AGENDA #9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Cross Creek Subdivision – Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
DATE: April 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Cross Creek Public Hearing from March 25, 2002 regarding a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 12.78 acres into 17 residential lots. Currently, two houses exist on the two separate tracts. Both homes are proposed to be incorporated into the subdivision. Adoption of Resolution A, B, C, or D would approve the Preliminary Plat application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution E would deny the request. Resolution F would direct the Town Manager to investigate concerns expressed by the Planning Board concerning the culvert at Cedar Hills and Silo Drives.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background information on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action.
¨ Attachments: Includes letters from the Sass Development Company and The Design Response, Inc., a revision of the road layout around a tree island, a vicinity map, a watershed map, and a copy of the March 25, 2002 Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.
|
Background
On February 18 and March 25, 2002, Public Hearings were held for consideration of a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the creation of 17 lots for residential construction. The subject area, 12.78 acres in size, is currently comprised of two lots, each with a single-family dwelling. The proposal is to subdivide the two lots into 17 lots. A new subdivision road is proposed to serve the new homesites as well as the two existing homes. In accordance with the restriction in Section 13.11 of the Development Ordinance house size limits are proposed for 3 of the lots. One of the three restricted size homes is proposed to be the existing dwelling on Tract 1.
The site is located on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road between Timberlyne Drive and Cedar Hills Drive approximately one mile east of Airport Road. The site is immediately west and north of the Cedar Hills neighborhood and east of the Kitchen property.
This is an application for a Preliminary Plat application. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this 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 regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on February 18 and March 25 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 February 18 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.
evaluation of the application
Evaluation of this application centers on compliance with the subdivision regulations and standards in the Development Ordinance. 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.
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 March 25 Public Hearing continue to focus on stormwater issues, a pedestrian connection, the new subdivision road design in relation to the preservation of an oak tree, and the Small House Ordinance. We offer additional information on these issues below.
Stormwater Issues: Several stormwater related issues were raised at the March 25 Public Hearing. These issues include:
· Stormwater Management Plan
· Performance Bond
· Impervious surface
· Best Management Practices on individual lots
· Analysis of Cedar Hills Drive culvert
The applicant indicates in the attached April 15, 2002 letter that the 12.78 acre proposal makes up approximately 7% of the total watershed area. Attachment 4 provides a vicinity map. We do not expect downstream properties to experience significant, measurable effects on either the quantity or quality of stormwater runoff as a result of the proposed Cross Creek Subdivision. We note that we do not believe the applicant can be required to solve existing drainage problems downstream that are not being made worse with this proposal.
Stormwater Management Plan: The applicant expressed concern at the March 25 Public Hearing about the vagueness of the original wording of stipulation #24, and provided supplemental information relating to that stipulation (copy attached). The applicant stated that, “The proposed amendment simply better defines that “worsen” is limited to causes attributable to the proposed Cross Creek subdivision and not the remaining 90+% drainage basin area that contributes to the downstream conditions; that the design storms for which detention has been demonstrated to be effective for this development are the 1-year and the 2-year storms, with the 5-year storm being a crossover point after which actual harm could be done by detaining for larger event storms and; that the total suspended solids removal rate of 85% is actually calculated on an average annual basis according to State standards.”
Comment: We believe the proposed revised language for stipulation #24 is acceptable and have included it in Resolution A. The revised stipulation #24 states:
“That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall demonstrate that the downstream drainage conditions are not measurably worsened in a manner directly attributable to the proposed subdivision, according to methodology to be approved by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 5-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, on an average annual basis, and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right of way must be located within storm drainageway easements and shall not be permitted within approve bufferyard areas.”
The stormwater management facilities being proposed to treat the first one inch of rainfall include level spreaders and swales. The proposed insertion of “on an average annual basis” in the sentence “Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids on an average annual basis and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards.” complies with the standards currently proposed by the State. This proposal is also consistent with standards that are being considered for the new revised Development Ordinance.
Stormwater detention is proposed in underground pipes. The applicant stated that, based on analysis done subsequent to the March 25 Public Hearing, it was determined that detaining runoff on the Cross Creek site for storms greater than a 5-year storm event could result in detrimental effects downstream. Due to the timing of runoff discharges from other areas in the watershed, delaying the discharge of runoff from this development for storms greater that a 5-year storm could result in unnecessarily large runoff volumes downstream of the Cross Creek site due to combined volume of runoff from other areas of the watershed arriving concurrently with the delayed (detained) discharge from the Cross Creek site.
