AGENDA #11

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

 

FROM:            J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director

                        Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator

 

SUBJECT:      Castalia at Meadowmont – Application for Special Use Permit

 

DATE:            October 9, 2006

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from September 11, 2006, regarding a Special Use Permit which proposes to construct a 76,000 square foot mixed-use building including 52,000 square feet of office floor area and 10 residential units.  The proposal includes a three-story building with 177 parking spaces, including 17 garage spaces.  Two points of access along West Barbee Chapel Road are proposed.  The 4.2 acre site is located on the south side of the intersection of West Barbee Chapel Road and Old Barn Lane in the Meadowmont Development. 

 

The site is zoned Mixed Use-Residential-1 (MU-R-1) and is encumbered by the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan.  The site is located in Orange County, and is identified as Chapel Hill PIN 9798-54-6749. 

 

Along with this application, the applicant has submitted an application for Modification of the Master Land Use Plan.  Please see the accompanying memorandum regarding the Master Land Use Plan application.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the finding required to approve the Special Use Permit application.  We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application.

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

PROCESS

 

Tonight, the Council is considering a Meadowmont Master Plan Modification application as well as a Special Use Permit application.  Please see the accompanying memorandum for the Master Land Use Plan Modification application. 

 

In a Special Use Permit proceeding that is not associated with an approved Master Land Use Plan, the burden is on the applicant to present a case, demonstrating why the Council should make the four findings required for approval of a Special Use Permit. With Council approval of a conceptual Master Land Use Plan, however, if the Special Use Permit application is found to be consistent with the Master Plan, the burden regarding three of the four findings then shifts to those opposed to approval of the Permit.  A “rebuttable presumption” is established that three of the four findings can be made.  The Council must only make the finding that the proposed development complies with all applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

 

Approval of Master Plan:  If the Council approves the proposed Master Land Use Plan Modification tonight, a rebuttable presumption is established for three of the four findings and consideration of the Special Use Permit will be focused on the finding that the proposed development complies with the Land Use Management Ordinance.

 

Denial of Master Plan:  If the Council does not take action to approve the Meadowmont Master Plan Modification application, it will be necessary for the Council to consider all four findings for approval of the Special Use Permit.  We recommend that the Special Use Permit application return to the Council at the next available meeting, if the Master Plan application is denied or if no action is taken on the Master Plan application. 

 

Special Use Permit Not Consistent with Master Plan:  If the Council determines that the Special Use Permit application is not consistent with the existing Master Land Use Plan or the Master Land Use Plan Modification, we recommend that the Council recess the Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit in order to allow the applicant to revise the application and submit additional information concerning the four findings. 

 

KEY ISSUES

 

We believe that the key issues raised during the September 11, 2006 Public Hearing focused on the following two items: affordable housing and stormwater management. 

  1. Affordable Housing:  The applicant’s initial Special Use Permit application offered two of the eleven proposed residential dwellings as affordable rental units.  During the June 19 Public Hearing the applicant withdrew the offer of on-site affordable units.  At the June meeting, the Council considered an $180,000 payment-in-lieu option proposed by Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (Attachment 2).  At the September Public Hearing, Council Members expressed opinions as to the appropriate options for affordable housing.  Some Council Members said the applicant should provide two affordable units on site, while other Council Members stated that a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing was appropriate.  At the September Public Hearing, the Council asked the applicant to provide a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing of $150,000 or to provide two on-site affordable units.   

 

Comment:   With respect to affordable units on site, based on discussions with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, we do not believe locating affordable units on this site would be viable.  We have concerns about owner occupied affordable units and the monthly financial subsidies required to support the units over the life of the building, for such cost as homeowners association fees.  We believe additional information would be needed to determine how to arrange perpetual subsidies.

With respect to the payment-in-lieu of affordable housing, the Council has in the past approved applications that offered a payment to support affordable housing initiatives in lieu of actually providing affordable units as part of the development.  The September 11 memorandum included a stipulation for a $112,500 payment-in-lieu of affordable housing.  At the September Public Hearing, the Council asked the applicant to provide a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing of $150,000 or to provide two on-site affordable units.

