AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Castalia at Meadowmont – Application for Special Use Permit
DATE: September 11, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 19, 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 11 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 Township Tax Map 52, Lot 384 and PIN 9798-54-6749.
MANAGER’S 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:
BACKGROUND
Concept Plan reviews of this application were conducted by the Community Design Commission on January 16, 2002 and on December 15, 2004. The Town Council conducted a Concept Plan Review on January 19, 2005.
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 June 19, 2006 Public Hearing focused on the following:
Comment: The Council has expressed a desire that all Special Use Permit proposals that include a multi-family residential component provide an opportunity for affordable housing as stated by the Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. The method for achieving the Comprehensive Plan goal for affordable housing is typically addressed on a case-by-case basis during the Special Use Permit process, with the Council determining whether or not the proposed method conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that this is a reasonable approach to address the Comprehensive Plan goal.
Subsequent to the June 19, 2006 Public Hearing, the Council received correspondence from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust describing other payment-in-lieu options (Attachments 2 and 3).
Options for affordable housing discussed in the Comprehensive Plan include: 1) the provision of affordable housing units; 2) a payment-in-lieu thereof; or 3) alternative methods. Section 7A-2 of the Comprehensive Plan states:
“As a general policy, the Town should encourage developers of residential development of five or more units to 1) provide at least 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households; or 2) contribute in-lieu fees where the amount of the payment shall be calculated by multiplying the number of affordable housing units to be provided as calculated in option 1 (without dropping fractions) by an estimate of funding that would be needed to make a homeownership opportunity in the proposed development available to individuals and families with annual income at or below 80 percent of the area median income; or 3) propose alternative methods so that the equivalent of 15 percent of the units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households.
At the 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.
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. Affordable units offered at the Chapel Ridge multi-family development have been difficult to fill with eligible renters (Attachment 4). As for owner, occupied affordable units, we understand that in this particular case, the monthly financial subsidies required to support the units over the life of the building, for such costs as homeowners association fees, is not available from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.
We recommend that the Council accept the proposal for a $112,500 payment-in-lieu of affordable housing as described in Attachment 2. 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. Most recently the Council accepted a payment-in-lieu ($78,000) from the developer of The Condominiums on West Franklin Street. The recommended $112,500 payment was calculated in the same manner as the payment-in-lieu for The Condominium project.
We included a condition in the Manager’s Revised Resolution, Resolution A, stipulating that the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu for $112,500 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit. Because the method to calculate this recommended payment was based on a development with 10 residential units, the Manager’s Revised Resolution reduces the permitted number of residential units from 11 to 10.
Alternatively, if the Council believes that one of the recent proposals from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, as described in Attachments 3 and 5, is desirable, we recommend substituting one of these options for the affordable housing stipulation currently recommended in Resolution A.
Comment: The applicant has retained an architect firm with LEED certified architects. The applicant states it is their intention to have as much of the building comply with LEED standards as possible. We have included a stipulation in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, Resolution A, encouraging the applicant to pursue LEED certification.
Comment: The applicant offered to construct seven of the proposed 177 parking spaces with porous pavement. The applicant expressed concern about the use of porous pavement and problems associated with erosion and maintenance. We continue to recommend that the applicant explore options of pervious pavement as part of the Final Plan review. We recommend that the applicant use pervious pavement for the parking area, where possible, and attempt to expand the use of this material beyond the seven parking spaces.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
In addition to the key issues discussed above, the Council raised other questions.
Comment: The applicant agreed to this request, and we have included a stipulation to this effect in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, Resolution A.
Comment: We have revised the lighting stipulation in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, Resolution A, to include the applicant’s proposal to require low-dispersion lighting, where possible, and in a manner that seeks to have zero light dispersion off the property.
Comment: The applicant has agreed to provide larger landscape plantings as requested. We have added a stipulation in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, Resolution A, requiring larger landscape plantings.
Comment: Based on guidance from the Town Attorney, we believe the Council should base its determination regarding the appropriate location of the building on the standards established by the Land Use Management Ordinance and the authority provided by Land Use Management Ordinance. The Council is not obligated to conform its determination to the private standards contained in private covenants or provisions of private architectural standards imposed on a developer.
Comment: Land Use Management Ordinance delegates final review authority on this to the Community Design Commission. Based on guidance from the Town Attorney, we believe that the Council could consider establishing design standards as a condition of a Special Use Permit if there was a way to establish a link between such standards and the findings the Council makes in order to issue a Special Use Permit. The Community Design Commission’s role would continue but would be more limited if the design has already been approved by the Town Council.
Comment: The attorney responded at the Public Hearing that the Council could ask the developer for such a contribution as part of establishing the terms under which a permit would be issued. The Town’s policies and regulations have, historically, generally linked contributions toward affordable housing to residential development. Based on guidance from the Town Attorney, with respect to the question concerning whether the Council could require a payment-in-lieu if there is not a residential component, we believe this is a matter that should be the subject for discussion with the developer.
Attached to this memorandum is the applicant’s response to other questions from the June 19, 2006 Public Hearing (Attachment 6).
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 Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Stipulations Incorporated into Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation:
Following the June 19 Public Hearing, the following recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation:
A) Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu for $112,500 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.
B) Residential Units: That the number of residential units shall be reduced from 11 to 10.
C) LEED Certification: That the applicant be encouraged to design and construct the building to comply with LEED standards.
D) Parking Lot Materials: That the design of the parking areas shall use porous pavement for the parking areas. Parking lot surface materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager during Final Plan Review prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
E) Construction Hours: That the construction hours be limited to between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm weekdays.
F) Parking Lot Lighting: That all parking lot lighting shall be designed to use low dispersion lighting technology where possible, and in a manner that seeks to have zero light dispersion off the property.
G) Landscape Plantings: That the size of the newly installed trees and shrubs shall exceed the minimum size requirements of the Design Manual.
Resolutions as recommended by Advisory Boards and the Town Manager follow:
Summaries of Action for the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and Parks and Recreation Commission are included in Attachment 6, the June 19 Public Hearing Memorandum.
Manager’s 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 |
Manager’s Revised Recomm. |
Planning Board Recomm. |
C Transportation Board Recomm. |
Resolution D Community Design Commission Recomm. |
Bicycle & Pedestrian Board Recomm. |
Parks & Rec Commission Recomm. |
|
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 to 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