AGENDA #8

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: Creekside Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval

(File No. 7.70.D.5)

Date: February 24, 2003

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Creekside Subdivision Public Hearing from January 22, 2003, regarding a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the subdivision of 11.42 acres into 11 residential lots. Adoption of Resolution A, B, C, D, or E would approve the Preliminary Plat application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution F would deny the request.

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 comments on issues raised during the January 22 Public Hearing, a letter from Warren Mitchell, an area map, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.

Background

On January 22, 2003, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Preliminary Plat application to authorize the creation of 11.42 acres into 11 lots for residential construction. The site is south of Fordham Boulevard, located between Morgan Creek Road and Hawthorne Lane. Morgan Creek runs along the site’s southern boundary. A single point of vehicular access is proposed from Morgan Creek Road, terminating in a cul-de-sac.

PROCESS

This is an application for Preliminary Plat approval. The Land Use Management 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 Land Use Management Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on January 22 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 Section 4.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. However, the Council’s review of 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 and attached to the January 22 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 Land Use Management 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 Land Use Management Ordinance. We have attached a checklist, of the Town’s subdivision regulations (part of Attachment 12, p. 24). 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 January 22 Public Hearing focused on Council discretion regarding affordable housing/restricted floor area housing, recreation area, delaying approval of the subdivision proposal, development density, Resource Conservation District, and significant tree stands. We offer additional information on these issues below. In addition, we note that the applicant has responded to issues raised on January 22 and the newly-adopted Land Use Management Ordinance by making two changes to the application. These changes are described and addressed in the first two key issues below:

1) affordable housing/restricted floor area housing, and

2) recreation area requirements.

Affordable Housing/Restricted Floor Area Housing: A Council member questioned whether or not the applicant’s offer of a $52,500 payment-in-lieu of affordable housing was adequate.

Following enactment of the new Ordinance, the applicant has retracted his offer of a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing, made at the January 22 Public Hearing. The applicant proposes to meet the Town’s Small House requirements instead, by providing 25 percent (2 homes), with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area each.

Comment: The provision of 25% small houses on site satisfies Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. This section of the Ordinance requires that major subdivision applications with 5 or more lots provide 25 percent small houses with floor area no greater than 1,350 square feet each for 30 months. We note that Section 3.8.5(c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance provides that the resulting fraction should be dropped when calculating 25% of small houses. The Ordinance also provides that the applicant may 1) offer to substitute 15% affordable housing or, 2) offer to substitute a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing, with Council approval. However, the applicant is offering to fulfill the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance by offering to provide 25% small houses on site.

Recreation Area Requirements: A Council member suggested that the proposed conservation area may not adequately meet recreation needs because it will be dedicated to the Botanical Garden Foundation and will not be accessible to residents of the proposed subdivision.

In response, the applicant is proposing an alternative to comply with the recreation requirements in the Land Use Management Ordinance but still prefers the original proposal of deeding conservation land near Morgan Creek. The applicant’s alternate proposal is to provide 36,590 square feet of recreation area in place of Lot 1, near Morgan Creek Road (see Attachment 9). Therefore, the Council now has two options from which to choose to fulfill the recreation area requirement: 1) 43,560 square feet of conservation area near Morgan Creek, or 2) 35,319 square feet of conservation area near Morgan Creek Road.

Comment: Section 5.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the applicant provide 35,319 square feet of recreation area. We believe that the applicant’s original proposal to deed 43,560 square feet of environmentally sensitive land near Morgan Creek to the Botanical Foundation as conservation land meets the recreation requirements of the Ordinance. The Council has the discretion to approve conservation area in-lieu of recreation area if the Council determines that the recreational needs of the residents are met. We believe that the combination of large lots and the proximity of the North Carolina Botanical Garden, would meet the recreational needs of the residents. An additional benefit of the conservation area proposal would be the protection of sensitive habitat and plants near Morgan Creek in the conservation area.

