related to Watershed Protection District

10.  Watershed Protection District: Compliance with the Town Watershed Protection District regulations, if applicable, shall be demonstrated with the provision of multiple permanent ponds.  For those portions of the development complying with the Low Density Option identified in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall not be required. For those portions of the development complying with the High Density option identified in the Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall be required in accordance with the requirements of the Development Ordinance.

A.       The size, accessibility, location, and design of each pond shall be approved by the Town Manager.

B.        These wet retention ponds shall meet or exceed the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management requirements and shall be designed so as to be approved by the Division of Environmental Management, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Town Manager.

C.       The property owner shall post a performance bond or other surety instrument satisfactory to the Town, in an amount approved by the Town Manager, to assure maintenance, repair, or reconstruction necessary for adequate performance of the engineered stormwater controls.

D.       For ponds proposed to be located within the Resource Conservation District, the ponds must be designed so as not to be inundated by the flood waters from the base flood discharge.

E.        The Owners’ or Homeowners’ Association shall be responsible for arranging for annual inspections of all ponds by an appropriately certified engineer, to determine whether the ponds and associated structures are operating acceptably according to design requirements, and to report findings of said inspections to the Town Manager, with such recommendations for maintenance or repair as may be warranted.  Any needed repairs shall be completed within 120 days unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded which shall identify these responsibilities of the Owners’ or Homeowners’ Association, including pond maintenance.

F.        Maintenance of the ponds shall be the responsibility of the developer or a property/homeowners’ association.  A maintenance plan shall be provided for each of the retention ponds, to be approved by the Town Manager.  The plans shall address inspection, maintenance intervals, type of equipment required, access to each pond, and related matters.

G.       As part of every application for Final Plan Approval, Zoning Compliance Permit, and residential Building Permit, the developer shall provide an up-to-date cumulative total for impervious surfaces in the particular sub-basin.

H.       The minimum permanent pool depth shall be at least three (3) feet in addition to enough volume to store the accumulated sediment between clean out periods.

I.          All sediment deposited in the ponds during construction activity on contributing sites must be removed before “normal” pond operation begins.

J.          Emergency drains shall be installed in all ponds to allow access for repairs and sediment removal as necessary.

K.       Anti-seepage collars shall be used on any structures penetrating dams or water retaining embankments.

L.        Public storm drainage systems, or other utilities, shall not be located within a pond or dam structure.

M.      That no ponds be created within the perimeter landscaped buffer required for the Meadowmont development.

N.       That the ponds be located and designed such that damage to existing large trees can be minimized.

That the applicant provide calculations confirming Meadowmont’s overall compliance with Impervious Surface Limits.

Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architectural Elements

11.  Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  This plan shall include areas of vegetation to be preserved; the anticipated clearing limit lines; proposed grading; proposed utility lines; a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas.  That silt fencing and/or tree protection fencing is installed along all construction limits lines including those that are proposed to overlap property lines.

12.  Removal of Significant Tree:  That the 29-inch oak tree, along the western property line on the Hilltop development site plan, may be removed.

13.  Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers), landscape maintenance plans, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  That the landscape plan shall include:

A.     The 20-foot wide landscape buffer area between the Hilltop development and the adjacent residential single family lots;

B.     The 5-foot wide landscape buffer area between the Greenway development and the Meadowmont greenway;

C.     A re-landscaping plan for the proposed erosion control sediment basins.  The landscaping of the sediment basin associated with the Greenway site shall included two,  2 ½ to 3 inch caliper canopy trees; and

D.     A re-landscaping plan for the NC 54 entranceway corridor if deemed necessary by the Town Manager.

E.      A landscape plan for the steep slopes around Hilltop Condominiums Building #1.

F.      A landscape plan for the east side of the Greenway Condominium Building.  That if a sidewalk is installed in this area, landscaping shall only be installed if there is an adequate planting areas between the sidewalk and the building.

14.  Parking Lot Screening: That all Hilltop Condominium parking areas shall be screened from highway view.  The screening plans shall be approval by the Town Manager. 

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

Stipulations Related to Utilities

16.  Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time/Warner Cable and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  That the final plans demonstrate there is no conflict between utility lines, easements, and other site elements.

17.  Utility Lines: That all utility lines shall be underground and shall be indicated on final plans.

Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

18.  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.

Stipulations Related to Fire Protection

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

20.  Sprinkler System: That the buildings shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

21.  Fire Hydrant Location: That all new structures shall be located within 500 feet of a fire hydrant, subject to the approval of the Town Manager.

22.  Fire Department Connections: That fire department connections shall be no more than 50 feet from the hydrants and located on street side of buildings in visible, accessible locations, subject to Town Fire Marshall approval.

Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection

23.  Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for the management and minimizing of construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  That a shared access agreement with the Village Center shall be submitted to the Town Manager and recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

24.  Illumination of Hilltop Refuse Area:  That the final plans included a lighting plan for the illumination of the refuse collection areas at the Hilltop site.

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

Miscellaneous Stipulations

26.  Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Construction Management Plan shall specify that no construction vehicles serving this site shall use any existing streets, outside the Meadowmont development area, within the area bounded by Ephesus Church Road, George King Road, NC Highway 54, and Fordham Boulevard. 

27.  Declaration of Condominium: That the Declaration of Condominium document shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Durham  County Register of Deeds Office.  That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded document to the Town.  

28.  Ownership and Responsibilities of Common Areas: That an owners’ association be created for the maintenance and regulation of the private (residential, office, park, landscape, and commercial) areas including privately maintained streets and alleys.

A.       All property owners owning land within the area of the Master Land Use Plan approval, excluding governmental bodies, shall be represented in the owners’ association.  This owners’ association shall have maintenance responsibilities for commercially owned development elements which affect the entire development, including the stormwater management facilities.

B.        In addition, separate neighborhood association(s) and/or  owners’ association(s) shall be created for the maintenance and regulation of the residential, office, and commercial areas.  The documents creating these entities shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager, and shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

C.       The responsibilities of these entities shall include the ownership and maintenance of the private alleys, private green spaces, private parks and recreation space, private retention and detention basins, parking lots, and the landscape buffers.

D.       These entities shall also be responsible for any “add-on fees” charged by Duke Power for special street lighting.

E.        These entities shall have the ability to place a lien on property for nonpayment of dues or fees. 

F.        The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Durham County Register of Deeds Office and shall be cross-referenced on the final plat. That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded document to the Town.  

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

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

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

31.  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.

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

33.  Energy Management:  That an energy management program, designed to minimize energy consumption, be prepared and submitted to the town Manager as part of final plans, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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

35.  Construction Sign Required: That the developer shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

37.  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 Special Use Permit application for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont.

This the 25^th  day of March, 2002.

RESOLUTION B

(Planning Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-03-25/R-15b)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799), if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 08, 2001 and stamped December 21, 2001, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, and the conditions listed below, would:

1.      Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations; and

2.      Be consistent with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan that was approved on October 23, 1995.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont 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 stipulations below.

2.                  Landscape Plan Approval: That the Landscape Plan Approval stipulation shall not include:

·        A landscape plan for the steep slopes around Hilltop Condominiums Building #1.; and

·        A landscape plan for the east side of the Greenway Condominium Building.

3.      Delete Stipulations: Stipulations related to Hilltop Condominium Parking Lot Design, Greenway Condominium Pedestrian Connection to the Village Center and Greenway Condominium Crosswalks shall be deleted from the resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Special Use Permit application for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont.

This the 25^th  day of  March, 2002.

RESOLUTION C

(Transportation Board,

 Parks and Recreation Commission and

  Greenways Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-03-25/R-15c)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799), if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 08, 2001 and stamped December 21, 2001, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, and the conditions listed below, would:

1.      Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations; and

2.      Be consistent with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan that was approved on October 23, 1995.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont 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 stipulations below.

2.      Construction Management Plan: That the Construction Management Plan stipulation shall include the following:

·        Within the Meadowmont development no construction vehicles serving this site shall use Pinehurst Drive, south of Gurnsey Trail.  The Town Manager may restrict construction vehicles from other residential streets within the Meadowmont development if deemed necessary.

3.      Landscape Plan Approval: That the Landscape Plan Approval stipulation shall not include:

·        A landscape plan for the steep slopes around Hilltop Condominiums Building #1.; and

·        A landscape plan for the east side of the Greenway Condominium Building.

4.      Delete Stipulations: Stipulations related to Hilltop Condominium Parking Lot Design, Greenway Condominium Pedestrian Connection to the Village Center, and Greenway Condominium Crosswalks shall be deleted from the resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Special Use Permit application for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont.

This the 25^th  day of March, 2002.

RESOLUTION D

(Community Design Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-03-25/R-15d)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799), if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 08, 2001 and stamped December 21, 2001, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, and the conditions listed below, would:

1.      Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations; and

2.      Be consistent with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan that was approved on October 23, 1995.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont 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 stipulations below.

2.      Construction Management Plan: That the Construction Management Plan stipulation shall include the following

·        Within the Meadowmont development no construction vehicles serving this site shall use Pinehurst Drive, south of Gurnsey Trail.  The Town Manager may restrict construction vehicles from other residential streets within the Meadowmont development if deemed necessary.

3.      Landscape Plan Approval: That the Landscape Plan Approval stipulation shall not include:

·        A landscape plan for the east side of the Greenway Condominium Building.

