AGENDA #1c

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:

 

Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

 

FROM:

 

J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director

Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator

George Small, Engineering Director

Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager

 

DATE:

 

January 17, 2007

 

SUBJECT:

 

Public Hearing:  Greenbridge Development – Special Use Permit Application

(File No. 9788-06-5324)

 

PURPOSE

 

Attached for your consideration is a request for a Special Use Permit for the Greenbridge Development, to allow the construction of a 10-story mixed-use development with residential, convenience/general-type business and office-type business uses. The application proposes no more than 106 residential dwelling units with two levels of structured parking and 216 parking spaces. The 1.32-acre, seven lot assemblage is located on the south side of West Rosemary Street between Merritt Mill Road and North Graham Street. The proposed development has a total of 216,540 square feet of floor area, The site is identified as Orange County Property Identifier Numbers 9788-06-5324, 9788-06-6325, 9788-06-6235, 9788-06-6277, 9788-06-6297, 9788-06-7213, and 9788-06-7383.

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

Prior to approval of the Greenbridge Special Use Permit application, it is necessary that the Council take action on two accompanying items first: 1) a Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment proposing to create a new zoning district, Town Center-3-Conditional (TC-3-C); and 2) a Zoning Atlas Amendment application that proposes to rezone the site from the current Town Center-2 (TC-2) to the proposed Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district. Please refer to the two accompanying memorandums and the key issues of this memorandum for additional information on this matter.

 

This memorandum includes an evaluation of the Special Use Permit application with the assumption that two accompanying applications will be enacted.

 

Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, as the Council determines the appropriate requirements to include as conditions of approval.

 

PROCESS

 

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 standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows below). Evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, 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.

 

BACKGROUND

 

A Concept Plan of the proposed development was reviewed by the Community Design Commission on January 24, 2006. The Town Council reviewed a Concept Plan on February 20, 2006. Summaries and minutes of Concept Plan Reviews are attached for the most recent Community Design Commission and Council, respectively (Attachments 9 and 10).

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

 

The applicant proposes to construct one four -story building, with two accompanying high rise building elevations of seven and ten stories each. The proposal includes 216,540 square feet of floor area, including retail, office and no more than 106 residential dwelling units. The applicant is proposing 7.5 percent affordable dwelling units on site and a payment in lieu-of 7.5 percent affordable units. A total of 216 parking spaces are proposed. Vehicular access to a below grade parking facility is proposed from North Graham Street and from Merritt Mill Road.

 

The applicant is proposing to install streetscape improvements along West Rosemary Street, North Graham Street, and Merritt Mill Road.  Bicycle parking facilities are also proposed on site. The applicant is proposing to manage stormwater impacts by installing a stormceptor and four underground stormwater storage tanks.  Private refuse collection service is proposed.

 

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

 

We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the 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 regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, with the conditions included in Resolution A, if the text amendment and rezoning are enacted.

 

Tonight, the Council receives our attached evaluation, and information submitted by the applicant and citizens. 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 each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit.

 

The four findings are:

Special Use Permit  – Required Findings of Fact

 

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;

 

Finding #2:  That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;

 

Finding #3:  That the use or development is 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; and

 

Finding #4: That the use or development conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.

 

KEY ISSUES

 

We have identified five key issues associated with this development, discussed below.

 

1.      Provision of Affordable Housing: The applicant is proposing 15 percent affordable housing with 7.5 percent on-site and a payment-in-lieu for the remaining 7.5 percent affordable housing units. We understand the applicant will distribute a more detailed affordable housing proposal at tonight’s Public Hearing.

 

Comment:  We recommend that the applicant provide 15percent affordable housing on site according to Comprehensive Plan and Council goals. The Planning Board recommended that the applicant provide 7.5 percent (eight units) on site and a payment-in-lieu to the Town Revolving Fund for the remaining 7.5 percent and that payment-in-lieu funds should be used to provide affordable housing in the surrounding Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods. We continue to recommend that the affordable housing be provided on site according to Comprehensive Plan and Council goals.

 

We recommend that the applicant provide 15 percent affordable housing on site. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

 

2.      Streetscape and Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing a five-foot wide streetscape amenity strip on the Merritt Mill Road, West Rosemary Street, and North Graham Street frontages of the site and sidewalks that are generally seven feet wide but vary to as little as four feet wide. The total width of streetscape and sidewalks is therefore proposed to vary between nine and 12 feet.

