AGENDA #1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: Public Hearing: Creekside Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 7.70.D.5)

Date: January 22, 2003

Introduction

An application seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat has been filed by Curt Hendrickson. The 11.42-acre site is south of Fordham Boulevard, located between Morgan Creek Road and Hawthorne Lane. Morgan Creek runs along the site’s southern boundary. The applicant is proposing to develop 11 residential lots with vehicular access proposed from Morgan Creek Road. The site is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district and in the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District and the federally regulated 100-year floodplain. The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 70, Block D, Lot 5.

Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the application.

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

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

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

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

Background

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

The Town Council has directed that a Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance be presented for possible action on January 27. When enacted, the Land Use Management Ordinance will replace the Town’s existing Development Ordinance. The Council is scheduled to review the Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance January 27, 2003 and may enact the proposed new Ordinance on that day. If the Council votes on this development proposal after the effective date of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the new regulations will apply.

We believe the major effects of the proposed regulations on this application involve the Resource Conservation District boundary, steep slope restrictions, stormwater management regulations, and tree protection regulations. We have taken the proposed regulations into consideration during our review of this application and the proposed regulations are reflected in the stipulations in Resolution A.

PROCESS

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

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

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

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The application is for approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide 11.42 acres. The applicant is proposing to create 11 residential lots. One point of access to the site is proposed from Morgan Creek Road. A total of 49,030 square feet of recreation area is proposed for this subdivision.

The site is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district and in the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District and the federally regulated 100-year floodplain. The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 70, Block D, Lot 5.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

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

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

KEY ISSUES

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

1. Resource Conservation District Corridors: Planning Board members inquired about the Resource Conservation District classification of the streams draining both the east and west sides of the site that flow into Morgan Creek.

Comment: The Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance now being prepared contains provisions for increasing the Resource Conservation District boundary around perennial streams to 150 feet from each side of the stream bank, or 3 feet above the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater. There is also a new provision for a 50-foot wide Resource Conservation District boundary adjacent to intermittent streams.

The expanded 150-foot wide Resource Conservation District corridor for perennial streams and the new 50-foot wide Resource Conservation District corridor for intermittent streams will reduce the buildable area allowed on a number of lots on the site. However, we believe that all of the proposed lots appear to be buildable.

The Engineering Department performed stream determinations on the east and west sides of the site December 13, 2002 and January 14, 2003. On the west side of the site, they identified approximately the first 300 feet upstream from the confluence of Morgan Creek, as perennial and the next 270 feet was identified as intermittent. Approximately the first 630 feet of the tributary on the western side of the site, from the confluence of Morgan Creek, was identified as intermittent. These Resource Conservation District areas will most likely result in less buildable area on all lots, except Lots 1 and 2 (see Attachment #14 for updated Resource Conservation District information).

2. Road Width and Provision of Sidewalks: The Planning Board discussed a preference that the proposed 22-foot road width be reduced to 20 feet and that the proposed sidewalk be removed, to better reflect existing neighborhood conditions. Existing streets in the vicinity of this site have 20-foot wide roads and no sidewalks.

Comment: The Planning and Engineering Department Directors recommend construction of either a 20-foot road cross-section with a sidewalk or a 22-foot road without a sidewalk, to facilitate pedestrian movements. The Town Manager’s recommendation is that road width be set at 20 feet with no sidewalk, reflecting surrounding conditions in this neighborhood. The Manager’s preliminary recommendation is based on the fact that this neighborhood has functioned acceptably without sidewalks and with 20-foot wide roads for years and a new 20-foot road would be consistent with the neighborhood and minimize land disturbance.

We note that there are no petitions to build sidewalks in this neighborhood, which would make the proposed sidewalk the exception. Narrowing the road width and not requiring a sidewalk would reduce impervious surface by approximately 6,100 square feet. Accordingly, we recommend that the proposed road width be set at 20 feet wide, and that no sidewalk be required. Stipulations to this effect have been included in Resolution A.

We recommend that Stipulations #4 and #5 be revised to reflect this preliminary recommendation, as follows:

· On-Site Road Improvements: That the applicant build the 20-foot road cross-section to Town standard, as well as 3-foot wide shoulders, and 3-foot wide drainage swales, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

· Right-of-Way or Public Easement: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way.

We recognize that the Council could choose to require curb and gutter and sidewalk in order to be consistent with normal practices.

3. Reduced Floor Area / Affordable Housing: Planning Board members asked the applicant to return to the Planning Board with a proposal for size restricted housing or affordable housing at their December 3 meeting. The applicant responded with a letter at the January 7 Planning Board meeting proposing to create 2 lots (25% of lots) with accessory apartments (not exceeding 750 square feet each), to satisfy the anticipated requirement for reduced floor area housing (see discussion in next paragraph) or one of the following payments-in-lieu of one affordable housing unit: 1) A $52,500 payment-in-lieu to Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, or, 2) a $50,000 payment-in-lieu to Habitat for Humanity. Please see Attachment #11 for additional detail.

Comment: The Development Ordinance includes regulations for subdivisions that propose more than 12 lots, which would restrict the house size of 25 percent of the new dwellings for one year. This application proposes 11 new lots. On January 6 the Council discussed lowering the threshold to 5 lots and gave direction to prepare the Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance accordingly. We note that the Council also offered direction to increase the length of time that size restrictions apply. We believe that this development proposal will be required to comply with the new regulations.

The forthcoming Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance offers an option for satisfying the requirement of 25 percent of the new dwellings with size restrictions. In lieu of providing 25 percent reduced floor area houses, the developer may offer to provide 15 percent of the homes as affordable. The Town has a Comprehensive Plan strategy that states: “As a general policy, the Town should encourage developers of residential developments of five or more units to 1) provide 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households, 2) contribute in-lieu fees, or 3) propose alternative methods so that the equivalent of 15 percent of the units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households.”

