AGENDA #10e, 10f

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

 

SUBJECT:

 

Greenbridge Development – Special Use Permit Application

(File No. 9788-06-5324)

 

DATE:

 

February 26, 2007

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight, the Council continues consideration of a Special Use Permit application proposing to construct a 10-story mixed-use development with residential, convenience/general-type business and office-type business uses. The application proposes 99 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.

 

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 (TC-3); 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-Conditional (TC-3-C) zoning district. Please refer to the two accompanying memoranda and the key issues of this memorandum for additional information on this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Based on the information in the record to date, with the conditions in Revised Resolution A and the requested modification to regulations, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit application. We recommend that the Council adopt Revised Resolution A, approving the application.

 

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

 

KEY ISSUES

 

We have identified several key issues related to this development. A brief discussion on each with changes noted to Resolution A follows.

 

1.      Affordable Housing: On January 17, the Council requested that the applicant return with a comprehensive affordable housing proposal that reflected Council’s affordable housing objectives. On January 17, the applicant proposed a mix of on and off-site affordable housing with a payment-in-lieu of seven affordable units, to be constructed in adjacent neighborhoods.

 

Comment: In response to the Council’s concerns, the applicant has revised the application and returned with an affordable housing proposal to include:

 

The applicant’s proposal has also been endorsed by Orange Community Housing and Land Trust and Empowerment Inc. (Attachment 4).

 

Staff recommends the applicant’s revised affordable housing proposal and have included a stipulation to this effect in Revised Resolution A.

 

2.      Bus Stop Improvements: Council members wanted to see the recommended bus pull-off on the West Rosemary Street frontage of the Greenbridge site, which was not indicated on plans at the January 17 Public Hearing.

 

      Comment: There is currently a bus stop immediately east of the site, past the Graham Street intersection that we recommend moving to the West Rosemary Street frontage at Greenbridge. We continue to recommend a bus pull-off and bus stop amenities, including a bus stop shelter with a solar generated passenger information system and lighting, a bench, and trash receptacle at the Greenbridge frontage. The single eastbound lane on the West Rosemary Street frontage may be less congested during transit stops if there is a bus pull-off in front of the site. 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 10 by 80 foot dimensions) in addition to the amenities recommended above. We also recommend supplemental tree plantings at the entrance to the plaza area to offset the loss of streetscape trees with the recommended bus stop pull-off design. We have included stipulations to this effect in Revised Resolution A.

 

The proposed bus pull-off would encroach on the 5-foot wide streetscape by 4 feet. Given that a bus pull-off would interfere with streetscape and the number of trees planted in front of the site, we believe that the Council alternatively could conclude that a stipulation without a pull-off for the recommended bus stop may be preferable, to retain the streetscape trees. If the Council preferred the option without a bus pull-off, the following adjustments to stipulations 21 and 22 of Revised Resolution A would be necessary:

 

·         West Rosemary Street Mid-Block Bus Stop:  That the applicant shall provide a mid-block bus stop pull-off (with approximately 10 by 80 foot dimensions), a bus stop shelter, with a solar generated (solar orientation permitting) passenger information system and lighting, a bench, and trash receptacle on West Rosemary Street frontage. That the final design, dimensions, and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

·         Supplemental Tree Plantings:  That the applicant shall provide streetscape trees along the back edge of the sidewalk and front edge of the plaza to supplement the trees lacking in the bus pull-off area. These trees shall be placed in tree pits or large above ground containers. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

 

3.      Merritt Mill Road Cross Section: Council members asked for additional information regarding the recommended Merritt Mill Road width as well as the adjacent streetscape and sidewalk.

 

Comment: The applicant is proposing half of a 27-foot cross section on Merritt Mill Road. We continue to recommend half of a 35-foot cross section on Merritt Mill Road, the length of the frontage on the west side of the site, which would include two 11-foot travel lanes, two 4-foot bicycle lanes, and two sections of 2.5-foot curb and gutter. The additional width would upgrade the street to its present collector street standards as well as provide for a bicycle lane. These improvements would only be done on the Greenbridge (east) side of Merritt Mill Road as part of this development proposal. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Revised Resolution A.