We also believe that the applicant’s new alternate proposal to provide 36,590 square feet of recreation area in place of Lot 1, near Morgan Creek Road, would comply with the Land Use Management Ordinance and would meet the recreation needs of the residents. The subdivision provisions of the Ordinance do not require that the recreation area be improved. A benefit of this alternate proposal would be the reduction in the number of lots from 11 to 10, which some Council members expressed an interest in to minimize the removal of trees. A disadvantage would be that the sensitive land near Morgan Creek would be in private ownership, on individual lots, rather than owned and protected by the Botanical Garden Foundation.

On balance, we believe that the original proposal of deeding 43,560 square feet of conservation area to the Botanical Foundation, Inc. is the preferable option for compliance with the recreation area requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance. A stipulation to this effect is in Resolution A. The Council may conclude otherwise.

Neighborhood Conservation District and Subdivision Approval: A Council member inquired if the Council could delay consideration of this subdivision application until a Neighborhood Conservation District is developed and enacted for the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek area.

Comment: On March 4, 2002, the Council adopted a resolution amending the Town’s Land Use Plan to designate the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek area as a Residential Conservation Area. The area so designated includes the site of the proposed Creekside Subdivision. Please see Attachment 10, the agenda item from the March 4 meeting on this matter.

Designation as a Residential Conservation Area in the Comprehensive Plan is a policy statement, articulating Town objectives that can be considered in the context of a rezoning or Special Use Permit application. A second, newly-created process is for a neighborhood to be designated a Neighborhood Conservation District, which involves establishing specific customized zoning regulations for a particular neighborhood. It would be an overlay zoning district.

There is no specific time limit set in the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance for Council to take action on a subdivision application. However, the Council cannot unreasonably delay consideration of a subdivision application without the risk of a legal proceeding being initiated, requiring the Council to act. If there continue to be questions this evening and a need for additional information related to the application, the Council could recess the hearing to a date certain to allow a reasonable period of time for that information to be provided.

However, in the opinion of the Town Attorney, a decision to delay taking action on this application in order to allow time for the development and adoption of a Neighborhood Conservation District, would effectively constitute a temporary development moratorium. As has been stated in previous memoranda, a temporary moratorium should be considered procedurally to be an amendment to the Town’s Ordinances and enacted only following the steps required for such an Ordinance amendment.

Development Density: A Council member asked if the Council has the discretion to limit the density (number of units per acre) on this subdivision site.

Comment: The Council has discretion to limit development densities, and has done so on this site with enactment of zoning regulations. This proposal is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district. Section 3.8 (Table 3.8-1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 17,000 square feet with a corresponding maximum density of 2.6 units per acre in the Residential-1 zoning district. The applicant is proposing 11 lots, with an average lot size of 36,155 square feet, or 1.2 units per acre, not including the 1 acre of proposed conservation land. The applicant is meeting the density requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance, as specified by Council.

Accessory Units: A Council member inquired about the potential of accessory dwelling units to make single family homes more affordable for buyers through the additional rental income.

Comment: According to local realtors and bankers, expected rental income from an accessory unit cannot be used as a factor to determine if a prospective home buyer qualifies for a loan. In other words, a buyer who is attempting to qualify for a mortgage cannot rely on the expected rental income to meet financial requirements. We understand that an accessory unit could rent for $400 to $500 per month. The average sales price of 11 homes (3 to 5 bedrooms) sold in the past year in the Morgan Creek neighborhood, according to a local realtor, was $378,000.

According to Mr. Robert Dowling of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, accessory units would tend to put houses out of reach of low-income homebuyers due to the additional cost. Mr. Dowling noted that accessory units as an affordability tool would be a more realistic option for moderate income home-buyers.

Stream Determinations / Resource Conservation District: Council members requested that the intermittent steam determinations be reassessed by the Town to confirm that the streams were properly classified with the appropriate associated Resource Conservation District corridors.

Comment: On December 12, 2002 and January 13, 2003, Town Engineering Department staff performed field observations to determine stream classifications on the proposed Creekside Subdivision site. The determinations were based on criteria stipulated in the new Land Use Management Ordinance. It was determined that there are two intermittent streams and one perennial stream on the site.

