AGENDA #9

MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director George Small, Engineering Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager
SUBJECT:	The Residences at Chapel Hill North – Request for Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit and Application for a Special Use Permit (PIN 9880-36-1885)
DATE:	February 12, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 8, 2007, regarding 1) a request for a partial revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit and 2) an application for a Special Use Permit. The proposed multi-family planned development would consist of 10 buildings containing 123 dwelling units and 238 parking spaces, including a clubhouse and garages, on an approximately 13-acre site. The site is located in the northeast portion of the Chapel Hill North Shopping Center, off Perkins Drive. The site is located in the Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district. The site is also identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9880-36-1885.

RECOMMENDATION

Prior to approval of the Chapel Hill North Special Use Permit application, we recommend that the Council approve the request for a Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution A. This action and the enactment of the accompanying Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment are required prior to adoption of the application for the Chapel Hill North Special Use Permit. Please refer to the Key Issues section of the memorandum and the accompanying text amendment application for additional information on this matter.

We note that the property has been approved for office development at a greater intensity than that proposed. We believe the associated traffic impact of this 123-unit residential development would be less than that of office development.

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 B, 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 8, 2007 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 8, 2007 Special Use Permit memorandum.

KEY ISSUES

We believe that the key issues raised during the January 8, 2007 Public Hearing focused on the following items:

1. Affordable Housing: Council Members requested that Town staff meet with the applicant and return with affordable housing stipulations that are in accord with the Town Council’s affordable housing objectives. Town staff met with affordable housing advocates and also met with the applicant. The staff’s preliminary affordable housing proposal is attached (Attachment 1). The applicant’s revised affordable housing proposal is attached (Attachment 2).

Comment: Tonight the applicant will present the revised affordable housing proposal. We recommend that the Council provide feedback tonight and ask the applicant to continue to work with staff. We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with a condition that will require the applicant to return at a later date for Council review and approval of the details of the affordable housing program.

For discussion purposes, the chart on the following page compares the differences between the staff preliminary recommendation and the applicant’s proposal. There are several areas of general agreement and several areas of disagreement, noted in bold type, between the staff’s preliminary recommendation and the applicant’s revised proposal.

We have written a stipulation requiring the applicant to return to the Town Council to obtain approval of an Affordable Housing Program prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Residences at Chapel Hill North would not be able to proceed with construction without a Council approved Affordable Housing Program. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution B, the staff recommended resolution.

Affordable Housing

Chart of Differences Between Staff Recommendation and Applicant’s Revised Proposal

(Bold Text Signifies Areas of Disagreement Between Staff and Applicant)

	Staff Preliminary Recommendation	Applicant Proposal
Required Affordable Units	No Less Than 15% (19 Units)	15% of Units Rounded Down (18.45 Units) With Residual Amount Paid into Town Revolving Fund (Amount Unspecified)
Income Eligibility of Renters or Owners	Renters: 60–80% of Median* Income Owners: 80% of Median* Income	Renters: No more than 80% of Median Income
Rental Rates of Affordable Units	Not to Exceed Section 8 Fair Market Rents 1 Brm ~ $700/mo. 2 Brm ~ $785/mo.	Rates to Be Created Jointly by Town and Applicant Based Upon North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) Assumptions: Proposed Rents 1 Brm ~ $819/mo. 2 Brm ~ $978/mo.
Marketing of Affordable Units	“Good Faith” Marketing Agreement with local Non-Profit – May Rent to Non-Qualified Renter After 90 Days If Affordable Unit is Unsuccessfully Advertised	“Good Faith” Marketing Agreement with local Non-Profit (No Fees to Be Paid to Non-Profits Without NC Broker’s License) – May Rent to Non-Qualified Renter After 42 Days If Affordable Unit is Unsuccessfully Advertised
Distribution of Affordable Units by Size and Location	65% 1 Brm. Affordable Units 35% 2 Brm. Affordable Units Throughout Site	65% 1 Brm. Affordable Units 35% 2 Brm. Affordable Units Throughout Site
Affordable Unit Deed Restrictions	Record Deed Restrictions to Ensure Affordability, Including Minimizing Monthly Condo Fees, in Perpetuity	Not Addressed
Construction Timeline for Affordable Units	Proportional Amount of Affordable Units Constructed Prior to CO	Not Addressed
Affordable Housing Annual Report	Yes, Provide Annual Data About Success Of Affordable Housing Program	Yes, Provide Annual Data About Success Of Affordable Housing Program
Minor Changes to Affordable Housing Program	With Town Manager Approval	With Town Manager Approval
Additional Stipulation Proposed by Applicant	Not Addressed	Town Shall Legally Defend Affordable Housing Program as Stipulated by SUP if Property Owner is Sued for Violation of Fair Housing Act

*Median Household Income in the Durham Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

2. Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment: Provide a discussion of what the implications may be of the Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment to the MU-OI-1 zoning district.