The Council has indicated its desire to have an affordable housing payment-in-lieu option available for smaller subdivisions with the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe that the applicant’s offer to subsidize an affordable dwelling unit offsite is reasonable. The Council, on January 6, suggested that the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance contain an option to allow a developer to make a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing if the size of the subdivision is between 5 and 12 lots. We recommend that the applicant consider contributing the $52,500 that has been offered to the Town Revolving Acquisition Fund for affordable housing, rather than Orange Community Housing and Land Trust. We believe that the Council can effectively disburse funds, from the Town Revolving Acquisition Fund, for affordable housing in the community to the appropriate agencies as needed. Resolution A includes the following stipulation:

· Contribution for Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide $52,500 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund to subsidize affordable housing, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Robert Dowling of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust provided the following figures for recent affordable housing subsidies: 1) Legion Road Townhomes, $58,000, and 2) Meadowmont Townhomes, $52,500. These subsidy figures represent the amount that was deducted from full priced units to make them affordable to 3-person families earning 80% or less of median family income. The subsidies include both the cost of land and the dwelling unit.

4. Trail Connecting Morgan Creek Road: A letter from Heidi Chapman, representing the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association was delivered to the Planning Board at its December 3 meeting (see Attachment #10). One of the points raised in the letter was a property dispute over a portion of the Creekside site, prohibiting access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage. Ownership of this piece of property, providing access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage, remains in dispute. If this part of the site is not owned by the applicant the proposed trail, adjacent to Lot 11, connecting Morgan Creek Road with the site cannot be built.

Comment: We believe that the proposed trail would provide a beneficial pedestrian connection to Morgan Creek Road. We recommend that the applicant construct the trail, adjacent to Lot #11 and connecting Morgan Creek Road, if the applicant can obtain clear title to the property providing access to the frontage. This proposed trail is not required to fulfill the recreation requirement. The recreation requirement is being met with the proposed dedication of the conservation area along Morgan Creek. The conservation area is proposed to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc.

Section 17.9.6 of the Development Ordinance allows conservation areas to be substituted for recreation area in particular cases, such as for the preservation of, “...woods, steep slopes, glens, rock outcrops, native plant life, and wildlife cover,” if the recreational needs of the subdivision are being met. In this particular situation, we recommend that the applicant be allowed this substitution for a portion of the recreation requirement. We believe the recreational needs of the proposed subdivision residents will be satisfied with the large lots.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

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

The Manager’s recommendation incorporates advice from all Town departments involved in review of the application, with the exceptions noted.

SUBSEQUENT REGULATORY STEPS

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

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

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

· Orange Water and Sewer Authority,

· Duke Power company,

· Public Service Company,

· BellSouth, and

· Time-Warner Cablevision

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on December 3, 2002, on January 7, 2003, and on January 21, 2003. The Planning Board will make a recommendation at its January 21 meeting. A Summary of Planning Board Action will be provided to the Council as soon as it is available.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on November 5, 2002. The Board voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Transportation Board Summary of Action. The Transportation Board recommendations are included in Resolutions A and B, as follows:

Resolution A includes the following recommendation of the Transportation Board.

1. Board Recommendation: That the applicant should consult with the North Carolina Botanical Garden staff prior to starting a plant rescue.

Comment: We concur. We note that plant rescues are not required, but encouraged. Accordingly, we encourage the applicant to consult with the Botanical Garden staff prior to starting an on-site plant rescue.

Resolution B includes the following recommendations of the Transportation Board.

2. Board Recommendation: That a sidewalk be provided along the northern Morgan Creek Road frontage of the site, near Lot #1.

Comment: We do not believe that a sidewalk is appropriate along Morgan Creek Road, as there are no existing sidewalks and no petitions for sidewalks in this neighborhood.

3. Board Recommendation: That the applicant provide a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement between lots 5 and 6, leading to the conservation area near Morgan Creek.

Comment: We do not recommend a pedestrian easement leading to the conservation area. The area classified as conservation area is proposed to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc. and at the request of the foundation, would not be used for recreation, due to the steep slopes, sensitive plant species, and habitat in this area.

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this proposal on November 20, 2002, and voted 8 to 0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the following conditions. Please see the attached Summary of the Parks and Recreation Commission Action. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations are included in Resolutions A and C, as follows:

Resolution A includes the following recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission:

1. Board Recommendation: That the proposed trail that crosses parts of lots 9, 10, and 11, in the southwestern part of the site be removed.

Comment: We concur. We believe that the proposed trail that crosses parts of lots 9, 10, and 11 is functionally inadequate and not required by the Development Ordinance to fulfill recreation requirements and should therefore be removed.

2. Board Recommendation: That the 5,470 square foot recreation area leading from Morgan Creek Road to lot 11 should be dedicated to the Homeowners’ Association.

Comment: We concur. We understand that there is a property dispute on this portion of the site, prohibiting access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage. If the applicant can resolve the dispute and obtain clear title to the property, we recommend that the applicant increase the recreation area recommended by the Commission for dedication to the Homeowners’ Association to include a 35-foot wide strip of land along the north property line of lot 11 and a 60 foot wide strip, connecting to Morgan Creek Road. This recreation area would comprise approximately 13, 470 square feet.

3. Board Recommendation: That the property around the recommended trail, running along the northern boundary of Lot #11, should be on property owned and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.

Comment: We concur. We understand that there is a property dispute on this portion of the site, prohibiting access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage. If the applicant can resolve the dispute and obtain clear title the property, we recommend that the applicant dedicate to the Homeowners’ Association a 35-foot wide strip of land along the north property line of lot 11 and a 60 foot wide strip, connecting to Morgan Creek Road.

4. Board Recommendation: That the applicant continue the trail that runs from Morgan Creek Road, along the northern boundary of lot 11, to the proposed road through the subdivision.

Comment: We concur. We understand that there is a property dispute on this portion of the site, prohibiting access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage. We recommend that the applicant construct a trail that runs from Morgan Creek Road, along the northern boundary of lot 11, if the applicant can resolve the dispute and obtain clear title to the property.

Resolution C includes the following recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission:

5. Board Recommendation: That nothing should be done to prohibit future connectivity to the land to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation.

Comment: We do not recommend access to the proposed conservation area. The area classified as conservation area is proposed to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc. and, at the request of the foundation, would not be used for recreation, due to the steep slopes, and the sensitive plant species and habitat in this area.

Greenways Commission Recommendation: The Greenways Commission reviewed this proposal on November 20, 2002, and voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the following conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Greenways Commission Action. The Greenways Commission recommendations are included in Resolutions A and C, as follows:

Resolution A includes the following recommendations of the Greenways Commission:

1. Board Recommendation: That the proposed trail that crosses parts of lots 9, 10, and 11, in the southwestern part of the site be removed.

