AGENDA #9e, 9f
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: |
East 54 Mixed Use Development (aka University Village) Application for Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 9798-54-7612) |
|
|
|
|
DATE: |
February 26, 2007 |
INTRODUCTION
Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 17, 2007 for an application for a Special Use Permit Modification proposing construction of a mixed-use development located on the south side of Highway NC 54/Raleigh Road, between Hamilton Road and Finley Golf Course Road. The site is currently occupied by the University Inn and the Avalon Medical Building.
Prior to approval of the East 54 Mixed Use Development (aka University Village) Special Use Permit Modification application, we recommend that the Council enact the accompanying Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment and the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Please refer to the accompany memorandums for additional information on this matter.
Based on the information in the record to date, and with modification to the regulations as requested by the applicant, the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit Modification application. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application.
In 1952, the University Inn was constructed. On March 27, 1989, a Special Use Permit application was approved for a retail and move theater. Although this approved development was never constructed, the 1989 Special Use Permit still encumbers this site.
In 2006, the Town received an application to modify the 1989 Special Use Permit. The proposed modification included the construction of a mixed-use development with 511,985 square feet of floor area, including 203 residential units and 784 parking spaces on an 11.2-acre site. The proposal includes six multi-story buildings with office, retail, and residential uses, a hotel and associated parking. The proposed development would demolish the University and the Avalon Medical Office Building.
Recently, in response to a request by Orange County 911 dispatch, the applicant changed the name of the proposed development from University Village to East 54.
Associated with the Special Use Permit Modification application are applications for a Zoning Text Amendment, to amend the Mixed Use–Village (MU-V) zoning district, and a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone the property from Community Commercial (CC) to the proposed amended MU-V-arterial zoning district. Please refer to the accompanying memoranda for discussion of the text amendment and rezoning applications.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Council’s consideration, as is organized as follows:
We have identified several key issues related to this development. A brief discussion on each follows.
1. Revised Affordable Housing Proposal: The applicant’s original proposal included 203 residential units. Approximately 66 percent of the 203 units were identified as one-bedroom units and the remaining units (approximately 34%), two-bedroom units.
The proposal also included an affordable housing program committing 30 percent of the 203 units (61 units) as affordable. The applicant stated that approximately 66 percent of the affordable units would be one-bedroom units and 34 percent would be two-bedroom units.
Subsequent to the Public Hearing, the applicant submitted a proposal to amend their affordable housing program (Attachment 3).
Comment: The applicant is proposing that the Phase I portion of this project includes 30 percent affordable units. The applicant is proposing that the ratio of 1-bedroom to 2-bedroom affordable units, in this first phase and all subsequent phases, be the same as the ratio or one to two bedroom market rate units.
However, the applicant believes that there should be flexibility in subsequent construction phases (II and III) in order to convert some or all of the affordable one-bedroom to two-bedroom units and/or provide a payment in lieu of construction affordable one-bedroom units.
In order to pursue this option, the applicant is proposing that the Council authorize the Town Manager the flexibility to approve a reduction in the number of Phase II and III one-bedroom affordable units by permitting the applicant to either 1) increasing the total number of Phase II/III two-bedroom units by 1 unit for every 2 one-bedroom unit not constructed; or 2) provide a $75,000 payment in lieu for each one-bedroom unit that is not constructed.
This proposal allows the applicant and the Town the flexibility to respond to changes is the housing market, while still guaranteeing that the applicant will provide a minimum number 20% of affordable units on site. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that authorized the Town Manager to work with the applicant on the final number and type of units including authorization to accept a payment-in-lieu.
2. Finley Golf Course Road Sidewalk: The applicant has agreed to make road improvements on Finley Golf Course Road between NC 54 and Prestwick Road as stipulated in Revised Resolution A. The improvements include reconstructing the roadway to a three-lane cross-section.
However, during the Public Hearing the applicant expressed concern with the staff recommendation to include a sidewalk along the portion of Finley Golf Course Road, adjacent to the recently vacated Aurora restaurant. The applicant stated that the due to the topography in this area, the construction of a sidewalk would likely require expensive off-site storm water improvements. The applicant also stated that the recommended sidewalk, which would be located adjacent to a site that is not part of the proposed development nor owned by the applicant, should be constructed at such time that the property is redeveloped by the current owners (University of North Carolina Hospitals).