 

The applicant is proposing a 5-foot streetscape amenity strip and a 7-foot sidewalk around most of the Greenbridge site. On the Merritt Mill Road frontage, the sidewalk is variable width and narrows to about 4 feet near the intersection of West Rosemary Street. We continue to recommend a 5-foot wide streetscape area and 7-foot wide sidewalk, for a total of 12 feet on the three frontages of the site, including Merritt Mill Road. The recommended Merritt Mill Road width and recommended streetscape/sidewalk widths could be accomplished by moving the building on the corner of the Greenbridge site back about three feet. The proposal would probably lose some floor area if the building is moved back. This continues to be our recommendation.

 

4.      Building Height: At the January 17 Public Hearing, we reported that the application proposed a building height of 177 feet. This number is incorrect. When stair enclosures, elevator equipment and other mechanical equipment is included, the proposed building height is 135 feet.

 

Comment: It was not clear at the January 17 Public Hearing that the maximum building height did not include the additional equipment as described above. The applicant is therefore requesting a modification to regulations to exceed the maximum secondary height permitted in the proposed Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district. See Modification to Regulations section for additional discussion of this issue.

 

5.      Building Envelope: The applicant has provided clarification of the request to modify regulations as regards expanding the building envelope.[1]

 

Comment: The applicant is proposing to modify the volume that defines building envelope, in the proposed TC-3 zoning district. See Modification to Regulations section for additional discussion of this issue.

 

Please refer to Attachment 1 for discussion on other questions and issues raised at the January 17, 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.

 

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.  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:

 

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

 

Evidence in opposition:  We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2. For discussion on the applicant’s proposed modification to regulations, please refer to the Modifications to Regulations section in this memorandum.

 

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.

 

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

 

·         “The proposed mixed use building is on a site that currently includes an aging two story apartment building and a wood frame commercial/office building. Both of these buildings are intended to be demolished. Constructing a building that is consistent with comprehensive plan will add value to all of the adjacent properties.” [Applicant’s Statement]

 

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

 

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.

 

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding includes the following 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 four findings.

 

MODIFICATIONS TO THE REGULATIONS

 

The applicant requests modification to the regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance for each issue identified above. The 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 equal 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.”

 

Detailed applicant requests for modifications to regulations are below followed by staff comments:

 

Secondary (Maximum) Building Height (Section 3.8-1): The applicant is requesting modification to regulations in Section 3.8-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to exceed the maximum allowable building height of 120 feet, permitted in the proposed Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district, by 15 feet to 135 feet. The building elements that will exceed the 120 foot TC-3 limit include mechanical equipment and mechanical equipment screens, photovoltaic and/or other solar collection devices, railings required for access and maintenance of green roofing materials, roof access stair enclosures, and elevator penthouses.

 

Comment: We believe that it is reasonable to have 15 feet of space for mechanical equipment on the roof of a 117-foot building. The applicant is not proposing to increase the height of the Greenbridge building but has provided additional clarity regarding mechanical equipment as it relates to height. We recommend modification to regulations to exceed the secondary height of 120 feet, by 15 feet, for a total height of 135 feet. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is proposing carbon reduction goals, redevelopment in the downtown, and sustainable design.

 

Building Envelope (Appendix A): The applicant is requesting a modification to the building envelope regulations (see definition in footnote on p. 4) in Appendix A of the Land Use Management Ordinance to accommodate the proposed Greenbridge building. This request for modification to regulations would exceed the proposed 1/1 building envelope in the TC-3 zoning district by allowing a larger envelope (volume), with steeper sides, to accommodate the proposed building.