 

Comment: Our recommendation to advisory boards was that the combined width of the sidewalks and amenity strips could vary between 10 and 12 feet. We have revised our recommendation to require the provision of five-foot wide amenity strips and seven-foot wide sidewalks, for a total width of 12 feet. We believe that this minimum amount of space is required to convey pedestrian and bicycle traffic and to accommodate streetscape amenities such as street trees, decorative lighting, benches, a bus shelter, and bicycle racks. We have revised our advisory board recommendation to require that the applicant provide amenity strips of no less than five feet wide and sidewalks no less than seven feet wide, for a total of 12 feet on the Merritt Mill Road, West Rosemary Street, and North Graham Street frontages of the site. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

 

3.      West Rosemary Street Mid-Block Bus Stop:  The applicant has not proposed a bus shelter or pull-off in front of the proposed development.

 

Comment: Our recommendation to advisory boards was for a bus stop, bus stop shelter, a solar generated passenger information system and lighting, a bench, and trash receptacle on the West Rosemary Street frontage to serve public transit needs. We now believe that the single eastbound lane on the West Rosemary Street frontage may be less congested during transit stops if there is a bus pulloff in front of the site as well. The Town Design Manual calls for a bus pull-off on two-lane collector and arterial streets if it is warranted by traffic volumes. We recommend that the applicant provide a mid-block bus pull-off (with approximately five by 80 foot dimensions) in addition to the amenities recommended previously (above). We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

 

4.      Provision of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Technologies: The applicant is proposing to construct the Greenbridge Development to a LEED certification standard. The intent of LEED standards is to assist in the creation of high performance, healthful, and environmentally sound buildings awarded points in six categories, including Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation and Design Process. The LEED point system has three levels of increasing performance requirements, including silver, gold, and platinum. The Greenbridge Development is proposing to obtain gold LEED certification, with 43 performance credits. Please see Attachment 19 for additional information.

 

Comment: The applicant has provided a “green technology matrix” for the provision of proposed LEED technologies (Attachment 20), which ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent probability of implementation. The applicant has stated that some of the proposed green technologies have a lower probability of implementation than others because of potential complicating factors that will not be fully resolved until full scale civil engineering studies are complete. Those studies are typically completed during final plan review.

 

We understand that the applicant has offered to provide all LEED technologies from the green technology matrix with a stated implementation probability of 90 percent or greater. We also recommend that the applicant provide the other items from the green technologies matrix, with lesser implementation probabilities, unless it can be confirmed that they are not practicable. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

 

5.      Provision of Electrical Utilities: The applicant has proposed placing electrical utilities underground on the Merritt Mill Road and West Rosemary Street frontages to service the proposed Greenbridge Development. The applicant has been in recent discussions with Duke Energy to determine the feasibility of underground utility lines or alternative routing. We believe that the applicant will provide a detailed preliminary electrical utility routing plan at tonight’s Public Hearing indicating options for utility line placement.

 

Comment: Town staff continues to recommend that the applicant place utility lines underground. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

 

PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS

 

In the accompanying text amendment to the Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district, the applicant originally proposed more intense standards for height, setback, and building envelope[1] to accommodate the Greenbridge development proposal. After advisory board meetings, staff recommended that the applicant request modification of regulations for minimum setback, maximum height regulations and maximum building envelope rather than request the creation of a Town Center-3 zoning district that provided setback and height regulations which did not achieve traditional downtown design objectives. We believe this approach provides the Council with a TC-3 zoning district that builds on the premise of TC-1 and TC-2 and provides more control over the character of the current development proposal as well as future proposals. Applicants would be required to request modification to regulations in the TC-3 zone if the application does not meet the TC-3 regulations rather than having more intense standards inherent in the proposed TC-3 zoning district. After discussions with the applicant, we believe that the applicant will be requesting the following modification to regulations from the Land Use Management Ordinance, and will be providing a detailed request at tonight’s Public Hearing. We believe that the request will include:

 

 

 

The Town Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of 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 Modification or Modification of Special Use Permit Modification.”

 

1.      Setback and Height Regulations (Transitional Control Intensity): We understand the applicant is requesting modification to minimum setback regulations and maximum height regulations as determined by Transitional Control Intensity (Section 3.8.4) of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Section 3.8.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance includes provisions intended to lessen the impact of non-residential development on adjacent residential zoning districts. The provisions of this section propose to minimize the impacts of non-residential structures by reducing building heights and building envelope areas and increasing building setbacks between the proposed development and the adjacent residential neighborhood.

 

The north property line of the site, along West Rosemary Street, is adjacent to the Residential-3 (R-3) zoning district in the Northside neighborhood.  Therefore, the Transitional Control Intensity Modification standards specify a street setback of 24 feet on West Rosemary Street and a maximum primary height of 35 feet at the 24-foot setback line.

