AGENDA #6
TO: Mayor and Town Council
From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
Subject: Chapel Hill Kehillah Parking Terminal-Application for Special Use Permit (File No. 7.71.C.11)
DATE: February 13, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 18, 2006, regarding a Special Use Permit for the Chapel Hill Kehillah Parking Lot, at the corner of Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road, directly south and west of the UNC campus. The application is for a proposed Park and Ride Terminal and would allow the applicant to rent 50 existing parking spaces to commuters. The site is located in the Residential-4 (R-4) zoning district and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map Number 7.71.C.11, PIN 9788-51-0886. The site is currently used by the Chapel Hill Kehillah, its associated uses (which include a preschool and community events), and a separate 45 student day care (The Language Center).
A commercial parking lot is not permitted in the Residential-4 (R-4) zoning district. A Park/Ride Terminal is allowed in residential zoning districts with the approval of a Special Use Permit. The Land Use Management Ordinance contains specific requirements for a Park/Ride Terminal (Section 6.8), including a bus shelter and accessibility to public transit.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings 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:
Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal, discusses key issues raised at the January 18, 2006 Public Hearing, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action and includes resolutions of approval and denial.
Attachments: Includes the January 18, 2006 Public Hearing memorandum and correspondence received since the January 18, 2006 Public Hearing.
KEY ISSUES
We have identified several key issues associated with this development.
1. Modifications to the Regulations: The applicant requests modification to regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance for stipulations concerning sidewalks, bus shelter and lighting plans.
The Town Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 in the Land Use Management Ordinance, as follows:
“Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Chapter, but the Town Council makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Town Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case. Any modification of regulations shall be explicitly indicated in the Special Use Permit or Modification of Special Use Permit.”
Comment: The applicant is proposing that the Council modify the regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance as they relate to ordinance requirements for sidewalks, bus shelter and lighting plan. We recommend that the applicant comply with the normal regulation.
Alternately, with respect to the applicant’s request to modify the regulations, we believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because:
“We believe that providing 50 parking spaces on land which has already been developed as and utilized for vehicle parking, is completely consistent with the general plans for Town development. Rather than devoting new additional properties to parking lots or parking decks, our plan efficiently makes maximum use of land already set aside as space for parking.” [Applicant’s Statement]
In summary, the Town Council may modify one or more of the proposed modifications to regulations if it makes a finding in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree.
2. Sidewalks: Currently, sidewalks do not exist along the frontages on Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road. A sidewalk exists across the street along Mason Farm Road, in front of the newly-built University Family Housing. Sidewalks are planned for construction by the Community Church, across the street along Purefoy Road. Currently, there is pedestrian and bicycle traffic along both roads, most of it accessing the University (see Sidewalk Map, Attachment 1).
At the January 18, 2006 Public Hearing, a Council Member asked the applicant if they would construct a sidewalk along the portion of Mason Farm Road from the entrance drive to the intersection with Purefoy Road and later construct the remainder of the sidewalk along the property frontages on Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road.
A representative of the applicant stated in a recent telephone conversation that the applicant would be willing to provide a $1,000 payment-in-lieu to pay part of the cost for constructing a sidewalk along the portion of Mason Farm Road from the entrance drive to the intersection with Purefoy Road.
Comment: Consistent with Town regulation and policy, we recommend that the approval of this Special Use Permit stipulate that the applicant construct sidewalks along both the Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road frontages. We believe that there is a rational nexus between the recommended sidewalks and the expected impacts of the proposed use (i.e. increased traffic and increased pedestrian trips) and that the recommendation and the impacts are roughly proportional.
The applicant is objecting to the recommendation to construct sidewalks and is requesting that the Council modify the regulations for sidewalk improvements along the site frontage on Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road.
An alternate for Council consideration would be to substitute the following stipulations A and B, or stipulation A only, in place of the recommended stipulation:
A. Mason Farm Road Sidewalk: That, prior to using the site for as a Park and Ride Terminal, the applicant shall construct a sidewalk along the portion of Mason Farm Road from the entrance drive to the intersection with Purefoy Road.
B. Sidewalk Construction to Coincide with Adjoining Properties: That at such time as a sidewalk is constructed on the frontage of adjoining property on Mason Farm Road, the owner of the property which is encumbered by this Special Use Permit shall construct or provide payment for the construction of a sidewalk along the frontage of its property along Mason Farm Road. That at such time as a sidewalk is constructed on the frontage of adjoining property on Purefoy Road, the owner of the property which is encumbered by this Special Use Permit shall construct or provide payment for the construction of a sidewalk along the frontage of its property along Purefoy Road.
The Council also could conclude that no sidewalk construction should be required.
3. Bus Shelter: Section 6.8 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that an applicant proposing a Park/Ride Terminal provide a bus shelter. We recommend that the applicant provide a $5,000 payment-in-lieu for a bus shelter. Because the applicant’s proposal does not include a bus stop and the site is not currently on a bus route, the applicant objects to this stipulation.
