MEMORANDUM
TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT:	The North Carolina Botanical Garden Visitor Education Center – Special Use Permit Application, Planned Development-Office and Institutional (File No.9788-91-7972)
DATE:	April 23, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues consideration of a Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Office and Institutional application proposing to expand the North Carolina Botanical Garden facility including 24,503 square feet of new floor area in three buildings for a new Visitor Education Center. New pedestrian and bicycle circulation are proposed by a network of paths throughout the site. The proposed Special Use Permit boundary is approximately 35 acres, being a portion of the 88 acre Botanical Garden site.

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

• Cover Memorandum:  Introduces application, discusses key issues, describes process for review, and offers recommendations for Council action.
• Attachments: Includes additional information submitted by the applicant, copy of the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum, including advisory board comments and the applicant’s materials. 

KEY ISSUES

We have identified two key issues related to this development. A brief discussion follows.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Connection to Old Mason Farm Road: At the March 19 Public Hearing, a Council member requested that the north end of the bicycle and pedestrian path, proposed between Old Mason Farm Road and Coker Drive, connect directly to Old Mason Farm Road. 

Comment: We concur with the Council member’s request. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that the applicant construct the Old Mason Farm Road pedestrian and bicycle path to connect with Old Mason Farm Road.

LEED Certification:  At the March 19 Public Hearing, a Council member asked if the applicant had agreed to LEED certification and why no stipulation appeared in Resolution A for LEED certification. The Council member recommended consideration of a stipulation.

Comment:  At the meeting, the North Carolina Botanical Garden applicant replied that they would agree to meet the LEED Silver certification and to exceed the energy standards by at least 20 percent of ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers). We have included a stipulation in Revised Resolution A to this effect.

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 points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

• “The entry/exit to the Garden will remain on Old Mason Farm Road but will be relocated farther to the south, away from Fordham Boulevard, directly across from the new entry to the Highland Woods neighborhood. This will create a more visible entry and better sightlines for exiting.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “Access for fire trucks will be both via the visitor parking lot and via Laurel Hill Road. A new fire hydrant will be added on Laurel Hill Road. The facility will have a fire sprinkler system.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “The facility is designed to minimize stormwater runoff through a variety of measures.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “The site for this facility is adjacent to Meeting-of-the-Waters Creek but care has been taken to locate all new structures outside of the Resource Conservation District and out of the floodplain.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “This facility is designed to achieve a platinum LEED rating from the US Green Building Council.” [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 points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

• “The project will comply with all applicable regulations and standards of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “The facility consists of three sections connected by covered breezeways: a classroom building, an Exhibit and Information Hall and a Multipurpose Auditorium, all sited and designed to celebrate the surrounding Piedmont forest and associated botanical display areas.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “The project will set a new standard for environmentally friendly public buildings in the state and region, striving to achieve a platinum (the highest) level on the US Green Building Council LEED rating system.” [Applicant’s Statement]

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

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 new Visitor Education Center will not change the relationship of the NC Botanical Garden to its neighbors.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “The Botanical Garden was in this location prior to adoption of the Town’s zoning ordinance and the PD-OI Special Use Permit is consistent with the continuation of this use. This use is compatible with the comprehensive plan designation “Parks/Open Space” for this area.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “The new Visitor Education Center will maintain or enhance the value of the surrounding properties.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Additional Evidence in Support: At the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing, the applicant submitted a table entitled Assessed Values of Properties Adjacent to and Neighboring the NC Botanical Garden to be entered into the record (Attachment 2). The table demonstrates improved land for all neighboring properties to the North Carolina Botanical Garden with an overall increase of assessed neighboring property values between 2001 and 2006 of 13.08%.

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.

• “The proposed improvements do not alter the character of the site, and mitigation measures are in keeping with goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This project will conserve and protect the natural setting of Chapel Hill, a major theme of the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it will set a new standard for environmentally friendly public buildings in Chapel Hill.” [Applicant’s Statement]
• “Although the Town’s RCD overlay district is not applicable to this property, every effort has been taken to respect the intent of the RCD overlay district.” [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.

SUMMARY

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.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Advisory Boards recommended that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Office and Institutional with the adoption of Resolution A with conditions. Summary Actions of the previously reported Advisory Boards are attached to the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum.

Transportation Board:  The Transportation Board met on March 22, 2007 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, Planned Development-Office and Institutional application with the adoption of Resolution A. A copy of the Transportation Board Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 1).

Revised Staff 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:

• Pedestrian Paths and Bicycle Corridor – A stipulation has been added that the pedestrian and bicycle path adjacent to Old Mason Farm Road be constructed to connect directly with Old Mason Farm Road.
• LEED Certification and 20% Energy Efficiency – Stipulations have been added regarding the applicant’s commitment to meet Silver LEED certification and that the buildings attain at least a 20% energy efficiency rating with the project.

We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Revised Resolution A 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.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Transportation Board Summary of Action (p. 16).
2. Assessed Values of Properties Adjacent to and Neighboring the NC Botanical Garden (p 17).
3. March 19, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum with attachments (begin new page 1).

North Carolina Botanical Garden
Special Use Permit

DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues	Manager’s Revised Recommendation, Planning Board, Community Design Commission	Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and Transportation Board
Laurel Hill Road closure conditions from Nov. 22, 2004	Not req. for the approval of this Special Use Permit	*
Demolition of Laurel Hill Road	Removed portions of roadway to be recycled or reused	*
Extension of sound wall	To be the responsibility of  applicant or NCDOT	*
Stipulation Regarding LEED Silver Certification Commitment	Yes	*
Stipulation Regarding Energy Efficiency Commitment	Yes	*

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