 

Comment: We recommend that the Council modify the regulations in this case. We note that although the property on the north side of West Rosemary Street is zoned residential, the Land Use Plan anticipates Town Center development on the north side of West Rosemary Street. In this situation, we do not believe that a suburban style setback of 24 feet is appropriate. We recommend modification of the regulations to allow the traditional town center setback of zero.

 

2.      Building Envelope Regulations: We understand the applicant is requesting modification to the maximum building envelope permitted in the proposed Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district as defined by a three dimensional space shown in the table and illustration below. In this example, the building envelope space is defined by: 1) maximum primary building heights on four boundaries, which have a vertical maximum of 35 or 44 feet (on West Rosemary and the other three boundaries respectively); and then 2) slope towards the interior of the site at a 2:1 or 1:1 slope to 3) a maximum secondary height of 120 feet, as proposed in the Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district. The applicant is proposing to exceed the maximum building envelope and we understand that the applicant will provide a detailed visual at tonight’s Public Hearing.

 

Comment: We recommend that the Council modify the building envelope regulations in this case. The applicant’s proposal is designed in such a manner that: 1) steps back from the street in such a way as to reduce the effect of the height at the setback; and 2) the building has two towers with a central open section, thereby reducing the shadows cast on the north side of West Rosemary Street. Refer to part of Attachment 21, “winter solstice-building massing,” for shadow drawings. We believe that the proposed design would minimize the impact of exceeding the town center building envelope. We recommend modification of the regulations to allow the traditional town center building envelope and the transitional controls, regarding height, adjacent to West Rosemary Street.

 

Greenbridge: Building Envelope Regulations in Proposed Town Center-3 District

Proposed Town Center-3 Zoning District

West Rosemary St. - Transitional Controls Adjacent to R-3 Zoning District (Less Intensity)

Merritt Mill Rd (West)

Towards E Franklin St (South)

Graham St (East)

Primary Building Height – At Setback Line

35 Feet

44 Feet

44 Feet

44 Feet

Building Envelope Slope*

2:1 (Shallower)

1:1

1:1

1:1

Secondary Building Height (Maximum) – on Interior of Site

120 Feet

120 Feet

120 Feet

120 Feet

*Building envelope slope example – 2:1 indicates that a building can rise no more than two feet vertically for every one foot that it retreats horizontally from the setback line of the site, or two foot rise: one foot run.

 

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. The Town Council may deny one or more of the proposed modifications from regulations at its discretion. If the Council chooses to deny a request for modification to regulations, the applicant’s alternatives are to comply with regulations or request a variance from regulations.

 

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 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.

 

SUBSEQUENT REGULATORY STEPS

 

The following is a brief outline describing the next steps in the development review process, should the Council approve the Special Use Permit application for this site:

 

1.      The applicant receives copy of Council-adopted resolution.

 

2.      The applicant submits detailed Final Plans and documentation, complying with Council stipulations. Information is reviewed by Town departments and the following agencies (if applicable):

 

·         North Carolina Department of Transportation,

·         North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,

·         Orange Water and Sewer Authority,

·         Duke Energy,

·         Public Service Company,

·         Time Warner Cable, and

·         BellSouth.

 

3.      The Community Design Commission reviews and approves building elevations and site lighting plans.

 

4.      Any relevant access easement and right-of-way dedication plat(s) are approved by Town staff, and are recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office.

 

5.      Upon the applicant’s demonstration of compliance with remaining Council stipulations, Town staff issues a Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing site work. Permit includes conditions specific to the development and requires pre-construction conferences with Town staff.

 

6.      The Engineering Department issues an Engineering Construction Permit, authorizing any work within the public right-of-way.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Transportation Board:  The Transportation Board met on December 14, 2006. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Transportation Board Action when it is available.

 

Parks and Recreation Commission:  The Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on January 17, 2007. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Parks and Recreation Commission Action when it is available.

 

Planning Board:  The Planning Board met on December 19, 2006 and voted 5-2 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, and adopt the attached Resolution B.  A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum.

 

The following recommendation of the Planning Board has been incorporated into Resolution A

 

·         Streetscape Plan:  That the applicant provide sidewalk and amenity strip widths with a minimum of 12 feet.

 

Comment: For additional discussion on this subject, please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum.

 

Community Design Commission:  On December 20, 2006, the Community Design Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit and adopt the attached Resolution C.  A copy of the Summary of Community Design Commission Action is attached to this memorandum.