2. Board Recommendation: That the 5,470 SF recreation area leading from Morgan Creek Road to lot 11 should be dedicated to the Homeowners’ Association.

Comment: We concur. We understand that there is a property dispute on this portion of the site, prohibiting access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage. If the applicant can resolve the dispute and obtain clear title the property, we recommend that the applicant increase the recreation area recommended by the board for dedication to the Homeowners’ Association to include a 35-foot wide strip of land along the north property line of lot 11 and a 60 foot wide strip, connecting to Morgan Creek Road. This recreation area would comprise approximately 13, 470 square feet.

3. Board Recommendation: That the property around the recommended trail, running along the northern boundary of Lot #11, should be on property owned and maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.

Comment: We concur. We understand that there is a property dispute on this portion of the site, prohibiting access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage. If the applicant can resolve the dispute and obtain clear title the property, we recommend that the applicant dedicate to the Homeowners’ Association a 35-foot wide strip of land along the north property line of lot 11 and a 60 foot wide strip, connecting to Morgan Creek Road.

4. Board Recommendation: That the applicant continue the trail that runs from Morgan Creek Road, along the northern boundary of lot 11, to the proposed road through the subdivision.

Resolution C includes the following recommendation of the Greenways Commission:

5. Board Recommendation: That no legal barriers should be erected regarding the land to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation that would:

· Prevent use as a recreation area by residents of the Creekside Subdivision; or,

· Prohibit future trail connectivity.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board will review this subdivision proposal on January 28, 2002. A Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action will be provided to the Council as soon as it is available.

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

Resolution B would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Transportation Board.

Resolution C would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Greenways Commission.

Resolution D would deny the application.

CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE	Resolution A Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation	Resolution B Transportation Board Recommendation	Resolution C Parks and Recreation Commission and Greenways Commission Recommendations
Provide Additional Measures for Stormwater Volume Control	Yes	*	*
Provide Trail Connecting to Morgan Creek Road	Yes, If Property Dispute is Resolved	No	Yes, If Property Dispute is Resolved
Provide Landscape Buffer Easements Along Morgan Creek Road Frontage Rather Than HOA Land	Yes	No	*
Reduce Proposed Road Width From 22 Feet to 20 Feet	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood Design	No, 22-Foot Width	*
Remove Proposed Sidewalk From Morgan Creek Road to Cul-De-Sac	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood Design	No, Retain Sidewalk	No, Retain Sidewalk
Provide Sidewalk Along Morgan Creek Road Frontage on North Side of Site	No	Yes	*
Provide Payment-In-Lieu Of Affordable Housing	Yes	*	*
Remove Proposed Trail Across Lots 9 And 10	Yes, Functionally Inadequate	No	Yes, Functionally Inadequate
Consult With Botanical Garden Staff Prior To Plant Rescue	Yes	Yes	*
Allow Pedestrian Access To Proposed Botanical Garden Conservation Land	No, Conservation Land To Be Protected And Managed By Botanical Garden	Yes	Yes
Place Condition On Proposed Botanical Garden Conservation Land Allowing Future Trail Access To Ensure Area-Wide Connectivity	No, Conservation Land To Be Protected And Managed By Botanical Garden	*	Yes
Provide Pedestrian Trail Easement Between Lots 5 & 6 Leading To Conservation Area With Trail Signage	No, Conservation Land To Be Protected And Managed By Botanical Garden	Yes	*

*This issue was raised subsequent to review by this advisory board and therefore was not discussed by this board.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Report (p. 13).

2. Checklist of Compliance with Subdivision Regulations (p. 24).

3. Resolution A (p. 25).

4. Resolution B (p. 32).

5. Resolution C (p. 35).

6. Resolution D (p. 37)

7. Summary of Transportation Board Action (p. 38).

8. Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action (p. 39).

9. Summary of Greenways Commission Action (p. 40).

10. Summary of Concept Plan Review (p. 41).

11. Subdivision Fact Sheet (p. 44).

12. Letters From Members of Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association (p. 46)

13. Letter From the Developer in Response to Neighbors, with Supporting Documents (p. 54).

14. Letter From Heidi Chapman In Response to Letter From Developer (p. 62)

15. Area Map and Reduced Plans (p. 63).

16. Updated Resource Conservation District Map (p. 68).

17. Summary of Differences Between Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Zoning Decisions (p. 69).

ATTACHMENT 1

Staff Report

Subject: Public Hearing: Creekside Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval (File No. 7.70.D.5)

Date: January 22, 2003

Introduction

We have received a request for Preliminary Plat approval of Creekside Subdivision. The 11.42-acre site is located between Morgan Creek Road and Hawthorne Lane. Morgan Creek runs along the site’s southern boundary. The applicant is proposing to develop 11 residential lots with vehicular access proposed from Morgan Creek Road. The site is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district and in the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the site is located in the Resource Conservation District and the 100-year floodplain. The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 70, Block D, Lot 5.

Attached is the Subdivision Fact Sheet, a letter from the developer, and reduced plans.

Background

Preliminary Plat approval authorizes the division of land. Assuming approval of the Preliminary Plat, we expect the lots in this subdivision to be used for construction of single-family homes. However, we note that a dwelling unit may have an accessory apartment in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district, also places of worship, child day care facilities, and non-profit recreation facilities are permitted uses on lots in the Residential-1 zoning district, subject to particular regulations.

We note that the Town Council has directed that a Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance be prepared. When enacted, the Land Use Management Ordinance will replace the Town’s existing Development Ordinance. The Council is scheduled to review the Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance on January 27, 2003 and may enact the proposed new Ordinance on that day. If the Council votes on this development proposal prior to enactment of the Land Use Management Ordinance, regulations in the current Development Ordinance will apply; or if the Council votes on this development proposal after enactment of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the new regulations will apply.

If the Land Use Management Ordinance is enacted before this application is approved, we believe the major effects of the proposed regulations involve the Resource Conservation District boundary, steep slope restrictions, stormwater management regulations, and tree protection regulations. We have taken the proposed new regulations into consideration while reviewing this application.

Evaluation

We have reviewed the application for compliance with the standards of the current Development Ordinance and offer the following evaluation. We have also noted what proposed regulations may impact this development proposal.