On February 3, 2003, Town Engineering Department staff performed additional field observations, including identification of field indicators listed on the Stream Classification Form prepared by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water. The base criteria Town staff use for stream classification determinations are those described in the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. The State form provides a checklist format to identify whether or not some indicators of the Town’s base criteria are present at the time of a field inspection. The information identified on the State form that is consistent with the Town’s evaluation criteria is used to supplement our field observations in determining stream classifications.

In summary, stream classifications on the Creekside Subdivision site were determined following evaluation of field observations made by Town Engineering Department staff and based on the criteria stipulated in the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Applicable information from the State Stream Classification Form was used to supplement the observation and evaluation process in arriving at final determinations noted above.

On the west side of the site, we determined that the first 300 feet upstream from the confluence of Morgan Creek, is 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 result in less buildable area on all lots, except Lots 1 and 2 (see Attachment 11 for updated Resource Conservation District information).

Resource Conservation District Protection: A Council member inquired about what kind of protection the Resource Conservation District will have on individual property owners’ lots.

Comment: The Resource Conservation District corridor adjacent to perennial streams, for lots established after January 27, 2003, is 150 feet wide, on each side of the stream channel. That 150-foot width is subdivided into three 50-foot zones, beginning at the stream bank; the streamside zone, the managed use zone, and the upland zone. The Resource Conservation District corridor adjacent to intermittent streams, for lots established after January 27, 2003, is 50 feet wide on each side of the stream channel, and is comprised entirely of the streamside zone.

Section 3.6.3 (Table 3.6.3-2) of the Land Use Management Ordinance allows property owners to perform “accessory land-disturbing activities ordinarily associated with a single-family or two-family dwelling, such as utility service lines, gardens, and similar uses” in the managed use and upland zones but not in the stream side zone. Trees can be removed in all three zones, but no “substantial removal of vegetation” is allowed in the streamside zone or other activities associated with land disturbance.

Significant Tree Stands: Council members requested that the site be revisited to determine if there are any significant tree stands and asked how that may influence the design of the proposed development.

Comment: According to Section 5.7.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance a “significant tree stand” is defined as:

“…an area of contiguous wooded area greater than 1,000 square feet with a continuous canopy exceeding 30 feet in height where over 50 percent of the trees with a diameter breast high over 6 inches are hardwoods; or the understory includes a diversity of beeches, hickories, hollies, or other native species as determined by the Town Manager as indicative of a significant evolving Piedmont forest.”

We have verified that the site is essentially divided into two parts by the Ordinance definition. Approximately 75 percent of the site is a significant tree stand whereas the other 25 percent does not have significant tree stands, due to the higher density of softwood trees (see Attachment 9). The Ordinance requires that significant tree stands be delineated and “to the extent practicable, significant tree stands shall be preserved and incorporated into site design.” We believe that the applicant has designed the site in a manner to minimize the disturbance of significant tree stands to the extent practicable. We recognize that development will result in the substantial clearing of trees.

The newly enacted Land Use Management Ordinance requires that each application for development of a single-family lot submit a Landscape Protection Plan, if more than 5,000 square feet of land area is proposed for land disturbance, prior to acquiring a building permit. The landscape protection plan will require identification of trees and measures to protect those trees that are not in the disturbed area.

Tree Clearing by Landowners on Developed Lots: A Council member inquired if landowners are restricted from cutting trees on their lots after the lots are fully developed. An example might be a homeowner who sought to improve the view of Morgan Creek from a new dwelling.

Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance does not prohibit the owner of a single-family home from clearing trees or vegetation, unless such clearing were to be associated with building construction. We note that there are limitations if the lot is located in the Resource Conservation District.

As noted above, Section 3.6.3 (Table 3.6.3-2) of the Land Use Management Ordinance allows property owners to perform “accessory land-disturbing activities ordinarily associated with a single-family or two-family dwelling, such as utility service lines, gardens, and similar uses” in the managed use and upland zones but not in the 50 feet closest to the stream, the stream side zone. Trees can be removed in all three zones, but no “substantial removal of vegetation” is allowed in the streamside zone or other activities associated with land disturbance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on December 3, 2002, on January 7, 2003, and on January 21, 2003, and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the following conditions. Please see the attached Planning Board Summary of Action.

