memorandum

 

to:                  Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

 

from:            J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director

Gene Poveromo, Development Manager

 

subject:      St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School, 920-940 Carmichael Street - Application for Master Land Use Plan Modification

 

date:            October 15, 2008

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight the Council continues the September 17, 2008 Public Hearing regarding a Master Land Use Plan application from The Catholic Community of St. Thomas More to modify the St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School Master Land Use Plan. The proposed modification would include an expansion to 137,405 square feet of floor area, 422 parking spaces, and 9 buildings. St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School are located at 920-940 Carmichael Street, between Mason Farm Road and Raleigh Road.

 

Accompanying this application is a Special Use Permit application. Please refer to the accompanying memoranda for additional information.

 

DISCUSSION

 

We have identified the following key issue related to this application.

 

1.      Expiration Date of Master Land Use Plan and Special Use Permit:  We recommend that the construction completion deadline of the accompanying Special Use Permit application be increased to 10 years in Revised Resolution A.

 

Comment: We believe that the expiration date of the Master Land Use Plan should therefore be adjusted to correspond to the accompanying Special Use Permit. We have therefore changed the expiration date of the Master Land Use Plan in Revised Resolution A from 5 years to 10 years. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for the Special Use Permit application.

 

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

 

The standard for review and approval of a Master Land Use Plan application involves consideration of the following three findings of fact that the Council must consider.

 

Master Land Use Plan – Required Findings of Fact

 

Finding #1: Maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare;

 

Finding #2: Maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a public necessity; and

 

Finding #3: Conform to the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the three required findings for the approval of a Master Land Use Plan. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the three findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Master Land Use Plan shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

 

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the three findings of facts that the Council must consider to approve a Master Land Use Plan. We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Finding #1:  That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“The MLUP originally anticipated 111,210 square feet of total floor area.  This modification will add an additional 26,195 square feet of floor area. The allowable floor area on this site is 283,607SF.  The proposed 26,195SF increase is less than 10% of the allowable square footage and the building area as a percentage of the allowable square footage would increase from 39.2% to 48.4%.  In sum, the building square footage will continue to be well below the allowable limit.  We also note that the proposed square footage will not result in capacity increases at either the worship facility or the school.  Instead, the building square footage increase will allow the essential mission of the church and the school to be carried out more effectively. 

“With regard to the relocated athletic field, physical education and physical fitness has always been an essential part of the elementary school and middle school curriculum at St. Thomas More School.  The relocated field will allow safe, vigorous physical education to occur on regulation-sized, multi-purpose fields.  The applicant believes this will enhance the physical and mental well-being of St. Thomas More students, and is in the best interest of our community.

“The number of on-site automobile parking spaces is requested to be increased in order to provide sufficient on-site parking to, hopefully, replace the need for Sunday parking on Carmichael Street and to best accommodate the parking needs of the two land uses: a “place of worship” and a “school, elementary”.  141 bicycle parking spaces will be provided as well.

We believe these three modest changes in the MLUP will allow St. Thomas More to better carry out its religious, school and community missions, and will have no adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare in our community.” [Applicant’s Statement]

 

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

Finding #2:  That the use would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity.

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.

“There will be no change in the current use of the property. The proposed design is to maintain the existing size of the worship area and the existing school population. The proposed facilities will simply augment current uses and will not result in new traffic impacts. The proposed facilities will house support functions such as a Parish Center, a Chapel, a renovated gymnasium, an art and music building and a relocated caring and sharing area. The character of the surrounding neighborhoods will be maintained or enhanced by the proposed improvements to the church property.

“The requested modifications to the MLUP will maintain/enhance the value of contiguous property.”[Applicant’s Statement]

 

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.

Finding #3:  That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.

“The applicant believes that the proposed Special Use Permit and the requested modification to the MLUP are in accordance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.  The applicant also believes that this proposal complies with LUMO and that the proposed religious, educational and recreational improvements will promote the general public health and welfare of our community and will have no adverse impacts on public safety.” [Applicant’s Statement]

 

Comment:  The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this site as Institutional, which is the same as the existing and proposed use. Additional evidence in support of this finding can be found in the Master Land Use Plan’s conforming to some of the twelve major themes of the Comprehensive Plan indicated below:

 

We believe that this application is conforming to six of the above major themes, including, conserve and protect existing neighborhoods, encourage desirable forms of non-residential development, work toward a balanced transportation system, complete the bikeway/greenway/sidewalk systems, provide quality community facilities and services, and develop strategies to address fiscal issues.

 

Evidence in opposition:  We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.

 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process. Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the three findings.

 

SUMMARY

 

We have attached a revised resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, we believe that the Council could make the findings regarding health, safety and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, our recommendation is that, with the stipulations in Revised Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The Planning Board, Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that the Town Council approve the Master Land Use Plan. For additional information on their recommendations, please refer to the attached September 17, 2008 Public Hearing memorandum.

 

Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Master Land Use Plan Modification application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A. Since the September 17, 2008 Public Hearing, the following stipulations have been incorporated into the Revised Resolution A:

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      September 17, 2008 Public Hearing Memorandum (see http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/09/17/4a/4a-staff_memo.htm).

 

DRAFT RESOLUTIONS

1.      A Resolution Approving an Application for a Master Land Use Plan Modification for St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School (File No. 9798-04-5260) (2008-10-15/R-14A)

2.      A Resolution Denying an Application for a Master Land Use Plan Modification for St. Thomas More Catholic Church and School (File No. 9798-04-5260) (2008-10-15/R-14B)