to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
subject: Public Hearing: St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School, 920-940 Carmichael Street - Application for Special Use Permit Modification
date: September 17, 2008
Attached for your consideration is a request from The Catholic Community of St. Thomas More, for a Special Use Permit Modification to allow the proposed expansion of St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School. The applicant, the St. Thomas More Catholic Community, is proposing to expand floor area for a total of 137,405 square feet. The site is located at 920-940 Carmichael Street between Raleigh Road and Old Mason Farm Road, along Fordham Boulevard, across from the Highland Woods Subdivision, in the Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C) zoning district. The 21.5-acre site is located in Orange County and is identified as Parcel Identifier Number 9798-04-5260.
Accompanying this application is a Master Land Use Plan Modification application requesting to increase the authorized floor area, increase the number of vehicular parking spaces, the number of buildings, and relocate the athletic field. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for additional discussion. The recommendations in the staff report are made with the assumption that the requested Master Land Use Plan Modification application is approved.
Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the Special Use Permit application, as the Council determines the appropriate requirements to include as conditions of approval.
The applicant, the St. Thomas More Catholic Community, is proposing to demolish 8,432 square feet of floor area and construct 66,269 square feet of new floor area for a total of 137,405 square feet. An athletic field and 158 new parking spaces are also proposed in addition to the existing 264 parking spaces, for a total of 422 vehicular parking spaces. A new traffic access and circulation pattern is proposed at the Mason Farm Road/Fordham Boulevard intersection. An additional driveway on Carmichael Street and a connection to the adjacent University of North Carolina property to the north is also proposed.
During staff and advisory board review we identified the following key issues related to this project:
Comment: We do not concur. We recommend that the construction start deadline be extended to three years, and the construction completion deadline not be increased beyond 5 years, because of the potential for changing conditions. The Town Traffic Engineer has recommended that the applicant obtain a new or amended Traffic Impact Analysis, or exemption thereof, for any construction proposed beyond the year 2013. Holding a construction completion deadline at 5 years (or 2013) ensures that the applicant’s request to extend the construction completion deadline will serve as a trigger to assess the Traffic Impact Analysis.
We understand that churches have unusual fund-raising and construction phasing considerations and that construction completion deadline flexibility may be warranted. However, we are unable to extend considerations of traffic impacts beyond 2013, and therefore, recommend that the Special Use Permit approval include a construction completion deadline of 2013. Administrative provisions exist for extension beyond the recommended 2013 construction completion deadline. Applicants are able to apply for extensions of the construction deadline for approval by the Town Manager as well as the Town Council. We therefore recommend a construction start deadline of 3 years after the approval date and a construction completion deadline of 5 years after the approval date. A stipulation to this effect is included in Resolution A.
Comment: We do not concur. We recommend that the applicant provide a $17,500 payment-in-lieu of bus-stop amenities, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, for a 15-foot bus-stop shelter and associated amenities, including a pad, bench, solar-powered lighting, and trash can to be located at one of the proposed bus pull offs on Fordham Boulevard, at the Mason Farm Road intersection. We also recommend that the funds be refunded, at the applicant’s request, if 1) the bus-stop pull offs are not constructed, or 2) there is not active bus-service at one of the bus stops within 5 years of the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. We have added a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We understand that NCDOT plans to construct bus pull offs on both sides of Fordham Boulevard at the intersection of Mason Farm Road. Furthermore, the Transit Department has stated that they do not have any short-term or long-term plans to provide transit service on Carmichael Street.
Comment: We believe that it will be necessary for the Town to acquire an approximately 30-foot wide transit right-of-way to accommodate the planned regional fixed guideway corridor at such time that is necessary. We recommend that the applicant reserve up to 30 feet of additional right-of-way (as determined by the Town) along the approximately 1,900-foot Carmichael Street frontage of the site for future dedication, upon written notice to the property owner by the Town, at such time when it is confirmed that the Town is prepared to implement the regional transit corridor in this location. At such time that the right-of-way dedication occurs, the Town would allow a transfer of floor area density credits to be used at any time in the future, when appropriate permits are obtained. The density credits would be based on the area that is dedicated to right-of-way and the floor area ratio corresponding to the zoning district for the site. When transit construction occurs, related to the right-of-way dedication, the potential costs associated with possible relocation of buffers, driveways, sidewalk, stormwater ponds and the like would not be borne by St. Thomas More Church. We have added a stipulation to this effect in Revised Resolution A.