GENERAL ISSUES

Existing Conditions: The 11.42-acre site is located between Morgan Creek Road and Hawthorne Lane. Morgan Creek runs along the site’s southern boundary.

The site is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district as are adjacent properties. We note that an adjacent parcel to the east of the site, owned by the Bodman family, was identified as part of Morgan Creek Anemone Glade by the Triangle Land Conservancy in the Orange County Inventory of Natural Areas in 1988. The parcel was identified as significant for its rare and noteworthy plants and wildlife.

The site is located in the Watershed Protection District, which is the portion of Chapel Hill in the New Hope Watershed that drains to Jordan Lake. Article 10 of the Development Ordinance restricts the amount of impervious surface that may be built on a site in order to protect water quality. The site is also located in the Resource Conservation District.

The property is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Map 70, Block D, Lot 5.

The site is undeveloped with mixed pine and hardwood vegetation, including a number of large diameter pines, oaks, hickories, and poplars. We note the following significant trees: a 31” oak on lot 3, a 19” hickory on lot 4, and a 35” oak in the southern corner of lot 1. The terrain generally slopes southward away from Morgan Creek Road towards Morgan Creek, becoming much steeper towards the back of the site near the creek (up to 48% slope). The elevation changes from 378 feet near Morgan Creek Road to 300 feet near Morgan Creek with an average slope of 6%.

Development Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 11.42-acre site into 11 lots with access from Morgan Creek Road. The average lot size in the proposed subdivision is 36,111 square feet. The minimum lot size allowed in this zoning district is 17,000 square feet.

The applicant is proposing to provide 1.13 acres of recreation / conservation area.

A street terminating in a cul-de-sac is proposed with access to Morgan Creek Road. A sidewalk is proposed on the east side of the proposed street.

TRANPORTATION ISSUES

Access and Circulation: Vehicular access to the site is proposed from one point on Morgan Creek Road.

The new street is proposed to terminate at a cul-de-sac near the southern portion of the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 22-foot wide road cross-section within a dedicated 40-foot wide right-of-way. The applicant is also proposing to provide a 5-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of the proposed street.

The Manager recommends that the applicant build the 20-foot road cross-section to Town standard as well as 3-foot wide shoulders, and 3-foot wide drainage swales. We recommend that all drainage swales along the proposed road be included within dedicated right-of-way. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

As noted in the Key Issues section of the cover memorandum, The Planning and Engineering Department Directors recommend construction of either a 20-foot road cross-section with a sidewalk or a 22-foot road without a sidewalk, to facilitate pedestrian movements. The Town Manager’s recommendation is that road width be set at 20 feet with no sidewalk, reflecting surrounding conditions in this neighborhood. The Manager’s preliminary recommendation is based on the fact that this neighborhood has functioned acceptably without sidewalks and with 20-foot wide roads for years and a new 20-foot road would be consistent with the neighborhood and minimize land disturbance.

There are no petitions to build sidewalks in this neighborhood, which would make the proposed sidewalk the exception. Narrowing the road width and not requiring a sidewalk would reduce impervious surface by approximately 6,100 square feet. Accordingly, we recommend that the proposed road width be set at 20 feet wide, and that no sidewalk be required.

The existing public right-of-way on Morgan Creek Road is 60 feet wide. The applicant is not proposing additional right-of-way or improvements on the Morgan Creek Road frontage. We note that this neighborhood does not currently have roads improved with curb and gutter or sidewalks. Therefore, we are not recommending that the applicant provide curb and gutter or sidewalk improvements along the Morgan Creek Road frontage, or on the proposed subdivision roadway.

A pedestrian trail is proposed that would loop along the eastern boundary of the site; through lots 9, 10, and 11, with a point of access on the western part of the site, along Morgan Creek Road. We believe that the applicant should not construct the trail through lots 9 and 10, because it is functionally inadequate. However, we believe that a portion of the proposed trail, from Morgan Creek Road, along the north property line of lot 11 would be beneficial.

We understand that there is a property dispute on this portion of the site, prohibiting access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage. We recommend that the applicant construct the trail, across Lot #11 and connecting Morgan Creek Road, if the applicant can be obtain clear title to the property providing access to the frontage. For additional discussion, see the Recreation Issues Section below.

Traffic Impact: A Traffic Impact Analysis was not required for this development proposal. The requirement to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis may be waived by the Town Manager if all of the following conditions are met:

· Daily trip generation is less than 500 (or, for a change to an existing property that does not requiring rezoning, difference in daily trip generation is less than 500);

· No more than 250 vehicles per day (or, for a change to an existing property that does not requiring rezoning, no more than 250 vehicles per day) access an existing collector or local road;

· The total traffic, including background traffic and additional traffic from proposed new site or redeveloped property does not exceed an average of 150 vehicles per day on any unpaved road;

· The applicant submits a written request for a Traffic Impact Analysis waiver with appropriate supporting documentation including pedestrian/bicycle analysis, if applicable; and

· The Town Manager concurs with the request.

This development proposal generates approximately 120 trips per day and meets the above required criteria for an exemption.

RECREATION ISSUES

Section 17.9.2 of the current Development Ordinance requires that the applicant provide 35,319 square feet of recreation area. The recreation requirements in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance do not change in so far as this development proposal is concerned.

The applicant is proposing to provide 43,560 square feet of conservation area and 5,470 square feet of recreation area in the northern and northeastern parts of the site respectively, for a total of 49,030 square feet. The area classified as conservation area is proposed to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc. and at the request of the foundation, would not be used for recreation, due to the steep slopes, sensitive plant species, and habitat in this area.

Section 17.9.6 of the Development Ordinance allows conservation area to be substituted for recreation area in particular cases, such as for the preservation of, “...woods, steep slopes, glens, rock outcrops, native plant life, and wildlife cover,” if the recreational needs of the subdivision are being met. In this particular situation, we recommend that the applicant be allowed this substitution for a portion of the recreation requirement. We believe the large lots combined with the proposed sidewalk and trail would satisfy the recreational needs of the proposed subdivision.

A pedestrian trail is proposed to begin at the end of the proposed cu-de-sac, near the boundary between lots 8 and 9. The trail would cross parts of lots 9, 10, and 11 and end back at the proposed road through the site. The proposed trail would also fork to the south, crossing a portion of the proposed recreation area providing a connection between lot 11 and Morgan Creek Road.