Comment: Please refer to the response in the accompanying Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment item.

3. Traffic Impacts: Council members requested a detailed discussion of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Residences at Chapel Hill North development proposal, including the following four items in particular:

a. What are the implications of additional traffic at the Perkins Drive and Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard intersection and the recommended proposed reconfiguration of that intersection?

Comment: Capacity analysis of the existing, no-build, and build conditions of the intersection indicates Level of Service (LOS) E with significant delay to the left-turning vehicles on Perkins Drive. Our initial recommendation was to widen Perkins Drive to four lanes in advance of its intersection with Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (one lane inbound and three lanes outbound) to provide an additional left turn lane which we think would improve the LOS from E to D. However, the developer’s investigation indicates that widening of Perkins Drive at this intersection is not feasible due to right-of-way restrictions. Therefore, we recommended that the existing lane configuration on Perkins Drive outbound at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard be changed as described below:

Existing: one exclusive left-turn lane and one exclusive right-turn lane

Proposed: one exclusive left-turn lane and one left and right-turn combination lane

Capacity analysis of this proposed reconfiguration of travel lanes indicates that LOS will be improved to D with reduced delay to left-turning vehicles on Perkins Drive.

b. What are options to the recommended “right-in/right-out” on Perkins Drive at its intersection with Weaver Dairy Road? Is there any possibility that the NCDOT would agree to a traffic signal at this intersection?

Comment: We discussed this issue with NCDOT staff, and they do not recommend a traffic signal at the Perkins Drive/Weaver Dairy Road intersection for the following reasons: 1) The spacing between Perkins Drive and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is approximately 550 feet and the NCDOT guidelines require 1200 feet minimum between two traffic signals, and 2) The proposed Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project includes a median at Perkins Drive, which would prohibit left turns at this intersection.

However, NCDOT staff agreed with Town staff to allow “full” access (without median traffic control) on Weaver Dairy Road at Perkins Drive until 2011, at which time the median would be constructed as part of the larger improvement project. Also, NCDOT staff agreed to allow installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Weaver Dairy Road east of Perkins Drive, to accommodate pedestrian movements across Weaver Dairy Road until such time that the proposed roadway traffic-control median is installed.

We have deleted the stipulation requiring right in-right out movements at Perkins Drive and are recommending a revised stipulation in Revised Resolution B requiring the developer to provide a crosswalk and refuge island.

c. Traffic Impact Analysis for Chapel Hill North does not include developments proposed in the area such as University Station.

Comment: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for Chapel Hill North included the following approved and planned developments in the area: the Town Operations Center, Chapel Watch Village, Vineyard Square, Timberlyne Commerce Office Building, Larkspur Subdivision, and Westminster Office Building.

Also, the build out analysis includes a projected increase in traffic volumes by 3 percent per year to accommodate expected growth in the area, such as University Station.

d. The area around the Weaver Dairy Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard intersection must be reviewed and a street network needs to be planned that will address access, circulation and congestion issues relating to existing and proposed traffic in the area.

Comment: Town staff met with NCDOT staff on January 24 to review the Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project plans and discuss possible options for installation of a traffic signal on Weaver Dairy Road between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Kingston Drive. We also shared information about current and proposed developments in the area and associated traffic volumes.

NCDOT Division 7 staff agreed to further discussion of this matter with staff from the State Roadway Design Unit who would need to review and approve changes in the Weaver Dairy Road Improvement Project design to accommodate a median opening with a traffic signal. Town staff is developing a computer traffic model to show the existing and proposed conditions, including options for a median opening with a traffic signal. We have scheduled another meeting NCDOT staff on February 7, 2007 to review the model data and to further discuss alternatives. We will provide the Council with a report on the outcome of this meeting.

Additionally, the Town Council has scheduled a work session on March 7, 2007 to discuss current and future developments in the northwest/north area of Town, and we expect discussion to include a review of the transportation network in and around this area.