The Cross Creek property accounts for less than 10% of the gross watershed area contributing to the storm drain pipe crossing beneath Cedar Hills Drive. Of this 10% of the watershed area, the applicant indicates that he is proposing approximately 14% impervious surface coverage. For storms larger than the 5-year storm event, the applicant’s analysis shows that runoff volume from the entire watershed area is such that the net effect of the incremental contribution of runoff from the proposed Cross Creek development is insignificant and, for practical purposes, not measurable. We do not expect downstream properties to experience significant, measurable effects on either the quantity or quality of stormwater runoff as a result of the proposed Cross Creek subdivision. We do not believe we can require the applicant to solve existing problems caused by unrelated factors to this development.
Performance Bonds: A Council member asked if a stipulation could be added to Resolution A requiring a Performance Bond that neighbors and/or the Town could draw on if the Best Management Practices, as proposed, were to fail to impact the rate of stormwater entering the culvert.
Comment: There are no ordinance provisions that would require private developers to post performance bonds for Best Management Practices, other than those Best Management Practices required in conjunction with the State-mandated Water Supply Watershed Protection regulations.
Neighbors and a Council member wanted to know what protections were in place to assure that the engineered stormwater facilities both existing and proposed were performing to expectations. Staff responded that through Final Plan review any proposed stormwater system is evaluated for its adequacy to achieve the desired function. Once the development is built, any noncompliance with the approved Final Plans is a violation and penalties can be invoked, and compliance ordered. Also, we note that a stipulation has been added that would require an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. This plan would help assure that the facilities are being maintained by the Homeowners’ Association so that they can continue to function as designed.
Impervious Surfaces: An issue concerning impervious surface was raised at the March 25 Public Hearing. The issue involves the subdivision road travelway width. The request was to evaluate the use of 10-foot lanes as opposed to 11-foot lanes, and use of swales in place of curb and gutter.
Comment: The Town’s standard road width is the same as the State and national standard lane width of 11 feet for local roads. We believe that this width provides the best maneuverability for normal vehicle traffic and emergency access. We continue to recommend an 11-foot width. The Council may choose to authorize a reduced width. The applicant has indicated (in the attached memorandum) that the stormwater measures proposed require a curb and gutter cross-section rather than a swale cross-section.
Best Management Practices on Individual Lots: At the March 25 Public Hearing a Council member requested that consideration be given to requiring that each lot in the subdivision proposal have a facility to control stormwater runoff.
Comment: We have recommended that the applicant provide stormwater management facilities to treat the subdivision as a whole, as proposed by the applicant. We believe we have no basis to require the applicant to provide facilities to control stormwater on individual lots in subdivisions.
Analysis of the Cedar Hills Drive Culvert: The Planning Board provided a recommendation in response to concerns made by property owners adjacent to Cedar Creek concerning creek bank overflow. The Board’s recommendation, included as Resolution F, would direct that the Town Manager study the impact of flooding in this area and prepare a report to the Council. Of special concern was the ability of the culvert under Cedar Hills Drive to handle any stormwater increase.
Comment: We have included a resolution representing the Planning Board’s secondary recommendation. The study, as recommended, would not be tied to this subdivision proposal. If the Town Council adopts the resolution, we will add this to the list of items requiring study and conduct further study of the downstream situation as time permits. We believe there may be many similar situations throughout the community. We believe these situations could be best addressed through the work of a Stormwater Utility. The attached Resolution F, if adopted, would ask the Town Manager to arrange for a study, as recommended by the Planning Board. At the March 25 Public Hearing, neighbors in the Cedar Hills neighborhood spoke in support of Resolution F especially with concerns with storms greater than 5-years and the effect on downstream property.
Pedestrian Connection: An issue regarding the identification to the public of the pedestrian connection and existing easement was raised by a Council member. An existing pedestrian easement is platted on property on Cedar Hills Drive. The applicant is proposing to provide a connection from the existing easement across Cross Creek subdivision to the Britt Farm property. The Council member wanted the pedestrian connection to include an informal mulch path.
Comment: We believe that it is likely that an informal path may develop along the corridor and therefore recommend that the pedestrian connection proposed with this application be a mulched path. We recommend that a 20-foot pedestrian connection containing a mulched path be platted and deeded to the Homeowners’ Association and connect with the existing easement on the adjacent Cedar Hills lot. Resolution A has been revised to require a mulch path on the portion of the pedestrian connection in Cross Creek Subdivision and to require an identification sign noting the pedestrian path.