Comment: We recommend that the approval of this Special Use Permit stipulate that the applicant be required to provide a $5,000 payment in lieu for a bus shelter to meet the requirement of Section 6.8 in the Land Use Management Ordinance for a Park/Ride Terminal.
The applicant is objecting to the recommendation and is requesting that the Council modify the regulations for the bus shelter.
The Council could choose to substitute the following stipulation:
Area for Future Bus Shelter: That prior to the use of the site as a Park/Ride Terminal, the applicant shall set aside appropriate space on the site for a future bus stop. That the location and dimensions shall be approved by the Town Manager. The applicant shall also record a bus shelter easement document. This document shall authorize the future placement of a bus stop or shelter, shall be approved by the Town Manager, and a recorded copy provided by the applicant prior to the use of the site as a Park/Ride Terminal.
The Council also could conclude that no provision for a bus shelter site is necessary.
4. Pedestrian Lighting Plan: Following several visits to the site at night, we believe that the lighting, particularly along the eastern edge of the parking lot and near the southeast corner of the building, is insufficient. We believe that lighting could be increased so as to create a safer environment for commuters accessing their cars after dark, while also still minimizing the impact on surrounding properties.
The applicant has stated that it does not wish to provide a lighting plan as required by the Town’s Ordinance and has stated their belief that the current lighting for the parking lot is sufficient for current use by members of the Kehillah, and has minimal impact on surrounding properties. We believe that the applicant is, in fact, requesting that the Council modify the Ordinance requirements for lighting.
Comment: We recommend that the applicant comply with Section 5.11 of the Land Use Management Ordinance including the submission of a lighting plan prepared by a lighting engineer to demonstrate that lighting is provided where necessary to ensure the security of property and the safety of persons using the facilities. We recommend that the Community Design Commission approve a lighting plan for the site.
The applicant is objecting to the recommendation and is requesting that the Council modify the regulations for lighting requirements.
Alternately, the Council could conclude that no lighting plan is necessary and substitute the following stipulation for stipulation 16 and 18 in Resolution A:
Lighting Plan: That the existing site lighting satisfies the lighting standards in Section 5.11 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
5. Refuse Collection: Until recently, the Town of Chapel Hill collected refuse from this property by a side-loading dumpster. Beginning in July, the Town began to phase out servicing side-loading dumpsters. In response, last year the applicant located a front-loading dumpster in the southeast corner of the parking lot (See Attachment 2).
Due to the geometric layout of the parking lot and the applicant’s proposal to increase the intensity of parking on the site with the rental of 50 parking spaces, we are concerned that the Town may not be able to service the front-loading dumpster at its current location.
Comment: The applicant recently stated that they will contract with a private company for refuse service if the Town determines that it is unable to serve the site. This offer by the applicant is consistent with our recommended stipulation that if the Town becomes unable to service the refuse area at its current location, the applicant be required to either: 1) contract with a private company for refuse service or 2) relocate and construct an alternate dumpster Terminal at a location approved by the Town Manager. With this concurrence, we believe that a modification of the regulations is no longer necessary.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit 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 four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.
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.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding for the application includes the following:
We note the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
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.
Finding #2: 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.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 2).
We note the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
Evidence in opposition: Without approved modifications to the regulations, evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2 would show that the proposed use does not comply with sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance relating to sidewalks and bus stop.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
Finding #3: 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.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 2).
We note the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
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 application (part of Attachment 2).
Finding #4: 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.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (Part of Attachment 2).
We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.
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 application (part of Attachment 2).
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, we believe that the Council could make the findings regarding health, safety and general welfare, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Following public hearing review of the application, the Town Manager’s recommendation remains the same, as outlined in Resolution A. Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, our recommendation is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board and Community Design Commission.
Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board.
Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Resolution E would deny the application.
Kehillah Park/Ride Terminal – Special Use Permit
Differences Among Resolutions
|
ISSUES |
Resolution A (Approval)
Manager’s Recommendation |
(Approval)
Planning Board & Community Design Commission |
(Approval)
Transportation Board Recommendation |
(Approval)
Bicycle & Pedestrian Board Recommendation |
|
Parking Lot Surface
|
Gravel |
Gravel
|
* |
* |
|
Construct sidewalks and submit associated construction and landscape plans
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Maximum $1,500 payment for crosswalk on Mason Farm Road |
Yes
|
Yes (with speed table if appropriate)
|
* |
* |
|
Require Bus Stop Shelter
|
Yes (payment-in-lieu and area for future bus stop) |
No |
No (Set aside area on site for future bus stop)
|
No |
|
Provide Class I Bicycle Parking |
No, existing bicycle parking to remain |
* |
No, existing bicycle parking to remain |
No, existing bicycle parking to remain |
|
Parking Lot, Pedestrian Lighting Plan |
Yes |
No |
* |
* |
* Not discussed during Advisory Board meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