Planning Board: On August 5, 2008, the Planning Board voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with adoption of Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following conditions:
Comment: We recommend the inclusion of a 2013 construction completion deadline. Please see the key issues in the Discussion section above.
Comment: We concur. After discussions with the applicant, it was determined that there was not an appropriate place in the public right-of-way to place the sidewalk. We have revised the stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Comment: We do not concur. Please see the key issues in the Discussion section above.
Comment: We concur. The applicant originally proposed a 1,400-foot long, 10-foot wide, alternative landscape buffer along the entire western property line. The revised landscape plan proposes a total of 300 feet of 10-foot wide, Type ‘B,’ alternative landscape buffer including two sections, 140 feet and 160 feet long, along the western property to accommodate a parking area and a retaining wall, The remaining 1,100 feet on the western property line is proposed to be 20-foot wide Type ‘C’ buffer. We have revised the corresponding stipulation in Resolution A.
A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on June 26, 2008 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum.
A copy of the Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on June 18, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following conditions:
Comment: We do not concur. Please see the key issues in the Discussion section above.
Comment: We do not concur. We discussed “No Parking” signage with NCDOT, who controls the right-of-way, and they do not recommend no parking signs along a street where enforcement may be an ongoing issue if such signage was authorized.
Comment: We do not concur. Please see the key issues in the Discussion section above.
A copy of the Summary of the Community Design Commission Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on July 22, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following conditions:
A copy of the Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 4).
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission will meet on September 24, 2008. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Greenways Commission Action when it is available.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: The following staff recommendations were added to Resolution A, or amended, following Advisory Board review.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. If the Council makes the required findings for approval of the St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School Special Use Permit Modification, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.
Resolution B would deny the application.
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit 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.
The Land Use Management Ordinance states that “if a Master Land Use Plan is approved for a tract of land, and an application for a Special Use Permit is subsequently received, then the Special Use Permit application must be consistent with the Master Plan. If it is consistent with the Master Plan, a rebuttal presumption shall thereby be established that the proposed development would:
These are three of the four findings that must be made to approve an application for Special Use Permit. The fourth finding, “that the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in the supplemental use regulations (article 6), and with all other applicable regulations,” is the only finding that must then be made by the Council in order to approve the Special Use Permit application with an approved Master Land Use Plan.
We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the Master Land Use Plan and standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Based on our evaluation, our preliminary conclusion is that the application as submitted complies with the Master Land Use Plan and the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, and Design Manual, with the conditions included in Resolution A.
Tonight the Council receives our attached evaluation and information submitted by the applicant. The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum. All information that is submitted at the hearing will be included in the record of the hearing. Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make the one finding:
|
Special Use Permit – Required Finding of Fact Finding: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
|
Finding: 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 specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.
Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.
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, and the modification to the regulations, our preliminary recommendation is that the Council could make the four findings necessary in order to approve the application. Our recommendation, Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
St. Thomas More Church and School - Special Use Permit Modification Application
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board |
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Greenways Commission |
Community Design Commission |
|
Construction Start/Completion Deadlines |
3 yrs./5 yrs. |
4 yrs./10 yrs. |
* |
* |
2 yrs./14 yrs |
|
Transportation Impact Assessment |
Review TIA in yr. 2013 to Continue Construction |
Review TIA in yr. 2013 to Continue Construction |
* |
* |
* |
|
Modified Alignment of Carmichael St. Sidewalk |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Carmichael St. Right of Way Dedication |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Carmichael St. No Parking Signage |
No, not recommended by |
* |
* |
* |
Yes, Must Ask Council For Exceptions |
|
Regional Transit Right-Of-Way Reservation |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Payment-in-lieu of Transit Improvements |
|
|
* |
* |
|
|
Increase Conventional Landscape Buffers/Reduce Alternative Landscape Buffers |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
*Issues not discussed, and therefore not included in the recommendation