MEMORANDUM |
|
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director George Small, Engineering Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator Sue Burke, Stormwater Management Engineer |
|
SUBJECT: |
OWASA Mason Farm Reclaimed Water Storage and Pumping Facility – Special Use Permit Modification Application (File No. 9788-06-5324) |
|
DATE: |
April 11, 2007 |
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues consideration of a Special Use Permit Modification application for the reclaimed water storage and pumping facility at the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) wastewater treatment plant. The facility is located south of Old Mason Farm Road between the North Carolina Botanical Garden and Finley Golf Course.
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 Modification 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:
We have identified two key issues related to this development. A brief discussion follows.
Modifications to the Regulations: The applicant is asking the Council to modify the regulations with respect to the maximum permitted floor area and maximum permitted impervious surface area.
Comment: Please refer to the discussion in the Proposed Modification of Regulation section in this memorandum.
Relationship to the March 1, 2004 Special Use Permit: Subsequent to the Public Hearing the applicant expressed a concern to staff with respect to the wording of the resolution as it pertained to landscape bufferyards. The applicant stated that the preliminary resolution does not clearly state that the modifications to the bufferyard regulations, as described by the March 1, 2004 Special Use Permit, shall not be superseded by this proposed Special Use Permit Modification.
Comment: We have included language in the Revised Resolution A clarifying that the modification to the landscape bufferyards, as approved by the March 1, 2004 Special Use Permit, shall remain in effect and shall not be superseded by the approval of this Special Use Permit Modification.
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:
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.
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.
The applicant requests modification to regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance for intensity standards pertaining to floor area and impervious surface. The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 in the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Comment: The applicant is proposing to modify the regulations as they relate to the following requirements in the Land Use Management Ordinance:
Floor Area: The applicant is requesting modification of maximum floor area allowed in the Resource Conservation District, Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The maximum allowed floor area for this property is 79,717 square feet. The applicant is proposing 85,810 square feet, or 6,093 square feet over the allowable floor area. The applicant notes that the floor area at the plant has been minimized in the proposed project, that much of the floor space is not frequently occupied and is used to house equipment such as pumps, generators, and other equipment, and that this equipment is vital to the proper operation of the plant.
Comment: The Resource Conservation District has very low intensity floor area ratios. The wastewater treatment facility is located in the Resource Conservation District by necessity because waste is transmitted to the plant by gravity. We believe that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree for the provision of this reclamation facility that will benefit the community. We therefore recommend that the floor area regulations be modified.
Impervious Surface: The applicant is requesting modification of maximum impervious surface area allowed in the Resource Conservation District, Section 3.6.3-3 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The maximum impervious surface allowed is 222,554 square feet (20 percent). The applicant is proposing 384,170 square feet (38 percent) of impervious surface. The proposal would therefore exceed the allowable impervious surface area by 161,616 square.
Comment: We recommend that the impervious surface regulations be modified. As noted above, we believe that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree with this proposal to use reclaimed water to extend the community’s water supply.
The applicant requests that the Council find that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. Please refer to the attached Statement of Justification for additional justification as presented by the applicant.
In summary, the 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 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, along with the requested modifications to the regulations, our recommendation is that the Council could make the four findings necessary in order to approve the application.
The Advisory Boards recommended that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with conditions. Please refer to the matrix on page 6 to compare the differences between recommendations. The Planning Board Summary of Action is attached to the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission met March 21, 2007 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification. The Community Design Commission Summary of Action is attached (Attachment 1).
Staff’s Revised Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A. Revised Resolution A includes the following changes to the Staff’s Preliminary Resolution from the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing
We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit 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.
Resolution B would deny the application.
1. Community Design Commission Summary of Action, Dated March 21, 2007 (p. 14).
2. Memorandum and Attachments from March 19, 2007 Public Hearing (begin new page 1).
|
ISSUE |
Revised Staff Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Community Design Commission Recommendation |
|
Include Omitted BMP in Watershed Protection District |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Stormwater Management Plan Stipulation |
Delete text “to the extent practicable” |
Yes |
* |
|
Approval of “No Rise Certificate” Required Prior to Issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Landscape Buffer Clarification – March 2004 Modification |
Yes |
* |
* |
* Issue was not discussed at this particular meeting.