Resolution A includes the following recommendations of the Planning Board:

1. Board Recommendation: 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.

2. Board Recommendation: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way.

3. Board Recommendation: 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.

4. Board Recommendation: 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. Special attention shall be given to identifying and protecting significant stands of trees.

Resolution D includes the following recommendations of the Planning Board:

5. Board Recommendation: That this approval shall authorize the creation of no more than 11 lots on 11.42 acres, providing that a resurvey of the site, by Town staff, does not determine that there is additional Resource Conservation District area on the site that prevents the creation of that many lots.

Comment: The number of lots that can be built on the site is limited by Section 3.6.3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Stipulation #18 in Resolution A that states, “that no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance in order to be built upon.” We therefore do not recommend the above language because the number of lots is already limited by the Resource Conservation District and by this provision.

6. Board Recommendation: That the applicant shall provide one affordable housing unit on-site, for families earning 80% or less of median 3-person family income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). That the applicant shall have the option to provide a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing, if the Town Council determines that this alternative is acceptable. The payment in-lieu shall be calculated in the following manner: 15% x 11 lots x $52,500/lot = $86,625. The payment-in-lieu shall be contributed to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund to subsidize affordable housing, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Comment: The applicant has revised the application and is no longer offering a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing. The applicant’s proposal includes 25% small houses (no greater than 1,350 square feet each) on site, as required by Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. In accordance with the applicant’s revised proposal, we have included a condition in Resolution A that the applicant provide the required 25% small houses (2 homes) on site as required by the Land Use Management Ordinance. We note that Section 3.8.5(c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance provides that the resulting fraction should be dropped when calculating 25% of small houses.

7. Board Recommendation: That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 20-foot wide Type-C buffers along the Morgan Creek Road frontage. The applicant shall comply with 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.

Comment: Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Resolution, no longer includes the stipulation requiring buffers along the property’s frontage. Previously we incorrectly identified Morgan Creek Road as a collector road. If Morgan Creek Road was a collector Road, a landscape bufferyard would be required. It is in fact a local street, which has no buffer requirement for a residential subdivision adjacent to a residential subdivision. We therefore do not recommend the above language and we believe ownership is no longer an issue.

8. Board Recommendation: 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. across a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail easement between Lots 5 and 6, with signage.

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.

9. Board Recommendation: 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.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this subdivision proposal on December 17, 2002. The Board voted 7 to 1 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the following conditions. The Transportation Board Summary of Action is part of Attachment 12. 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. A sidewalk would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

3. Board Recommendation: That the applicant provide a 10-foot wide pedestrian easement between Lots 5 and 6, with appropriate signage, 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. The Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action is part of Attachment 12. 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 Land Use Management 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: During the review of this application it was determined that the applicant did not own the property accessing the western frontage of Morgan Creek Road. Also, additional proposals are now on the table that fulfill the recreation requirement. Accordingly, we do not recommend the above language.

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.

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 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.

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. The Greenways Commission Summary of Action is part of Attachment 12. 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 square foot recreation area leading from Morgan Creek Road to Lot 11 should be dedicated to the Homeowners’ Association.

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.

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 review this subdivision proposal on January 28, 2002, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the following conditions. Please see the attached Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action.

Resolution E includes the following recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board:

1. Payment-in-Lieu of Sidewalks: That the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu of sidewalks on the Morgan Creek Road frontage and the length of the proposed road through the site in the amount equivalent to the cost of Town standard sidewalks, to be approved by the Town Manager.

Comment: We do not recommend sidewalks and consequently there would not be a rational nexus for requesting a payment-in-lieu of sidewalks.

2. Pedestrian Trail Easement: That a pedestrian trail easement be provided between Lots 6 and 7, along the existing sewer easement, leading to the conservation area.

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.