We believe that the portion of the pedestrian trail through Lots 9 and 10 should be removed. Historically we have found that property owners often are concerned about foot traffic through their back yards and often attempt to remove or restrict the trail even if there is a pedestrian easement. However, we believe that a pedestrian connection, near the northern boundary of Lot 11, to Morgan Creek Road would be beneficial. There is a property dispute over a portion of the proposed trail that runs along the northern property line of Lot #11 to Morgan Creek Road. If the applicant can obtain clear title to the property in dispute, we believe that the pedestrian connection to Morgan Creek Road should be constructed.

We recommend that the applicant provide a 35-foot wide strip of land along the north property line of Lot 11 and a 60 foot wide strip, connecting to Morgan Creek Road, to be provided as recreation area and dedicated to the Homeowners’ Association. There is a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

The pedestrian trails are not required to fulfill recreation requirements however, because the recreation requirements are being fulfilled by the proposed deeding of conservation land near Morgan Creek to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc.

HOUSING ISSUES

Housing Floor Area Restrictions: The Development Ordinance includes regulations for subdivisions that propose more than 12 lots, which would restrict the house size of 25 percent of the new dwellings for one year. This application proposes 11 new lots. On January 6 the Council discussed lowering the threshold to 5 lots and gave direction to prepare the Final Draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance accordingly. We note that the Council also offered direction to increase the length of time that size restrictions apply. We believe that this development proposal will be required to comply with the new regulations.

The applicant has proposed to create 2 lots (25% of lots) with accessory apartments (not exceeding 750 square feet each), to satisfy the anticipated requirement for reduced floor area housing (see discussion in next paragraph) or one of the following payments-in-lieu of one affordable housing: 1) A $52,500 payment-in-lieu to Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, or, 2) a $50,000 payment in lieu to Habitat for Humanity. Please see Attachment #13 for additional detail.

We note that Robert Dowling of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust provided the following figures for recent affordable housing subsidies: 1) Legion Road Townhomes, $58,000, and 2) Meadowmont Townhomes, $52,500. These subsidy figures represent the amount that was deducted from full priced units to make them affordable to 3-person families earning 80% or less of median family income. The subsidies include both the cost of land and the dwelling unit.

The proposed Land Use Management Ordinance offers an option for satisfying the requirement of 25 percent of the new dwellings with size restrictions. In lieu of providing 25 percent reduced floor area houses, the developer may offer to provide 15 percent of the homes as affordable. The Town has a Comprehensive Plan strategy that states: “As a general policy, the Town should encourage developers of residential developments of five or more units to 1) provide 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households, 2) contribute in-lieu fees, or 3) propose alternative methods so that the equivalent of 15 percent of the units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households.”

We believe that the applicant’s offer to subsidize an affordable dwelling unit offsite is reasonable. We note that the Council, on January 6, suggested that the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance contain an option to allow a developer to make a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing if the size of the subdivision is between 5 and 12 lots. We recommend that the applicant consider contributing the $52,500 to the Town Revolving Acquisition Fund for affordable housing, rather than Orange Community Housing and Land Trust. We believe that the Council can effectively disburse funds, from the Town Revolving Acquisition Fund, for affordable housing in the community to the appropriate agencies as needed. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

LANDSCAPING ISSUES AND ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES

Buffers and Landscaping: Landscape buffers are not required by the current Town’s Development Ordinance between single-family subdivisions or adjacent to vacant low-density residentially zoned property. A 20-foot Type-C buffer is required along the Morgan Creek Road frontages. The proposed Land Use Management Ordinance requires 15-foot Type-A buffers adjacent to collector streets in this case[1].

We recommend that the applicant locate landscape buffers on land owned and controlled by the Homeowner’s Association or alternatively in landscape buffer easements. Landscape bufferyards may be located in easements on individual lots only if maintenance responsibilities are clearly assigned to the Homeowners’ Association. We have included a stipulation requiring compliance with the regulations in place at the time of this approval and a Landscape Protection Plan in Resolution A.

Bufferyard Summary

Bufferyard Location	Bufferyard Required	Bufferyard Proposed
Morgan Creek Road Frontage (north and west property lines)	Min. 20 ft. Type ‘C’ Buffer	No buffers proposed
Other property lines	No buffers required	No buffers proposed

We recommend that the following significant trees be preserved: the 31” oak on lot 3, the 19” hickory on lot 4, and the 35” oak in the southern corner of lot 1. We recommend that the critical root zones of these trees be clearly indicated on Final Plans to ensure that they are being properly protected. We have included our standard stipulation requiring these landscape elements and a Landscape Protection Plan in Resolution A.

We recommend that a Homeowners’ Association be created for the purpose of owning and/or maintaining common areas or landscape easements, however designated, and that a Homeowners’ Association be approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office. We recommend that the Homeowners’ Association document be cross-referenced on the final plat. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

We note that provisions of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, if enacted, would increase tree protection requirements. The proposed regulations would require that on single-family lots proposed land disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet plus 50% of the remaining area (e.g. 7,500 square feet of a 10,000 square foot lot) would require that tree protection fencing be installed to protect the remaining trees on the site.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Watershed Protection District: The proposed development is located in the Watershed Protection District. Impervious surface area (i.e. built-upon area) is restricted in the Watershed Protection District by Section 10.5.2 of the current Development Ordinance. The Watershed Protection District is that portion of the New Hope Watershed that drains to Jordan Lake.

Development with a proposed density not exceeding 2 units/acre will satisfy the Low-Density Option of the Watershed Protection District regulations. This development is proposed to be 1.1 units per acre and satisfies the Low Density Option. Therefore, no structural water quality controls related to Watershed Protection District regulations will be required.

The provisions regarding the Watershed Protection District contained in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, if enacted, would not change in so far as this development proposal is concerned.

Resource Conservation District: A portion of the proposed development is located in the Resource Conservation District as defined by the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance. Approximately 144,714 square feet (3.32 acres), around the east, south and southwest parts of the site, is located in the Resource Conservation District. The applicant is proposing to deed about 1.0 acre along Morgan Creek, primarily in the Resource Conservation District, to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc. as conservation area (see Recreation Area section).