Comment: Based on the findings and analysis by the Town’s Engineering Department we concur with the applicant’s statement that the construction of the sidewalk would likely require extensive off-site storm water improvements. Due to anticipated storm water improvements and construction issues associated with the poor sub-soils in this vicinity, we have revised our preliminary recommendation. Revised Resolution A does not require this applicant to construct a sidewalk along the frontage of Finley Golf Course Road.
3. Mass Transit Infrastructure Improvements: Our initial recommendation included a payment-in-lieu of $47,800 for site specific improvements to existing and proposed bus stops on NC 54 and a future bus and/or mass transit stop on Prestwick Road. There has been additional discussion between the applicant and the staff regarding the importance of transit improvements in this area. As a result of these discussions, the applicant is requesting that the staff revise their recommendation and allow the Town Manager flexibility during final plan review to determine the specific type and location for improvements to the mass transit system.
Comment: We concur with the applicant’s request. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation recommending that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu, not to exceed $47,800.00, for mass transit related improvements on NC 54 and Prestwick Road.
3. Modifications to the Regulations: As described in the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum, the applicant initially requested modification to regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance for landscape buffers, parking lot screening and parking lot shading.
Since the Public Hearing the staff has reduced the recommended primary building height, for the Mixed-Use Village text amendment, from the initially recommended 85 feet to 70 feet. (For additional information on the staff recommendation to change the primary height to 70 feet, please refer to the accompanying memorandum on the proposed Mixed-Use Village text amendment.)
The applicant agrees with this recommended change to the proposed text amendment to reduce the proposed primary height from 85 feet to 70 feet. However this recommendation to the lower primary height requires the applicant to request that the Council approve a modification to the primary height requirements.
Comment: Please refer to the section on Modification to the Regulations in this memorandum for additional discussion on the applicant’s request for modifications to the regulations.
Other Issues Discussed at the Public Hearing: During the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing, Council Members requested additional information and raised questions on several topics including roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements.
Comment: Please refer to Attachment 1 for additional discussion on these questions.
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification. 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 Modification. 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 Modification 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 Modification. 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:
“Identify Areas Where There are Creative Development Opportunities: Few development sites exist within the Urban Services boundary that offers the accessibility to alternative transportation modes as University Village. A MU-V in this location creates an opportunity to maximize ridership of existing transit services and provides a unique living environment where residents can enjoy a lifestyle without dependency on the automobile. Existing uses (hotel and office) are planned to be integrated with a diversity of housing and retail services at intensities that are supportive of transit. Where this opportunity can be realized on a site that has minimal environmental constraints and offers manageable impacts to surrounding land uses, then the creative development patterns that establish MU-V Districts are achieved.” [Applicant’s Statement]
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 point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
“Setbacks and Lot Layout: The scale of urban pedestrian spaces is determined to a large extent by building setbacks. The character of this space is also dependent on the size of the buildings and the activities which are anticipated. To ensure that a comfortable visual connection is maintained with the pedestrian, maximum setbacks along storefront/entrance areas are established.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: Without approved modifications to the regulations, evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2 would show that the proposed use does not comply with sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance relating to buffers, parking lot shading and screening and building height. For additional discussion on the applicant’s proposed modification to regulations, please refer to the section in this memorandum on Modifications to Regulations.
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.
“Preservation of the stand of large oaks and supplemental native plantings will serve to reinforce the wooded entranceway into Town along NC 54/Raleigh Road. This wooded edge provides a buffer to the proposed residential uses and adjacent neighboring 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 point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.
“Structured and Garage Parking: Structured parking that will be architecturally integrated with the other buildings is proposed to the rear of the site and buildings have been situated to block views to larger parking areas from adjacent neighborhoods. Access to the underground and decked parking makes use of natural grades enhancing natural light and ventilation to these facilities. Smaller parking areas have been designed in lieu of larger ones to further minimize the impact within the community. All surface parking areas will be screened as required by the Town’s Design Manual. ” [Applicant’s Statement]
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.
The applicant requests modification to the regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance for each issue identified under Finding #3 above (buffers, parking lot shading, parking lot screening, and primary building height). 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.”