 

Comment: We recommend that the Council modify regulations in this case. The proposed Greenbridge building exceeds the building envelope in the proposed TC-3 zoning district (see table below). In order for the building envelope to accommodate the east, south, and west elevations of Greenbridge, a larger volume and steeper 1/0.2 slope is required. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is proposing carbon reduction goals, redevelopment in the downtown, and sustainable design.

 

Northern Building Envelope, Transitional (Section 3.8.4b and Appendix A): The applicant is requesting a modification to the building envelope regulations in Appendix A of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow a rise to run ratio of 1/0.5 on the north, transitional, elevation. This request for modification to regulations would exceed the proposed 1/2 building envelope in the TC-3 zoning district by allowing a larger envelope, with steeper sides, to accommodate the proposed building.

 

Comment: We recommend that the Council modify regulations in this case. The proposed Greenbridge building exceeds the building envelope in the proposed TC-3 zoning district (see table below). In order for the building envelope to accommodate the north elevation of Greenbridge a steeper 1/0.5 slope is required. We recommend modification of the regulations to allow a steeper 1/0.5 slope on the north elevation of Greenbridge. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is proposing carbon reduction goals, redevelopment in the downtown, and sustainable design.

 

Greenbridge: Intensity Regulations and Proposed Modifications to Regulations

Town Center-3 Zoning District

Proposed Town Center-3 Zoning District

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

Graham St (East)

Towards E Franklin St (South)

Merritt Mill Rd (West)

Setback at Property Line

24 Feet

0 Feet

0 Feet

0 Feet

Setback at Property Line

Requested Modification

0 Feet

NA

NA

NA

Primary Height

35 Feet

44 Feet

44 Feet

44 Feet

Primary Height Requested Modification

44 Feet

NA

NA

NA

Building Envelope Slope*

1:2

1:1

1:1

1:1

Building Envelope Slope* Requested Modification

1:0.5 (Larger)

1:0.2 (Larger)

1:0.2 (Larger)

1:0.2 (Larger)

Secondary Height (Maximum) –

120 Feet

120 Feet

120 Feet

120 Feet

Secondary Height (Maximum) Requested Modification

135 Feet

135 Feet

135 Feet

135 Feet

*The sloped sides of the building envelope are represented by two figures, the rise and the run. A slope of 1:2,

for example, represents a condition where for every 1 foot of rise (increase in elevation), 2 feet of run (retreat away from the setback line into the interior of the site) is required.

 

 

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, 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

 

The Advisory Boards recommended that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution A (Transportation Board), Resolution B (Planning Board), Resolution C (Community Design Commission), and Resolution D (Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board). Please refer to the matrix on page 12 to compare the differences between resolutions and part of Attachment 5 for Advisory Board Summaries of Action.

 

Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Resolution A. Enactment of the two accompanying applications, 1) the Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment for 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-Conditional (TC-3-C) zoning district are required prior to the adoption of the application for the Greenbridge Special Use Permit.

 

We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Resolution A and proposed modifications to regulations would comply with the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.

 

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

 

Resolution E would deny the application.

 

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Other Issues Raised at January 17, 2007 Public Hearing (p. 27).
  2. Citizen Correspondence (p. 30).
  3. Applicant’s Revised Project Fact Sheet (p. 31).
  4. Applicant’s Revised Affordable Housing Proposal and Associated Information (p. 35).
  5. Memorandum and Attachments from January 17, 2007 Public Hearing (begin new page 1).

 

Greenbridge

Special Use Permit

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

ISSUE

Resolution A

(approval)

Staff Revised and Transportation Board Recommendation

Resolution B

(approval)

Planning Board

Recommendation

Resolution C

(approval)

Community Design Commission Recommendation

Resolution D

(approval)

Bicycle & Pedestrian Board Recommendation

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.


[1] Building Envelope regulations define the three dimensional volume into which a building must fit on a site, which  is comprised of three parts, 1) the primary height that rises vertically from the setback line and 2) a sloping portion that rises to the 3) horizontal, secondary (maximum) height.