Subdivision Road Design and Preservation of a 31-inch White Oak Tree: The applicant enlisted the services of a tree expert to ascertain the health of a 31-inch white oak tree on the property. The applicant’s original subdivision road design had eliminated the oak tree. At the March 25 Public Hearing, the applicant said that the oak tree is in good health and is in excess of a hundred years old. In response, the applicant has redesigned the road to incorporate the tree into the design (copy is attached). A tree island is proposed at Lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 on the east side and Lots 5, 6, and 7 on the west side of the subdivision road. Irrigation is proposed for the island as well as lighting and landscaping.
Comment: We believe that this is a good solution to preserving the tree and maintaining the existing traffic circulation pattern.
A neighbor abutting the east side of Cross Creek Subdivision proposal was concerned that the roadway revision to accommodate the tree may require homes on the east side of the subdivision to be pushed deeper onto the lot. The new homes would be located closer to the existing homes in Cedar Hills subdivision. The clearing of vegetation associated with the deeper home placement could reduce the screening effect of the vegetation and reduce the buffer that aids in slowing down the rate and amount of runoff from the site.
Comment: The applicant stated that a few homes would be moved back approximately 30 to 35 feet in order to accommodate the new road design. The applicant indicated that any additional vegetation removal would be negligible. It appears Lots 11 and 12 on the east side of the subdivision road would be impacted by the new layout and that Lots 4, 5, and 6 would be impacted on the west side of the subdivision road. The developer has indicated that he was preserving as much vegetation as possible between the two developments. There are no landscape buffer requirements between single-family subdivisions.
Small House Ordinance: 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 3 of the 17 residential lots. One of these lots must have restrictions limiting the initial construction of the house to 1,100 square feet in size. Two lots must have houses with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area. The submitted site plan identifies 3 lots on which a size-limited unit must be constructed.
This issue was addressed in the February 18 and March 25 Public Hearing materials. The applicant proposes to modify an existing house on Lot 16 to comply with the 1,350 square foot floor area restriction. The applicant also proposes to provide two lots with new homes of 1,100 square feet of floor area and one with 1,350 square feet of floor area. Council members expressed concern that the proposed reduction in the finished floor area of an existing house appeared to circumvent the small house requirement.
At the March 25 Public Hearing some Council members expressed concern with this solution for meeting the restricted house size.
Comment: We believe that the modification of the existing house to reduce the floor area meets the ordinance requirement for restricting house size on this lot. In a letter dated April 16, 2002 (copy attached), the developer, Rolf Sass, has offered to tear down the house rather than modify the floor area and build a new house of 1,350 square feet of floor area to meet the restricted house size required.
We note that in addition the applicant is offering to provide 100 percent sponsorship of a Habitat for Humanity house in the Chapel Hill town limits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see summaries of board actions and recommendations in the attachments.
Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this proposal on January 8, 2002 and voted 6-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B.
Resolution B differs from Resolution A in the following ways:
· Board Recommendation: That stipulation #6 requiring an alternative road design in order to preserve the 31” white oak be deleted.
Comment: We have included the stipulation requiring preservation of the 31-inch oak in the Manager’s recommendation, Resolution A. It is a specimen deciduous tree in moderate condition. It is also the only deciduous tree on the property of such proportion. The subdivision road realignment would change the configuration of several lots on the southern portion of the site. Resolution A requires the retention of the white oak tree and that the applicant include tree protection fencing around the critical root zone of the tree as a part of a Landscape Protection Plan.
· Board Recommendation: That the pedestrian connection be a twenty-foot, unimproved easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.
Comment: We have not included this stipulation in the Manager’s recommendation. We have included in the Manager’s recommendation, Resolution A, that a mulch path, on land deeded to the Homeowners’ Association, be provided for use by pedestrians and non-motorized vehiculars.
· Board Recommendation: That the stipulation requiring a Type “B” buffer along the western property line be deleted.
Comment: We have deleted this buffer requirement stipulation. It was made in error. No buffer is required between a major subdivision and vacant land or land used for a single dwelling.
· Board Recommendation: That the width of the drainage easement be 30 feet in a drainage easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association outside the Resource Conservation District.