4.      Delete Stipulations: Stipulations related to Hilltop Condominium Parking Lot Design, Greenway Condominium Pedestrian Connection to the Village Center, and Greenway Condominium Crosswalks shall be deleted from the resolution.

5.      Insert Stipulations: The following stipulations shall be inserted into the resolution:

a)         Hilltop Condominiums bio-retention facility:  That bio-retention areas be created between the Meadowmont Hilltop Condominiums. That the final design and location(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

b)        Greenway Condominiums bicycle storage shed:  That additional parking be provided in the common bicycle storage in order to reduce the need for first-floor residents to park their bicycles on their porches. That the final design, dimension and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Special Use Permit application for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont.

This the 25^th  day of  March, 2002.

RESOLUTION E

(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-03-25/R-15e)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799), if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 08, 2001 and stamped December 21, 2001, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, and the conditions listed below, would:

1.      Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations; and

2.      Be consistent with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan that was approved on October 23, 1995.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont 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 stipulations below.

2.      Construction Management Plan: That the Construction Management Plan stipulation shall include the following:

·        Within the Meadowmont development no construction vehicles serving this site shall use Pinehurst Drive, south of Gurnsey Trail.  The Town Manager may restrict construction vehicles from other residential streets within the Meadowmont development if deemed necessary.

3.      Landscape Plan Approval: That the Landscape Plan Approval stipulation shall not include:

·        A landscape plan for the steep slopes around Hilltop Condominiums Building #1.

4.      Delete Stipulation: Stipulation related to Greenway Condominium Pedestrian Connection to the Village Center, shall be deleted from the resolution.

5.      Insert Stipulation: The following stipulation shall be inserted into the resolution:

a)           Greenway Condominium Pedestrian Connection to the Village Center:  That a pedestrian connection be provided on the east side of the property, from the north side of the buildings south to a crosswalk connecting to the village center property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Special Use Permit application for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont.

This the 25^th  day of March, 2002.

RESOLUTION F

(Denying the Application)

A RESOLUTION DENYING APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-03-25/R-15f)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799), if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 08, 2001 and stamped December 21, 2001, the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, would not:

1.      Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations; and

2.      Be consistent with the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan that was approved on October 23, 1995.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds:

(INSERT ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR DENIAL)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the Special Use Permit application for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont.

This the 25^th  day of March, 2002.

ATTACHMENT 1

HILLTOP AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT

Questions/Issues Raised at the February 18, 2002 Public Hearing

Questions were raised at the Public Hearing on February 18, 2002 concerning building encroachment into the meadow, increase in traffic, hours of service vehicle operation at the County’s future recycling center, and an area map.   Below is a response to these questions from the Public Hearing. 

1.      Building encroachment into the meadow:  The Council received a letter from a citizen expressing a concern with the proposed Hilltop Condominiums project encroaching upon the meadow.  At the Public Hearing staff stated that because both proposed development sites are not adjacent to the meadow, the citizen’s comment may be directed towards a different project proposed on the opposite side of West Barbee Chapel Road.     

Comment:  We have contacted the individual who wrote the letter and confirmed that the concern about a building encroaching into the meadow involves another project not associated with the Hilltop or Greenway Condominiums.

2.      Increase in traffic:  The Council received a letter from a citizen expressing a concern that the increased density is a “significant change from the original plan” and therefore will result in an increase in traffic.

Comment:  During the Public Hearing on the Meadowmont Infrastructure Special Use Permit, East-West Partners presented the Council with projections on traffic generated by the Meadowmont development at build-out.  We note that the increase in traffic, associated with this project, is consistent with the overall traffic numbers reviewed and approved by the Council during the Infrastructure Special Use Permit application

3.      Hours of service vehicle operation at the County’s future recycling center:  A Council member wondered if Orange County Recycling has determined which hours their service vehicles will be collecting recyclable from the recycling center next to the Greenway Condominium site.

Comment:  In response to this question, the County’s Recycling Department indicated anticipated service hours would be between 6 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday thru Friday, with occasional Saturday daytime service.  We note that the recycling center is not part of this Special Use Permit application and therefore Council is unable, under this process, to regulate hours of service vehicle operation.

We note that the recently adopted noise ordinance states that noise resulting from the provisions of sanitation and recycling services, between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. is permitted in accordance with a permit issued by the Town Manager.

4.      Area Map:  A Council member stated that they had some difficulty finding the proposed site within the Meadowmont development.  They noted that the February 18^th Public Hearing memorandum did not include an Area Map that clearly identified the Hilltop or Greenway Condominium sites. 

Comment: The Town has standardized area maps by using the mapping information provided by the GIS systems. We typically provide a standardized area map with the development applications.  The area map for this application was inadvertently omitted from the Public Hearing memo. An area map is provided as an attachment to this memo.