Manager’s Revised Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve this Preliminary Plat application with the conditions listed in Resolution A. Furthermore, we recommend that the following revisions be included in Resolution A as part of the Manager’s Revised Recommendation:

The following stipulations have been revised in Resolution A:

· 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. This stipulation has been revised as follows:

Ø Town Pedestrian Easement: If the applicant provides any pedestrian points of access on site, a public access easement shall be recorded on the Homeowners’ Association recreation area and that the following users shall be entitled to use the recreation area: pedestrians, users of non-motorized vehicles, and motorized wheelchairs.

Comment: This stipulation has been revised in Resolution A because we understand that the applicant does not own a point of access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage, as incorrectly shown on the site plan. Pedestrian access cannot be provided, therefore, at that point. Accordingly, we have removed reference to pedestrian access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage.

· 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. This stipulation has been revised as follows:

Ø Pedestrian Trail Signage: If the applicant provides any pedestrian points of access on site, the applicant shall provide pedestrian trail signage identifying the trail. The signs shall comply with sign design standards contained in the Land Use Management Ordinance.

The following stipulation has been added to Resolution A:

· Small Houses: That the applicant shall provide 25% restricted floor area houses (2 homes) on site, no larger than 1,350 square feet each, that shall not be enlarged beyond 1,350 square feet each for 30 months after the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy, regardless of ownership, and comply with all of the provisions in Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

Comment: This stipulation has been added to Resolution A because, as noted in the Key Issues section, the applicant has revised the application to satisfy the Town’s Small House requirements, providing 25 percent (2 homes), with no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area each. The applicant’s offer to provide 25% small houses on site is complying with Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We note that Section 3.8.5(c) of the Land Use Management Ordinance provides that the resulting fraction should be dropped when calculating 25% of small houses.

The following stipulations have been removed from Resolution A:

· 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.

Comment: This stipulation has been removed from Resolution A because we understand the applicant does not own a point of access to the Morgan Creek Road frontage, as incorrectly shown on the site plan, and therefore cannot provide pedestrian access at that point.

· 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.

Comment: This stipulation has been removed from Resolution A because Morgan Creek Road was incorrectly identified as a collector street, which would have required a landscape buffer. The street is actually a local street, which does not have a buffer requirement.

Resolution A would approve the application and has been revised, as noted above.

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

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

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

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

Resolution F would deny the application.

Attachments

RESOLUTION A

Manager’s Revised Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (2003-02-24/R-9a)

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 Land Use Management 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 Land Use Management Ordinance.

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, subject to approval 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, subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

5. Public Right-of-Way: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way, subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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. Town Pedestrian Easement: If the applicant provides any pedestrian points of access on site, a public access easement shall be recorded on the Homeowners’ Association recreation area and that the following users shall be entitled to use the recreation area: pedestrians, users of non-motorized vehicles, and motorized wheelchairs.

8. Pedestrian Trail Signage: If the applicant provides any pedestrian points of access on site, the applicant shall provide pedestrian trail signage identifying the trail. The signs shall comply with sign design standards contained in the Land Use Management Ordinance.

9. 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

10. Small Houses: That the applicant shall provide 25% restricted floor area houses (2 homes) on site, no larger than 1,350 square feet each, that shall not be enlarged beyond 1,350 square feet each for 30 months after the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy, regardless of ownership, and comply with all of the provisions in Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues

11. 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. Special attention shall be given to identifying and protecting significant stands of trees.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 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

16. 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 Land Use Management Ordinance.”

17. 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.

18. 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. 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, vegetated buffers, other required landscape buffers, easements, and any applicable building setback limits.

19. The Resource Conservation District Construction Standards: That for roadway encroachment into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements and standards of Section 3.6.3 of the Land Use Management 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.

20. 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 Land Use Management 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 Land Use Management 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

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

Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

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

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

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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.

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

46. 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 the 24^th day of February, 2003.

RESOLUTION B

Transportation Board Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (2003-02-24/R-9b)

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. Public Right-of-Way: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way, subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 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. 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:

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

That the following stipulation shall be removed from Resolution A:

This the 24^th day of February, 2003.