Comment: We have included this stipulation in the Manager’s recommendation. The 30-foot drainage easement along the eastern top of the Resource Conservation District must have its full 30 foot width entirely out of the Resource Conservation District. It is anticipated that routine maintenance will require 10 feet around the constructed stormwater drainage structures. Given the area required for maintenance and to minimize land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District, the storm drainage easement should be located entirely outside the Resource Conservation District.
· Board Recommendation: That stipulation #27 describing construction vehicle traffic in the Construction Management Plan provide for an exception. The Plan states that no construction vehicles serving the site use streets in the Cedar Hills Subdivision. A sewer line extension from a sewer line located on Cedar Hills Drive is proposed to be accessed from the eastern property line.
Comment: We have included this exception to the Construction Management Plan (stipulation #27) in the Manager’s recommendation, Resolution A.
Planning Board Secondary Recommendation: The Planning Board has recommended that the Council ask the Town Manager to arrange for a study of the downstream stormwater management issues, particularly as they relate to the size of the culvert under Cedar Hills Drive. The study, as recommended, would not be tied to this subdivision proposal.
Comment: We have included a resolution representing the Planning Board’s secondary recommendation. If the Town Council adopts the resolution, we would add this to the list of items requiring study and conduct further study of the downstream situation.
The attached Resolution F, if adopted, would ask the Town Manager to arrange for such a study.
Please see the attached Planning Board Summary of Action.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on January 15, 2002 and voted 4-3 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution C. Resolution C differs from the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, Resolution A, on three issues:
· Board Recommendation: That the proposed local street be constructed with two 10’ travel lanes.
Comment: We believe that The Transportation Board’s recommendation for reduced width of travelway pavement from the recommended 11 feet to 10 feet reduces impervious surface, but at the same time may impact maneuverability of normal subdivision traffic as well as service vehicle access to the subdivision. When there is on-street parking, the problem of clearance would be compounded. We have not included this stipulation in the Manager’s recommendation.
· Board Recommendation: The Board recommended that 5-foot sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the subdivision road.
Comment: We have not included this recommendation in Resolution A, the Manager’s recommendation. We believe that a single sidewalk is sufficient to serve this subdivision and the increase in impervious surface is not recommended.
· Board Recommendation: The Board recommended that the developer be required to provide a small neighborhood park rather than payment-in-lieu for recreation improvements.
Comment: We have not included this recommendation in Resolution A. We believe that a small park would not be justified. We believe that the community park, Cedar Falls Park, located within a mile of the subdivision, is better equipped to provide all ages with a wide variety of recreational opportunities.
Please see the attached Transportation Board Summary of Action.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this development proposal on January 22, 2002 and voted 6-0 to recommend the adoption of Resolution D.
· Board Recommendation: That the pedestrian connection be an
unimproved, 20-foot wide easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.
Comment: We have not included this recommendation in Resolution A, the Manager’s revised recommendation. We recommend that the pedestrian connection contain a mulch path deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.
Please see the attached Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action.
Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on January 18, 2002 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the plan for the Cross Creek Subdivision.
· Board Recommendation: The Commission recommended that a stipulation be added to Resolution A that the developer provide a payment-in-lieu of providing recreation area. The Commission recommended that payment-in-lieu proceeds be used at Cedar Falls Park and/or the Dry Creek Greenway.
Comment: We recommend the payment-in-lieu be provided and that the proceeds be used at one of the recreation areas close to the site.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve this Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Resolution A.
Resolution A has been revised to include:
· a requirement for an Operations and Maintenance Plan for the Homeowners’ Association regarding all engineered stormwater facilities,
· a revised and expanded Stormwater Management Plan stipulation provided by the applicant, and
· a requirement to create an informal, mulch path on the Cross Creek Subdivision pedestrian connection with an identification sign noting the pedestrian path.
Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board.
Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board.
Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Resolution E would deny the application.
Resolution F would adopt the Planning Board’s secondary recommendation.