4. Transit Service: A Council member inquired about existing and proposed transit service to the site and wanted to know if it would be better to have the applicant construct a bus stop than for the Town to receive a payment-in-lieu of bus stop facilities.

Comment: Currently there is significant transit service along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. The T bus route also provides service to the Timberlyne shopping center but not directly to the Chapel Hill North development. When Chapel Hill North was first constructed the Town required a bus stop and shelter to be constructed along Perkins Drive. It is now in place, but there are no plans at this time to provide bus service along Perkins Drive. With the development of additional projects and potentially an associated road network to the east of Chapel Hill North it is possible that transit service may utilize Perkins Drive in the future.

Our revised recommendation is for the applicant to provide a bus shelter, with associated improvements on the southbound (western) side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard adjacent to the Chapel Hill North site, including a concrete pad, shelter, transit information system, bench, trash can, as well as elongating the existing bus pull-off area. There is a current need for bus stop improvements at the existing bus pull-off, on the southbound (western) side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard adjacent to the Chapel Hill North site.

5. Area Development and Impacts: A Council Member inquired about the potential impacts from development activity in the northern and northwest parts of Chapel Hill as raised by a citizen petition.

Comment: Staff provided a response to the citizen petition at the January 22 Council meeting (Attachment 3). The response stated that growth patterns in the northern and northwest parts were anticipated by the 2000 Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The report also said that a key component of initiatives underway is the formation of a staff Steering Committee to ensure that a framework is developed to address the consequences of the anticipated higher density development. This Committee is expected to report to the Council this spring. The Council has established a March 7 Work Session to receive a coordinated and comprehensive overview of development activity and planning efforts occurring in the area.

Please see Attachment 4 for a discussion of additional issues raised during the January 8, 2007 Public Hearing.

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.

With Council approval of the 1990 Master Land Use Plan, 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 have already been made (#1, 3 and 4). The Council must only make the findings that the proposed development is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan and complies with all applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance (#2 below).

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the two findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.

Finding #1: Master Land Use Plan Consistency Finding.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: We believe that with the accompanying text amendments to Subsections 3.5.1(e)(2), 3.5.1(e)(3), and 3.5.1(e)(5) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, adjusting the mix of uses and ratios of uses permitted in the Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district, the proposed Special Use Permit application is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan, approved January 23, 1990 (Part of Attachment 8).

Evidence in opposition: We have received several letters from neighbors concerned about traffic impacts and pedestrian connections associated with the proposed development. Please see part of Attachment 5.

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 this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (Part of Attachment 8).

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“Article 6, Special Regulations for Particular Uses establishes regulations for Planned Development Housing developments in Section 6.18. These requirements apply to the proposed development. The proposed development meets these standards. Additional information about these requirements are provided in the following materials that deal with findings specifically applicable to PDH developments.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application (Part of Attachment 8).

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

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 staff recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Planning Board, Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and Greenways Commission all voted to recommend 1) that the Council enact the Ordinance amending the text to Subsections 3.5.1(e)(2), 3.5.1(e)(3), and 3.5.1(e)(5) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, adjusting the mix of uses and ratios of uses permitted in the Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district, and 2) to adopt Resolution A to the Council, to partially revoke the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit.

The Advisory Boards also recommended that the Town Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution C (Planning Board), Resolution D (Transportation Board), Resolution E (Community Design Commission), Resolution F (Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board), and Resolution G (Greenways Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission). Please refer to the matrix on page 11 to compare the differences between resolutions and Attachment 8 for Advisory Board Summaries of Action.

Additional Recommendations Incorporated into the Staff Recommendation, Revised Resolution B:

Following the January 8 Public Hearing, the following recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution B, the Staff Revised Recommendation:

That the developer obtain Town Council approval of an Affordable Housing Program prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Residences at Chapel Hill North would not be able to proceed with construction without a Council approved Affordable Housing Program.

Comment: See Key Issues section above.

Clarify timing of approval for Design and Construction Improvements to coincide with Zoning Compliance Permit and Certificate of Occupancy approvals, respectively.

Comment: This new recommendation is for clarifying that designs must be approved prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and construction improvements must be approved prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

That the applicant shall provide traffic calming devices on the Public Roadway rather than the private driveway through the site.

Comment: The intent of this revised recommendation is to provide traffic calming where it is more appropriately needed.

That the applicant shall construct a right/left turn combination lane (paint left-turn arrows) on Perkins Drive at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard intersection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Comment: The language in this revised recommendation has been clarified. The intent is to enhance the Level of Service (LOS) on Perkins Drive at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard intersection.