RESOLUTION C

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation and

Greenways Commission Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (2003-02-24/R-9c)

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:

3. Public Right-Of-Way: That the road cross-section, shoulders, and drainage swales shall be located inside dedicated public right-of-way subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Accordingly, Stipulation #5 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

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. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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. Small Houses: That the applicant shall provide 25% restricted floor area houses (2 homes) on site, no larger than 1,350 square feet each, that shall not be enlarged beyond 1,350 square feet each for 30 months after the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy, regardless of ownership, and comply with all of the provisions in Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

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

This the 24^th day of February, 2003.

RESOLUTION D

Planning Board Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (2003-02-24/R-9d)

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. Number of Lots: That this approval shall authorize the creation of no more than 11 lots on 11.42 acres. Accordingly, Stipulation #2 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· Number of Lots: That this approval shall authorize the creation of no more than 11 lots on 11.42 acres, providing that a resurvey of the site, by Town staff, does not determine that there is additional Resource Conservation District area on the site that prevents the creation of that many lots.

That the following stipulations shall be inserted in Resolution A:

3. Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide one affordable housing unit on-site, for families earning 80% or less of median 3-person family income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). That the applicant shall have the option to provide a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing, if the Town Council determines that this alternative is acceptable. The payment in-lieu shall be calculated in the following manner: 15% x 11 lots x $52,500/lot = $86,625. The payment-in-lieu shall be contributed to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund to subsidize affordable housing, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4. Landscape Bufferyards: That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 20-foot wide Type-C buffers along the Morgan Creek Road frontage. The applicant shall comply with 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. 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. across a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail easement between Lots 5 and 6, with signage.

6. 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.

That the following Stipulations shall be removed from Resolution A:

7. Small Houses: That the applicant shall provide 25% restricted floor area houses (2 homes) on site, no larger than 1,350 square feet each, that shall not be enlarged beyond 1,350 square feet each for 30 months after the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy, regardless of ownership, and comply with all of the provisions in Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

This the 24^th day of February, 2003.

RESOLUTION E

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (2003-02-24/R-9e)

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 shall be inserted into Resolution A:

2. Payment-in-Lieu of Sidewalks: That the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu of sidewalks on the Morgan Creek Road frontage and the length of the proposed road through the site in the amount equivalent to the cost of Town standard sidewalks, to be approved by the Town Manager.

3. Pedestrian Trail Easement: That a pedestrian trail easement be provided between Lots 6 and 7, along the existing sewer easement, leading to the conservation area.

4. 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.

That the following Stipulations shall be removed from Resolution A:

5. Small Houses: That the applicant shall provide 25% restricted floor area houses (2 homes) on site, no larger than 1,350 square feet each, that shall not be enlarged beyond 1,350 square feet each for 30 months after the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy, regardless of ownership, and comply with all of the provisions in Section 3.8.5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

This the 24^th day of February, 2003.

RESOLUTION F

(Denying Application)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (2003-02-24/R-9f)

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 Land Use Management 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 the 24^th day of February, 2003.

CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS
ISSUE	Resolution A Manager’s Revised Rec.	Resolution B Transportation Board Rec.	Resolution C Parks and Recreation Commission and Greenways Commission Rec.	Resolution D Planning Board Rec.	Resolution E Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec.
Provide 25% Restricted Floor Area Housing on site (2 units)	Yes	*	*	*	*
Base Payment-In-Lieu of Affordable Housing on Following Formula: 15% x 11 lots x $52,000/lot = $86,625.	No Payment Proposed	*	*	Yes	*
Remove Buffer Requirement Along Morgan Creek Road, a Local Street That Does Not Have a Buffer Req.	Yes, Not Required	*	*	*	*
Identify and Protect Significant Stands of Trees to the Extent Practicable	Yes, As Proposed	*	*	Yes	*
Allow Optional Landscape Buffer Easements Along Morgan Creek Road Frontage Rather Than HOA Land	No, Buffer Not Required	No	*	No	Yes
Allow Pedestrian Access To Proposed Botanical Garden Conservation Land	No, Conservation Land To Be Protected And Managed By Botanical Grdn.	Yes	Yes	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 Grdn.	*	Yes	Yes	*
Consult With Botanical Garden Staff Prior To Plant Rescue	Yes	Yes	*	*	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	*	Yes	*
*This issue was raised subsequent to review by this advisory board and therefore was not discussed by this board.

CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
ISSUE	Resolution A Manager’s Revised Rec.	Resolution B Transportation Board Rec.	Resolution C Parks and Recreation Commission and Greenways Commission Rec.	Resolution D Planning Board Rec.	Resolution E Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec.
Provide Pedestrian Trail Easement Between Lots 6 & 7 Along Sewer Easement To Conservation Area	No, Conservation Land To Be Protected And Managed By Botanical Garden	*	*	*	Yes
Provide Trail Connecting to Morgan Creek Road	No, property not owned by applicant	Yes	Yes, If Property Dispute is Resolved	No, property not owned by applicant	Yes, If Property Dispute is Resolved
Remove Proposed Trail Across Lots 9 And 10	Yes, Functionally Inadequate	No	Yes, Functionally Inadequate	Yes, Functionally Inadequate	Yes, Functionally Inadequate
Provide Proposed Number of Lots Only if Re-determination of RCD Doesn’t Prevent That Number of Lots	No, Unnecessary Language, Given Provision in Ordinance and Stipulations in Resolution A	*	*	Yes	*
Provide Additional Measures for Stormwater Volume Control	Yes	*	*	Yes	Yes
Reduce Proposed Road Width From 22 Feet to 20 Feet	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	No, 22-Foot Width	*	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood
Remove Proposed Sidewalk From Morgan Creek Road to Cul-De-Sac	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	No, Retain Sidewalk	No, Retain Sidewalk	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood
Provide Sidewalk Along Morgan Creek Road Frontage on North Side of Site	No	Yes	*	*	No
Provide Payment-In-Lieu of Sidewalks Along Morgan Creek Road Frontage and Through Site	No	*	*	*	Yes
*This issue was raised subsequent to review by this advisory board and therefore was not discussed by this board.

CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
ISSUE	Resolution A Manager’s Revised Rec.	Resolution B Transportation Board Rec.	Resolution C Parks and Recreation Commission and Greenways Commission Rec.	Resolution D Planning Board Rec.	Resolution E Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec.
Provide Pedestrian Trail Easement Between Lots 6 & 7 Along Sewer Easement To Conservation Area	No, Conservation Land To Be Protected And Managed By Botanical Garden	*	*	*	Yes
Provide Trail Connecting to Morgan Creek Road	No, property not owned by applicant	Yes	Yes, If Property Dispute is Resolved	No, property not owned by applicant	Yes, If Property Dispute is Resolved
Remove Proposed Trail Across Lots 9 And 10	Yes, Functionally Inadequate	No	Yes, Functionally Inadequate	Yes, Functionally Inadequate	Yes, Functionally Inadequate
Provide Proposed Number of Lots Only if Re-determination of RCD Doesn’t Prevent That Number of Lots	No, Unnecessary Language, Given Provision in Ordinance and Stipulations in Resolution A	*	*	Yes	*
Provide Additional Measures for Stormwater Volume Control	Yes	*	*	Yes	Yes
Reduce Proposed Road Width From 22 Feet to 20 Feet	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	No, 22-Foot Width	*	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood
Remove Proposed Sidewalk From Morgan Creek Road to Cul-De-Sac	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	No, Retain Sidewalk	No, Retain Sidewalk	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood	Yes, Consistent With Neighborhood
Provide Sidewalk Along Morgan Creek Road Frontage on North Side of Site	No	Yes	*	*	No
Provide Payment-In-Lieu of Sidewalks Along Morgan Creek Road Frontage and Through Site	No	*	*	*	Yes
*This issue was raised subsequent to review by this advisory board and therefore was not discussed by this board.