Cross Creek Subdivision
Preliminary Plat
DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS
ISSUE |
Resolution A Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Resolution B Planning Board’s Recommendation |
Resolution C Transportation Board’s Recommendation |
Resolution D Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation |
Weaver Dairy Road Improvements |
Payment-in-lieu of curb & gutter and sidewalk |
Payment-in-lieu of ½ of a 4-lane median divided cross-section |
Payment-in-lieu of ½ of a 4-lane median divided cross-section |
Payment-in-lieu of ½ of a 4-lane median divided cross-section |
Redesign subdivision road to preserve oak tree |
Yes |
No |
* |
Yes |
Pedestrian connection 20’ & unimproved |
mulched path with signage |
unimproved |
* |
unimproved |
Type “B” buffer requirement removed |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
Drainage Easement outside the RCD |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
Construction Management Plan to allow sewer extension |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
Subdivision street (2) 11’ travel lanes |
Yes |
Yes |
No (10’ lanes) |
Yes |
5-foot sidewalks on one side of subdivision street |
Yes |
Yes |
No (both sides) |
Yes |
Developer provide payment-in-lieu for recreation area |
Yes |
Yes |
No (park)
|
Yes |
Expanded Stormwater Management Stipulation |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
Habitat for Humanity House sponsorship in Chapel Hill |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
Operations and Maintenance Plan |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* Issue was not discussed at this particular 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 CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (2002-04-22/R-14a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by The Design Response, Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:
These findings are based on the following:
1. Expiration of Preliminary Plat: That this Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one year from the date of approval subject to reapproval by the Town Manager in accordance with the provisions of the Development Ordinance.
2. Number of Lots and Floor Area Restrictions: That this approval shall authorize the creation of 17 lots on 12.78 acres with Lots 16 and 17 each restricted to a dwelling unit with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area and Lot 2 is restricted to a dwelling unit with no more than 1,100 square feet of floor area.
The house on Lot 16 shall be modified to comply with the 1,350 square foot restricted floor area size. Modification shall be completed prior to Town Manager approval of the Final Subdivision Plat.
These restrictions shall be referenced in the Homeowners’ Association documents.
3. Habitat for Humanity House: That the applicant provide 100 percent sponsorship of a Habitat for Humanity house in the Chapel Hill city limits.
Required Improvements
4. New Road: That the new road shall be constructed either:
· To a 30-foot right-of-way to include a 22-foot pavement section, with adjacent 5-foot sidewalk on the west side of the road and a 3-foot shoulder, swales in drainage easement deeded to the Homeowners’ Association outside the right-of-way; or
· To a 50-foot right-of-way to include a 22-foot pavement section, 30-inch curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalk.
5. Payment–in-Lieu for Weaver Dairy Road Improvements: We recommend that the applicant dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way on the Weaver Dairy Road frontage and provide a payment-in-lieu for curb and gutter and for sidewalk.
The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.
6. Weaver Dairy Road Right-of-Way: That the applicant shall dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way along the Weaver Dairy Road frontage.
7. Alternative Road Design for White Oak Tree Protection: An alternative subdivision road design shall be provided which would preserve the 31-inch white oak tree. The applicant shall include tree protection fencing around the critical root zone of the tree as part of the Landscape Protection Plan.
8. Payment-in-Lieu for Minimum Recreation Requirements: That the developer provide a payment-in-lieu of providing a minimum of .91 acres of recreation area for this development. The payment amount shall be approved by the Town Manager in accordance with the Development Ordinance, Section 17.9.5.
The recreation payment amount shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and shall be paid prior to approval of the final plat.
9. Pedestrian Connection: That the pedestrian connection be provided as a twenty-foot wide strip of land, deeded to the Homeowners’ Association. The strip of land shall contain a mulched path within a public pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular easement and shall include a sign reading “Pedestrian Path” to mark the location.
10. 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.”
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Construction Standards: That for the roadway encroachment into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements and standards of Subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be adhered to, unless the application is granted administrative exemptions from provisions of Subsection 5.8.
All required erosion control sediment basins and stormwater improvements, outside the public right-of-way, including associated clearing and grading, shall be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District. All grading associated with the construction of a residence shall be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.
14. 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.
15. Required Landscape Bufferyard: The following landscape buffer is required for this subdivision:
· Type “D” landscape bufferyard (minimum 30-foot width) along the property’s frontage on Weaver Dairy Road.
The Landscape buffer shall be on land deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.
16. Landscape Protection Plan: That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Landscape Protection Plan shall include tree protection fencing between infrastructure construction and existing vegetation to be retained in the following locations:
a) The required landscape bufferyards;
b) Adjacent to any construction within the Resource Conservation District; and
c) Between construction and rare and specimen trees to remain.
That all tree protection fencing shall be installed at a distance from the base of the tree equal to at least one foot per diameter at breast height (dbh).
17. 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.
18. 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
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Placement of Utility Lines Underground: That the final plans indicate that all new utility lines shall be placed underground.
22. 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.
23. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet, unless modified by the Town Manager.
24. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall demonstrate that the downstream drainage conditions are not measurably worsened in a manner directly attributable to the proposed subdivision, according to methodology to be approved by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 5-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, on an average annual basis, and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right of way must be located within storm drainageway easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.
25. Operations and Maintenance Plan: An Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be provided for all engineered structures and all said structures shall be located within a “reserved storm drainage way easement” as located on a plat and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds.
26. Best Management Practices: That the level spreader design utilize design methods, based on best available information from the NC State University Cooperative Extension. Final design and locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These features shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.
The level spreader BMP’s shall be designed to adequately remove 85% total suspended solids, on an average annual basis, and treat the first one inch of rainfall from the developed sites.
27. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way be located within reserved storm drainage way easements, of a 30-foot width minimum and be entirely outside the Resource Conservation District.
All proposed drainage swales and constructed stormwater facilities shall be in drainage easements deeded to the Homeowners’ Association.
28. 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.
29. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the Construction Management Plan specify that no construction vehicles serving this site may use any existing streets within the Cedar Hills Subdivision with one exception: that Cedar Hills Drive may be used for construction traffic to extend the sewer line from Cedar Hills Drive to the east side of the proposed subdivision.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Plant Rescue: That the applicant consider conducting plant rescue activities on the site prior to initiation of development activity.
35. 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.
36. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
That a performance guarantee be provided in accordance with Section 5-97.1 of the Town Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity.
All erosion control sediment basins, including associated clearing and grading, be located entirely outside of the Resource Conservation District.
37. Silt Control: That the applicant takes appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
38. 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.
39. Street Stubout Signage: That a sign, reading “Roadway subject to future extension” shall be posted at each roadway stubout.
40. 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.
41. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
42. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 22nd day of April, 2002.
RESOLUTION B
(Planning Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (File # 7.25..2, 2C) (2002-04-22/R-14b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by The Design Response, Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:
1. Resolution A: That all stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. Removal of White Oak for Construction of Subdivision Road: That the white oak tree be removed for the construction of the subdivision road.
3. Weaver Dairy Road: That the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for Weaver Dairy Road improvements. These Weaver Dairy Road improvements shall be in accordance with one-half of the 89-foot approved cross-section. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.
4. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24- hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainage way easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision.
This the 22nd day of April, 2002.
RESOLUTION C
(Transportation Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (File # 7.25..2, 2C) (2002-04-22/R-14c)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by The Design Response, Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:
1. Resolution A: That all stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. Local Subdivision Road: That the subdivision road be constructed with two 10-foot travel lanes rather than two 11-foot travel lanes.
3. Subdivision Sidewalks: That 5-foot sidewalks be provided on both sides of the subdivision road.
4. Neighborhood Park: That the developer be required to provide a small neighborhood park rather than payment-in-lieu for recreation improvements, to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.
5. Weaver Dairy Road: That the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for Weaver Dairy Road improvements. These Weaver Dairy Road improvements shall be in accordance with one-half of the 89-foot approved cross-section. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.
6. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24- hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainage way easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 22nd day of April, 2002.
RESOLUTION D
(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (File # 7.25..2, 2C) (2002-04-22/R-14d)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by The Design Response, Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:
1. Resolution A: That all stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. Weaver Dairy Road: That the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for Weaver Dairy Road improvements. These Weaver Dairy Road improvements shall be in accordance with one-half of the 89-foot approved cross-section. The applicant shall provide a conceptual design and a cost estimate for a determination of the amount of payment prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The payment shall be made prior to approval of the final plat.
3. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24- hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainage way easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 22nd day of April, 2002.
RESOLUTION E
Denying the Application
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CROSS CREEK SUBDIVISION (2002-04-22/R-14e)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Cross Creek Subdivision, proposed by The Design Response, Inc., on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 25, Lots 2 and 2C, if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated December 5, 2000, revised October 11, 2001, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:
(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for a Preliminary Plat for the Cross Creek Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 22nd day of April, 2002.
RESOLUTION F
Planning Board’s Secondary Recommendation
A RESOLUTION REGARDING STORMWATER ISSUES IN THE CEDAR HILLS DRIVE AREA (2002-04-22/R-14f)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has received a recommendation from the Town Planning Board regarding storm drainage issues along Cedar Hills Drive, downstream from the proposed Cross Creek Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Council has been made aware of drainage concerns in this area, particularly as they relate to the size of the culvert under Cedar Hills Drive near Silo Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to investigate the concerns and prepare a report to the Council.
This the 22nd day of April, 2002.