That the applicant shall construct a striped crosswalk with pedestrian median refuge island on Weaver Dairy Road, immediately east of the intersection of Perkins Drive, rather than the previously recommended median.

Comment: The intent of this recommendation is to continue to provide a pedestrian crosswalk, with refuge, on Weaver Dairy Road, while continuing to have full-access to Perkins Drive at Weaver Dairy Road. N.C. Department of Transportation has indicated that Perkins Drive at Weaver Dairy Road can continue to be a full-access intersection at this time but will be converted to Right-In/Right-Out Access when the Weaver Dairy Road improvements occur in 2011. This recommendation replaces stipulations 18 and 20 from Resolution B in the January 8 Public Hearing memorandum.

That the applicant shall construct a bus shelter and associated improvements on the southbound (western) side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard adjacent to the Chapel Hill North site, including a concrete pad, shelter, transit information system, bench, trash can, and extending the existing bus pull off approximately 30 feet southward towards the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Perkins Drive intersection. Design of bus stop improvements shall be approved by N.C. Department of Transportation and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Bus stop improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

Comment: The intent of this recommendation is for the applicant to construct bus stop improvements on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, where bus stop improvements are currently needed, rather than providing a payment-in-lieu of bus stop improvements as previously recommended. This recommendation replaces stipulation 26 from Resolution B in the January 8 Public Hearing memorandum.

That the applicant shall provide a total of approximately 31,100 square feet of recreation space, rather than 57,748 square feet as previously proposed.

Comment: The applicant is still exceeding the required minimum 25,981 square feet of recreation space. The applicant has not changed their recreation space proposal; however, the Parks and Recreation Commission determined that the applicant’s original recreation space proposal over-counted what could be classified as recreation space, requiring that it be reduced to 31,100 square feet. This recommendation replaces stipulation 29 from Resolution B in the January 8 Public Hearing memorandum.

The applicant shall provide a 20-foot alternate buffer along the southern boundary, adjacent to the Duke Energy easement, rather than the previously proposed 18 – 30 foot variable width buffer.

Comment: As the site plan has been revised to include the public right-of-way across the southern part of the site so too has the width of the landscape buffer. The applicant will be required to get alternate landscape buffer approval from the Community Design Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recommendation replaces stipulations 30 and 33 from Resolution B in the January 8 Public Hearing memorandum.

Staff’s Revised Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our revised conclusion is that, with the stipulations in Revised Resolution B, the Special Use Permit application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the request for a Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit with conditions.

We recommend that the Council then adopt Revised Resolution B, approving the Special Use Permit application with conditions. We note that a stipulation in Resolution B will require that the applicant return to the Town Council to obtain approval of an Affordable Housing Program prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Resolutions C, D, E, F, and G would approve the application as recommended by the Town’s Advisory Boards and Commissions.

Resolution H would deny the application.

The Residences at Chapel Hill North - Special Use Permit

Differences Among Resolutions

Issues	Resolution B (Approval) Staff Revised Rec.	Resolution C (Approval) Planning Board Rec.	Resolution D (Approval) Transportation Board Rec.	Resolution E (Approval) Community Design Commission Rec.	Resolution F (Approval) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec.	Resolution G (Approval) Greenways Commission & Parks & Recreation Commission Rec.
Affordable Housing	Affordable Housing Program – To Be Approved By Council Prior to ZCP	*	*	*	*	*
Provide Bus Service Along Perkins Drive to Serve Development	To Be Determined By Chapel Hill Transit	*	Yes	*	*	*
Provide Right-In/Right Out Traffic Movements at Perkins/WD Rd.	No	Yes	*	Yes	*	*
Provide Bus Stop Improvements on NC 86	Yes	*	*	*	*	*
Provide Public ROW btwn Perkins & Old University Station Rd.	30-Foot Width	Yes	Yes	45-Foot Width	Yes	Yes
Fencing Around Play Area	Yes	*	*	*	*	Yes
Northern Greenway Trail Connection to Westernmost Access Drive	Yes	*	*	*	*	Yes
Greenway Trail Maintenance	Owner of CHN Site & Permitting Periodic Town Maint.	*	*	*	*	Owner of Chapel Hill North Site & Permitting Periodic Town Maint

*Issue not discussed at this particular meeting and is therefore not included in this Resolution. 2-2-07

ATTACHMENTS

Staff Preliminary Recommendation - Affordable Housing