 

The following recommendation of the Community Design Commission has been incorporated into Resolution A

 

·         Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Technologies: That the applicant shall provide certification for all LEED technologies proposed that have an implementation probability of 90 percent or greater.

 

Comment: For additional discussion on this subject, please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum.

 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board:  On December 12, 2006, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, and adopt the attached Resolution D. A copy of the Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to this memorandum.

 

The following recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board has been incorporated into Resolution A

 

·         At Grade Driveway Crossings of Sidewalks: That the applicant provide driveway crossings at grade with sidewalks on Merritt Mill Road and Graham Street.

 

The following recommendations from the Town’s advisory boards were not incorporated into Resolution A.

 

·         Affordable Housing: That the applicant provide 15 percent affordable units with at least half of those units on site, or substitute a payment in lieu for the off-site units.

 

Comment: For additional discussion on this subject, please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum.

 

The following staff recommendation was added to Resolution A, following advisory board review.

 

·         West Rosemary Street Mid-Block Bus Stop:  That the applicant shall provide a mid-block bus pull-off on West Rosemary Street frontage.

 

Comment: For additional discussion on this subject, please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum.

 

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the request for a Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution A. Enactment of the two accompanying applications: 1) the Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment proposing to create a new zoning district, Town Center-3 (TC-3); and 2) the Zoning Atlas Amendment application that proposes to rezone the site from the current Town Center-2 (TC-2) to the proposed Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district are required prior to approval of the application for the Greenbridge Special Use Permit.

 

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 Greenbridge Special Use Permit, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.

 

Resolution B would approve the application with conditions proposed by the Planning Board.

 

Resolution C would approve the application with conditions proposed by the Community Design Commission.

 

Resolution D would approve the application with conditions proposed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

 

Resolution E would deny the application.

 

Greenbridge
Special Use Permit

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE

Resolution A

Staff Preliminary Recomm.

Resolution B

Planning Board

Recomm.

Resolution C Community Design Commission Recomm.

Resolution D

Bicycle & Pedestrian Board Recomm.

Affordable Housing

Provide 15% affordable units on-site

Provide 7.5% affordable units on-site and payment-in-lieu of 7.5% affordable units to be used in Northside and Pine Knolls

Provide 15% affordable units with at least half on-site

Provide 15% affordable units on-site

Minimum sidewalk (7) and amenity strip width (5)

12 feet total

12 feet total

12 feet total

*

Bus Pull-Off

Yes

*

*

*

At Grade Driveway Crossings of Sidewalks From Garages

Yes

*

*

Yes

Provision of LEED Technologies

Provide LEED Technologies with 90% or Greater Probability from Green Technology Matrix (Attached)

Provide LEED Technologies with 100% Probability from Green Technology Matrix (Attached)

Provide LEED Technologies with 90% or Greater Probability from Green Technology Matrix (Attached)

*

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

 

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Staff Report to Advisory Boards (p. 1-1).
  2. Project Fact Sheet Requirements (p. 2-1).
  3. Resolution A (Preliminary Recommendation) (p. 3-1).
  4. Resolution B (Planning Board Recommendation) (p. 4-1).
  5. Resolution C (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation) (p. 5-1).
  6. Resolution D (Community Design Commission Recommendation) (p. 6-1).
  7. Resolution E (Denying the Application) (p. 7-1).
  8. Transportation Impact Analysis Executive Summary (p. 8-1).
  9. Summary of CDC Concept Plan Review, Dated January 24, 2006 (p. 9-1).
  10. Minutes of Town Council Concept Plan Review, Dated February 20, 2006 (p. 10-1).
  11. Applicant’s Response to Town Council Concept Plan Review (p. 11-1).
  12. Description of Differences Between Concept Plan and Special Use Permit proposals (p. 12-1).
  13. Statement of Justification (p. 13-1).
  14. Project Fact Sheets for TC-3 and TC-2 Zoning Districts (p. 14-1).
  15. Planning Board Summary of Action for Special Use Permit (p. 15-1)
  16. Planning Board Summary of Action for Affordable Housing Recommendation (p. 16-1).
  17. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action (p. 17-1).
  18. Community Design Commission Summary of Action (p. 18-1).
  19. Greenbridge LEED Proposal and Information (p. 19-1).
  20. Greenbridge Green Technology Matrix with Implementation Probabilities (p. 20-1).
  21. Reduced Plans (p. 21-1).
  22. Area Map (p. 22-1).

[1] The three dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a zoning lot, and which is defined by setback and height regulations.