The provisions regarding the Resource Conservation District contained in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, if enacted, would change in the following ways insofar as this development proposal is concerned. The protected corridor would increase from 75 and 100 feet to 150 feet from stream bank for perennial streams, subdivided into 3 zones: 50 feet streamside, 50 feet managed use, 50 feet upland. The Resource Conservation District would also increase from 2 feet to 3 feet above the regulatory floodplain. The protected corridor for intermittent streams, would increase from 0 feet to 50 feet from stream bank. The installation of stormwater management facilities within 50 feet of any perennial or intermittent stream would be prohibited.

The provisions regarding the Resource Conservation District contained in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, if enacted, would effect this development proposal in the following way:

· The expanded 150-foot wide Resource Conservation District corridor for perennial streams and new 50-foot wide Resource Conservation District corridors for intermittent streams will reduce the land-disturbing activities allowed on a number of lots on the site.

The Engineering Department performed stream classifications on the east and west sides of the site December 13, 2002 and January 14, 2003. They classified the stream on the west side of the site, approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence of Morgan Creek, as perennial. Also intermittent stream reaches were classified on both the east and west sides of the site. New Resource Conservation District area will most likely reduce the developable area of all lots, except Lots 1 and 2 (see Attachment #16 for updated Resource Conservation District information).

This development proposal will not likely be approved prior to enactment of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, thereby requiring the applicant to comply with the new regulations.

We have included our standard stipulations in Resolution A, requiring compliance with Resource Conservation District regulations.

Steep Slopes: The steep slopes provisions contained in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance call for minimal grading and site disturbance as well as specialized site design techniques in areas with steep slopes. The proposed steep slopes provisions would most impact this development proposal in relation to slopes 25% or greater, limiting land disturbance in those areas to 25%. We do not believe that these proposed changes to the steep slope regulations will have a significant impact on this development proposal because most of the proposed development is not on the steeper parts of the site.

Some south-southeastern portions of this site contain topography with slopes between 20% and 48%. We recommend that any construction proposed in areas with slopes greater than 10% provide an explanation of how construction will address minimizing land disturbance on the steeper slopes. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolutions A.

Stormwater Management: We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan. We recommend that the plan be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate not exceed the pre-development rate. We recommend that 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. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

The provisions regarding Stormwater Management contained in the forthcoming Final Draft of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, if enacted, would effect this development proposal by requiring that the post-development stormwater run-off volume not exceed the pre-development volume. We note that this is in addition to the current regulation requiring that the post-development stormwater rate and quality. We believe that these proposed changes to stormwater volume regulations will have an impact on this development proposal. We believe the applicant would be required to design stormwater storage infrastructure with adequate capacity for the entire subdivision or an alternate solution for storing runoff on a lot by lot basis.

We understand that the applicant is proposing to use a series of Low Impact Design features to control the quality, rate, and volume of stormwater runoff. These design features may include vegetative filter strips, infiltration swales, reduced impervious surface, pervious pavements, infiltration trenches, bio-retention facilities, dry wells, cisterns, rain barrels, and level spreaders. Please see Attachment #13 for additional detail. In addition, the Town continues to research Integrated Management Practices for managing stormwater volume. Final design and locations will need to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included stipulations in Resolution A that would require compliance with the volume, rate, and quality controls for stormwater.

The applicant has proposed 30-foot reserved storm drainage-way easements around some stormwater management improvements. We recommend that all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines. We also recommend that these stormwater management features not be permitted within an approved bufferyard area. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

We note that the applicant is proposing drainage that will leave the site below lots 10 and 11. We recommend that the applicant provide an off-site storm drainageway easement in this area or demonstrate how stormwater discharge will not negatively impact adjacent off-site property owners. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

We recommend that the applicant extend the existing 18-inch pipe that runs beneath Morgan Creek Road south of lot 1 before being released into an open channel to prevent potential flooding problems. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

The applicant has proposed what appears to be an inadequately small stormwater inlet between lots 8 and 9. We recommend that the applicant provide a standard yard inlet for the proposed storm drain, south of the cul-de-sac, between lots 8 and 9. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

We recommend that the applicant provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. We recommend that the plan include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and must be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Erosion Control: We recommend that an erosion control plan for the site be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, and be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A. We note that the Town has a requirement that a letter of credit or bond be provided to ensure compliance with erosion control regulations.

UTILITY AND SERVICE ISSUES

Refuse Management: Resolution A includes a stipulation that a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling, should be submitted for review and approval by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Utilities: We recommend that detailed utility plans be reviewed and approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Utility Lines: We recommend that all new utility lines be placed underground. The applicant has proposed that all electrical utility lines required to service the site will be placed underground. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

The applicant is proposing to provide to extend water and sanitary sewer connections to the site from the existing water and sewer lines in Morgan Creek Road. We believe the existing lines are adequately sized for the proposed development to tap.

Fire Safety: Prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a fire flow report, prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, will be required for review and approval by the Town Manager. We recommend that the maximum spacing between fire hydrants not exceed 500 feet. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

Construction Traffic Management: We recommend that a Construction Traffic 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. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Open Burning: We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring that no open burning be permitted.

Plant Rescue: We have included a stipulation in Resolution A encouraging the developer to conduct a “plant rescue” after the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to the start of construction. We encourage the applicant to consult with the North Carolina Botanical Garden staff for prior to starting a plant rescue.

Comprehensive Plan: The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, classifies this site and adjacent properties as low density residential (1-4 units per acre). The applicant is proposing a density of 1 unit per acre.

CONCLUSION

We believe the proposal, if developed in accordance with the stipulations in Resolution A would meet or exceed all stated requirements in the Development Ordinance and the anticipated regulations of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, and that the proposal fulfills the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

Resolutions A, B, and C would approve the application with conditions.

Resolution D would deny the request.