 

At the September 11 meeting, the applicant indicated that he would need to evaluate the payment-in-lieu option before he could state whether he was in agreement with this amount.  As of the writing of this memorandum, we have not received a formal response from the applicant concerning the provision of on-site affordable units or a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing.  We anticipate that the applicant will provide information to the Council concerning this matter at tonight’s meeting.  Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for affordable housing.  We recommend that the amount for the payment-in-lieu for affordable housing be established by the Council at tonight’s meeting.

  1. Stormwater: The applicant raised concerns about the financial impact of proposed stormwater retention facility and asked to meet with Town staff to discuss possible options.

 

Comment:  Town staff discussed the stormwater issues with the applicant subsequent to the September 11 Council meeting.  Two separate stormwater ponds serve this site, one located near the Hilltop Condominiums, and one located in the meadow.  After reviewing the comprehensive stormwater plan for the Meadowmont development, we determined that the stormwater from this site could be served by one or both of these ponds.  We determined that a potentially more cost effective stormwater management method may be to engineer the stormwater pond located in the meadow to handle the required stormwater needs for this site.  We believe this proposal would eliminate the need to construct the underground stormwater detention initially proposed by the applicant.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution A allowing the applicant to use either or both of the drainage basins.

 

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

 

Special Use Permit Findings: For approval of a Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification, the Council is required to make findings based on 1) public health, safety and general welfare, 2) compliance with the town’s development regulations and standards, 3) the value of contiguous property and 4) the physical development of the Town. 

 

With Council approval of a conceptual Master Plan, and if the Special Use Permit application is found to be consistent with the Master Plan, the burden regarding three of the four findings  shifts to those opposed to approval of the Permit.  A “rebuttable presumption” is established that three of the four findings can be made.  The Council must only make the finding that the proposed development complies with all applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

 

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the finding of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit which is determined to be consistent with an approved Master Land Use Plan (as modified).

Finding #1:  That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations. 

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

 

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of the Finding #1 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 6).

 

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

 

Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application, part of Attachment 6.

 

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

 

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

 

SUMMARY

 

We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application.  With these conditions, our conclusion is that the Council could make the finding necessary in order to approve the application.  The staff recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Stipulations Incorporated into Resolution A:

 

Following the September 11 Public Hearing, the following recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution A, the Staff Revised Recommendation:

  1. Stormwater Ponds:  That stormwater ponds 1B and/or 4, part of the Meadowmont Infrastructure plan, may be used by the applicant to treat stormwater.

 

Staff Revised Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our revised conclusion is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.  

 

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Resolution G would deny the application.

 

Castalia at Meadowmont

Special Use Permit

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE Resolution A
Staff Revised Recomm. 		Resolution B
Planning Board Recomm. 		Resolution C
Transportation Board Recomm. 		Resolution D
Community Design Commission Recomm. 		Resolution E
Bicycle & Pedestrian Board Recomm. 		Resolution F
Parks & Rec Commission Recomm.
Provide option to improve existing stormwater pond Yes * * * * *
Limit Construction Hours  7:00 - 7:00 Yes Yes * * * *
Affordable Housing Payment-in-lieu Units on Site Payment-in-lieu Units on Site Units on Site Units on Site
No. Units 10 * * * * *
Bus Shelter & Ped. Access Yes * Yes * * *
Relocate Building No * * Yes (move  closer to street) * *
Provide Pedestrian. Circulation Plan Yes * * Yes Yes *
Reduce # of parking spaces Not exceed 110% minimum (177 spaces) * * Yes (maximum 150 spaces) * *
Porous Pavement in parking lot Yes * * Yes * *
More Stringent Lighting Yes, where possible Standard stipulation Standard stipulation Standard stipulation Standard stipulation Standard stipulation
LEED Certification Yes, encourage * * * * *
Landscaping Materials Use larger caliper trees and shrubs * * * * *

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

 

ATTACHMENTS

  1. September 11, 2006 Special Use Permit Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1).