Comment: The applicant believes that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the application offers:
a) minimum of 20% affordable housing on-site; b) infill housing; c) accessibility to multi-modal transportation; d) sustainability; e) structured parking/shared parking; f) stormwater re-use; g) public art; and h) pedestrian-friendly focus [Applicant’s Statement]
In summary, the Town Council may modify one or more of the proposed modifications to regulations if it makes a finding in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. 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 alternative is to comply with regulations.
We have attached a revised 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.
Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, our recommendation is that, with the stipulations and modifications to the regulations in Revised Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on January 25, 2007 and voted 7-0 to recommend Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application, with the adoption of attached Resolution E. A copy of the Transportation Board Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission met on January 17, 2007 and voted 9-0 to recommend Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application, with the adoption of attached Resolution E. A copy of the Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission met on January 24, 2007 and voted 4-0 to recommend Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application, with the adoption of attached Resolution E. A copy of the Greenways Commission Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.
The Planning Board, Community Design Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommend that the Town Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification. For additional information on their recommendations, please refer to the matrix in the report and to January 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum (Attachment 10).
Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A.
Since the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing, the following stipulations have been incorporated into the Revised Resolution A:
· Primary building height – modify regulations to exceed building envelope
· NC 54 Greenway – allow low impact surface design around significant trees
· Finley Golf Course Road - delete sidewalk improvement
· Affordable Housing Proposal – allow flexibility in type and number of units; accept payment-in-lieu under certain conditions
· Mass Transit Improvements – allow flexibility in use of payment-in-lieu
· NC 54 Street Imprints – required pedestrian crosswalk imprints at Hamilton Road, Rogerson Drive, and Finley Golf Course Road
· Traffic Signal Phasing Plan – study traffic signal phasing for protected left-turn from NC 54 onto Finley Golf Course Road and Burning Tree Drive
· Pedestrian Connectivity – study opportunity for additional pedestrian connectivity between proposed development and adjacent properties to the east.
We also recommend that the Council enact the two accompanying applications, 1) the Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment for Mixed-Use Village, and 2) the Zoning Atlas Amendment application that proposes to rezone the site from the current Community Commercial district to Mixed-Use Village are required prior to the adoption of the application for the University Special Use Permit Modification.
Based on the information available at this stage of the application review process, we believe that with:
1) The enactment of the accompanying Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment, as recommended by the staff, to modify the Mixed-Use Village zoning district; and
2) The approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment application to rezone the site from the current Community Commercial district to the staff-recommended amended Mixed Use-Village Arterial zoning district,
We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit Modification with conditions in Revised 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.
Revised Resolution A would approve the application with conditions.
Resolutions B, C, D, and E would approve the application with conditions as proposed by the Town’s Advisory Boards.
Resolution F would deny the application.
East 54 Mixed Use Development (aka University Village)
DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS-RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board |
Community Design Comm. |
Bicycle/ Pedestrian |
Greenways, Parks/Rec, Transportation |
|
Perimeter landscape approval by CDC |
Landscape materials only |
Landscape materials & planting width |
Landscape materials only |
* |
* |
|
Prestwick Rd south side sidewalk |
Min width 7’ where practicable |
5 feet |
5 feet |
Min. width 7 ft where practicable |
* |
|
Crosswalk/traffic calming on Prestwick Road |
Installed by applicant prior to Certificate of Occupancy |
Payment-in-lieu |
Payment-in-lieu |
Installed by applicant prior to Certificate of Occupancy |
* |
|
Directional bicycle/ped signage |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
|
Parking deck entrances design for pedestrian safety |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
|
Bicycle Detector Loops at Hamilton/ Finley Golf C Road |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
|
Ped connection to Aurora/McLean property |
Yes (crosswalk and sidewalk) |
* |
* |
Yes (crosswalk and sidewalk) |
* |
|
Avalon Medical Building : Change of use |
Temporary use as project real estate office |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Modif. To Reg.s for Height Requirement |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
NC 54 Greenway |
Low Impact surface |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Affordable Housing Stipulation |
Unit flexibility and payment-in-lieu |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Mast Transit Improvements |
Flexibility in payment-in-lieu |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
NC 54 Street Imprint |
Burning Tree and Rogerson Dr |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
NC 54 Traffic Signal Phasing |
Study Protected Left Turn Signals |
* |
* |
* |
* |
N/A = Issues not raised at Advisory Board meeting, and therefore not included in the Resolution