ATTACHMENT 2

Checklist of

Regulations and Standards

Application for Preliminary Plat

	STAFF EVALUATION
	EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE		FORTHCOMING FINAL DRAFT OF PROPOSED LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION	COMPLIANCE	NON COMPLIANCE	COMPLIANCE	NON COMPLIANCE
Meets Minimum Lot Size	Ö		Ö
Meets Minimum Lot Width	Ö		Ö
Meets Minimum Lot Frontage	Ö		Ö
Lots Front on a Road Meeting Town Standards	Ö		Ö
Access Meets Section 14.5 of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual	Ö		Ö
Circulation Meets Section 14.5 of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual	Ö		Ö
Recreation Area Size Meets Section 17.9.2 of the Development Ordinance	Ö		Ö
Recreation Area Type Meets Section 17.9.3 of the Development Ordinance	Ö		Ö
If Cluster Subdivision, Meets Cluster Provisions	N/A		N/A
Meets Min. Landscape Buffers	Ö With Conditions		Ö With Conditions
Public Water and Sewer Available	Ö		Ö
Tree Protection Requirements	N/A		Ö With Conditions
If County Health Department Approval Needed, Received	N/A		N/A
Resource Conservation District Regulations	Ö		Ö With Conditions
Watershed Protection District Regulations	Ö		Ö
Homeowners’ Association Proposed	Ö		Ö
Reservation of a School Site, if Applicable	N/A		N/A
Stormwater Management Plan	Ö		Ö With Conditions
Floor Area Restrictions under Section 13.11 of the Development Ordinance	N/A		N/A

N/A = Not Applicable prepared 11/25/02

ATTACHMENT 3

RESOLUTION A

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (File No. 7.70.D.5)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Creekside Subdivision, proposed by Curtis Hendrickson on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 70, Block D, Lot 5, (PIN #9787-59-6577) if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated November 13, 2001 and revised July 12, 2002, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:

These findings are based on the following:

Stipulations Related to General Issues

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 or Land Use Management Ordinance, whichever is in place at the time of the approval.

2. Number of Lots: That this approval shall authorize the creation of no more than 11 lots on 11.42 acres.

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

3. Dedicated Right-of-Way Recordation: That all required dedicated right-of-way shall be shown on a recorded final plat, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4. On-Site Road Improvements: That the applicant build the 20-foot road cross-section to Town standard, as well as 3-foot wide shoulders, and 3-foot wide drainage swales, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

5. Right-of-Way or Public Easement: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way.

Stipulations Related to Recreation Issues

6. Conservation Area Requirements: That the applicant shall deed the land to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc., including approximately 43,560 square feet of conservation area in the southeastern part of the site, for preservation purposes, at the time of recordation of the final plat. This portion of the site is not intended for foot trails or recreation.

7. Recreation Area Requirements: If the applicant is able to obtain clear title to the western Morgan Creek Road frontage, allowing a pedestrian point of access, the applicant shall provide a 35-foot wide strip of land along the north property line of lot 11 and a 60 foot wide strip, connecting to Morgan Creek Road, to be provided as recreation area and dedicated to the Homeowners’ Association, to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recreation area shall comprise approximately 13, 470 square feet.

8. Town Pedestrian Easement: If the applicant is able to obtain clear title to the western Morgan Creek Road frontage, allowing a pedestrian point of access, a public access easement shall be recorded on the Homeowners’ Association recreation area and that the following users be entitled to use the recreation area: pedestrians, users of non-motorized vehicles, and motorized wheelchairs.

9. Pedestrian Trail Signage: If the applicant is able to obtain clear title to the western Morgan Creek Road frontage, allowing a pedestrian point of access, the applicant shall provide pedestrian trail signage identifying the trail at both ends of the pedestrian connection, along the north property line of lot 11. The signs shall comply with sign design standards contained in the Ordinance.

10. Removal of Trail on Lots 9, 10, and 11: That the applicant shall remove the proposed trail on lots 9, 10, and part of 11.

Stipulations Related to Housing Issues

11. Contribution for Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide $52,500 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund to subsidize affordable housing, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues

12. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees shall be removed and preserved and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. Tree Protection Fencing: That the limits of land disturbance with tree protection fencing shall be shown on the Landscape Protection Plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

14. Landscape Bufferyards: That the applicant shall comply with bufferyard regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. The landscape bufferyards shall preferably be located on land owned and controlled by a Homeowners’ Association, but may be located in easements on individual lots if maintenance responsibilities are clearly assigned to the Homeowners’ Association.

15. Tree Protection: That the applicant shall preserve the following significant trees: the 31” oak on lot 3, the 19” hickory on lot 4, and the 35” oak in the southern corner of lot 1. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

16. Critical Root Zones: That the applicant shall clearly indicate the critical root zones of the trees designated for protection in stipulation #14 on Final Plans.

17. Homeowners’ Association: That a Homeowners’ Association shall be created that has the capacity to place a lien on the property of a member who does not pay the annual charges for maintenance of common areas or bufferyard easements, however designated. The Homeowners’ Association documents shall be 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 Environmental Issues

18. Resource Conservation District 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.” The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

19. Resource Conservation District 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. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

20. The Resource Conservation District Buildable Lots: That no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance in order to be built upon. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

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. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

21. The Resource Conservation District 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. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

22. Steep Slopes: That each submittal for Final Plan approval shall include a plan 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. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

23. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall be based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate and the post-development stormwater runoff volume shall not exceed the pre-development volume for the local 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event. 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. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

24. Integrated Management Practices: That the applicant shall employ Integrated Management Practices, such as vegetative filter strips, infiltration swales, reduced impervious surface, pervious pavements, infiltration trenches, bio-retention facilities, dry wells, cisterns, rain barrels, and level spreaders, to manage the rate, quality, and volume of runoff, based on best available information. Final design and locations shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These stormwater management features shall not be permitted within approved landscaped bufferyard areas. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

25. Water Quality Enhancement: That the applicant shall employ additional Integrated Management Practices, in addition to the proposed drainage swales, to ensure compliance with stormwater quality standards. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

26. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, shall be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

27. Off-Site Drainageway Easement: That the applicant shall provide an off-site storm drainageway easement in the area southwest of lots 10 and 11 or demonstrate how stormwater discharge will not negatively impact adjacent off-site property owners, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

28. Extension of Drainage Pipe Beneath Morgan Creek Road: That the applicant shall extend the existing 18-inch pipe that runs beneath Morgan Creek Road south of lot 1 before being released into an open channel, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

29. Stormwater Yard Inlet: That the applicant provide a standard yard inlet for the proposed storm drain, south of the cul-de-sac, between lots 8 and 9.

30. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. We recommend that the plan include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

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. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

32. Silt Control: That the applicant takes appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.

Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues

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

34. 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.

35. Utility Line Placement: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground. The applicant shall indicate proposed off-site utility line routing and upgrades required to service the site on Final Plans, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

36. 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 Manager approval.

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

38. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That maximum spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed 500 feet, subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. Plant Rescue: That the applicant consider conducting plant rescue activities on the site after the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to the start of construction. The applicant is encouraged to consult with the North Carolina Botanical Garden staff for prior to starting a plant rescue.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall 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.

45. 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.

46. Construction Sign: That the applicant shall 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.

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

48. 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 Creekside Subdivision in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.

This is the day of , 2003.

ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION B

Transportation Board Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (File No. 7.70.D.5)

These findings are based on the following:

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

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be revised:

2. On-Site Road Improvements: That the applicant build the 20-foot road cross-section to Town standard, as well as 3-foot wide shoulders, and 3-foot wide drainage swales, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Accordingly, Stipulation #4 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “On-Site Road Improvements: That the applicant build the 22-foot road cross-section and 5-foot sidewalks to Town standard as well as 3-foot wide shoulders, and 3-foot wide drainage swales, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

3. Right-of-Way or Public Easement: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way. Accordingly, Stipulation #5 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Right-of-Way or Public Easement: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way. That the sidewalk shall be located within dedicated public right-of-way or within a public easement maintained by the Homeowners’ Association.”

4. Landscape Bufferyards: That the applicant shall comply with bufferyard regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. The landscape bufferyards shall preferably be located on land owned and controlled by a Homeowners’ Association, but may be located in easements on individual lots if maintenance responsibilities are clearly assigned to the Homeowners’ Association. Accordingly, Stipulation #14 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Landscape Bufferyards: That the applicant shall comply with bufferyard regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. The landscape bufferyards shall be located on land owned and controlled by a Homeowners’ Association.”

5. Integrated Management Practices: That the applicant shall employ Integrated Management Practices, such as vegetative filter strips, infiltration swales, reduced impervious surface, pervious pavements, infiltration trenches, bio-retention facilities, dry wells, cisterns, rain barrels, and level spreaders, to manage the rate, quality, and volume of runoff, based on best available information. Final design and locations shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These stormwater management features shall not be permitted within approved landscaped bufferyard areas. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. Accordingly, Stipulation #24 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Integrated Management Practices: That the applicant shall employ Integrated Management Practices, such as drainage swales, bio-retention facilities, separator units, and level spreaders, to manage the rate and quality of runoff, based on best available information from the NC State University Cooperative Extension. Final design and locations shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. These stormwater management features shall not be permitted within approved landscaped bufferyard areas. The applicant shall comply with regulations as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval.”

That the following Stipulations shall be inserted into Resolution A:

6. “Sidewalk on Morgan Creek Frontage: That the applicant shall provide a sidewalk built to Town Standard spanning the Morgan Creek Road frontage for approximately 195 linear feet on the northern side of the site.”

7. “Pedestrian Access to Conservation Land: That the applicant shall provide a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail easement between lots 5 and 6, with signage, with access to the conservation land to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc.”

8. “Provision of Restricted Floor Area Housing: That the applicant shall provide restricted floor area housing as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. These restrictions shall be noted on the Final Plat, if applicable.”

9. “In-Lieu Options to Restricted Floor Area Housing: That the applicant shall have the option to provide affordable housing or a payment in-lieu of restricted floor area housing as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. If affordable housing restrictions are proposed, the restrictions shall be approved by the Town Manager and included on the Final Plat.”

That the following Stipulations shall be removed from Resolution A:

13. “Contribution for Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide $52,500 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund to subsidize affordable housing, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

This is the day of , 2003.

ATTACHMENT 5

RESOLUTION C

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation and

Greenways Commission Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (File No. 7.70.D.5)

These findings are based on the following:

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

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be revised:

That the following Stipulations shall be inserted into Resolution A:

4. “Pedestrian Access to Conservation Land: That the applicant shall provide pedestrian access for residents of the Creekside Subdivision to the conservation land to be deeded to the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc.”

5. “Conservation Land Access Agreement: That the applicant and the Botanical Garden Foundation, Inc. shall agree to provide long-term access across the proposed conservation land near Morgan Creek, to ensure area-wide connectivity of greenway trails.”

6. “Provision of Restricted Floor Area Housing: That the applicant shall provide restricted floor area housing as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. These restrictions shall be noted on the Final Plat, if applicable.”

7. “In-Lieu Options to Restricted Floor Area Housing: That the applicant shall have the option to provide affordable housing or a payment in-lieu of restricted floor area housing as specified by the Ordinance in place at the time of approval. If affordable housing restrictions are proposed, the restrictions shall be approved by the Town Manager and included on the Final Plat.”

That the following Stipulations shall be removed from Resolution A:

11. “Removal of Trail on Lots 9, 10, and 11: That the applicant shall remove the proposed trail on lots 9, 10, and 11.”

12. “Contribution for Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide $52,500 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund to subsidize affordable housing, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

This is the day of , 2003.

ATTACHMENT 6

RESOLUTION D

(Denying Application)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (File No. 7.70.D.5)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to finds that the Creekside Subdivision, proposed by Curtis Hendrickson on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 70, Block D, Lot 5 (PIN #9787-59-6577), if developed according to the preliminary site plan dated November 13, 2001 and revised July 12, 2002, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Development Ordinance:

(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)

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

This is the day of , 2003.

[1] Provisions in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance make a distinction for buffer requirements on collector streets. Parking lots adjacent to collector streets require a minimum 20-foot Type-C buffer whereas houses adjacent to a collector street require a 15-foot Type-A buffer. The current Development Ordinance does not make this distinction requiring a 20-foot Type-C buffer in both cases.

AGENDA #1

MEMORANDUM

PROCESS

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

KEY ISSUES

3. Resolution A (p. 25).

Application for Preliminary Plat

STAFF EVALUATION

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

FORTHCOMING FINAL DRAFT OF PROPOSED LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

COMPLIANCE

NON

COMPLIANCE

COMPLIANCE

NON

COMPLIANCE

Stipulations Related to General Issues

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

Stipulations Related to Recreation Issues

Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues