AGENDA #2b

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

DATE:

June 18, 2007

SUBJECT:

Public Hearing:  Downtown Economic Development Initiative – Parking Lot 5, Special Use Permit Application (File No. 9788-27-3068)

INTRODUCTION

Attached for your consideration is a request for a Special Use Permit for the Downtown Economic Development Initiative, which proposes to construct a mixed use development with residential dwelling units and retail floor area on property owned by the Town of Chapel Hill. The application also involves conversion of a Town surface parking facility (Lot 5) to an underground parking deck. The site is located on the east side of Church Street between West Franklin and Rosemary Streets and is currently occupied by Town of Chapel Hill Parking Lot No. 5.  The site is identified as Orange County Property Identifier Numbers 9788-06-5324, 9788-06-6325, 9788-06-6235, 9788-06-6277, 9788-06-6297, 9788-06-7213, and 9788-06-7383.

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

Accompanying this application, the applicant has submitted a Zoning Atlas Amendment application which proposes to rezone the site from the current Town Center-2 (TC-2) to Town Center-3-Conditional (TC-3-C) zoning district. Prior to approval of the Downtown Economic Development Initiative Special Use Permit application, it is necessary that the Council take action on the Zoning Atlas Amendment application first. Please refer to the accompanying memoranda for additional information on the Zoning Atlas Amendment application.

Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the Special Use Permit application, as the Council determines the appropriate requirements to include as conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND

A Concept Plan of the proposed development was reviewed by the Community Design Commission on March 15, 2006. The Town Council reviewed a Concept Plan on March 20, 2006. Summaries and minutes of Concept Plan Reviews are attached for the Community Design Commission and Council respectively (Attachments 5 and 6).

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The applicant proposes to construct a 9-story building, with 302,165 square feet of floor area, including 30,690 square feet of retail, and 140 residential dwelling units on property owned by the Town (Lot 5). The applicant is proposing 15% affordable dwelling units, or 21 dwelling units, on-site. A total of approximately 325 parking spaces are proposed. Vehicular access to two levels of an underground parking facility is proposed from West Rosemary Street.

The applicant is proposing to install streetscape improvements along West Franklin Street, Church Street, and West Rosemary Street. Bicycle parking facilities are also proposed on site. The applicant is proposing to manage stormwater impacts by installing an underground stormwater vault. Private refuse collection service is proposed. The applicant is proposing to locate electrical utilities below ground, along Church Street.

PROCESS

The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it against Town standards; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows below). Evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, 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.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Based on our evaluation, our preliminary conclusion is that the application as submitted, with modifications to the regulations as described below, complies with the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, with the conditions included in Resolution A.

Tonight the Council receives our attached evaluation and information submitted by the applicant and citizens. The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum. All information that is submitted at the hearing will be included in the record of the hearing.

Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit.

The four findings are:

Special Use Permit  – Required Findings of Fact

Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.

KEY ISSUE

We have identified a key issue related to affordable housing discussed below.

Diversity of Affordable Housing: The applicant is proposing to provide 15% affordable housing, (21 one-bedroom dwelling units) onsite. The one-bedroom units include 577 square feet of floor area per unit.  The applicant is proposing to distribute the 21 units on three floors of the proposed building (7 units on each floor).

Staff Comment:  Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, which will be managing the affordable units for the proposed development, recently met with the developer.  The Land Trust expressed concern with the applicant’s proposal to provide only one-bedroom affordable units (Attachment 17). The adopted policy of the Council is for applicants to provide 15% affordable housing.  Recent Council Committee discussions regarding affordable housing have addressed various options for the provision of affordable dwelling units. In particular, discussions focused on using the number of bedrooms as a measure of affordable housing, rather than simply units.

We understand that the applicant is not opposed to providing a mix of one, two or three-bedroom units in their proposed affordable housing program.  We believe a variety in the type of bedroom units (1, 2, or 3 bedroom units) would enhance opportunities to provide affordable housing stock. Our preliminary recommendation, with respect to the applicant’s affordable housing proposal, is that the applicant either:

Provide 15% affordable housing units as 21 one-bedroom units; or

Provide a combination of 1, 2, and/or 3-bedroom units with the total number of bedrooms equal to 21 bedrooms.

We have included a stipulation in Resolution A, offering the applicant this flexibility.

ADDITIONAL ISSUE

We have identified an additional issue related to the provision of utilities.

  1. Locating Utilities Underground on Church Street:  We understand that, except for some street lights on West Rosemary Street, the electrical service required for the proposed development will provided by extending utilities from an existing duct bank at the corner of Church Street and West Franklin Street. This electrical service will be extended to a transformer on West Rosemary Street and will be located underground in a duct bank installed by the applicant as part of this proposed development.

Staff Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that all but 3-phase utility lines be placed underground. We recommend that all electric service to the site associated with service along Church Street be provided in underground duct banks.  Our preliminary recommendation includes a stipulation to this effect.

  1. Locating Utilities Underground on West Rosemary Street:  With respect to West Rosemary Street, though it may be preferable to have the existing 3-phase utility lines relocated below ground, it is not required by Ordinance. 

Staff Comment:  We believe that placing electrical utilities below grade on West Rosemary Street is not practical or reasonable at this time.  During our review of this project, as well as other proposed/approved projects along West Rosemary Street, we have discussed with Duke Energy the subject of relocating overhead utilities underground.  Based on those discussions we believe that a utility relocation project of such magnitude should be undertaken as a comprehensive plan that relocates all utilities along West Rosemary Street at one time.  We understand this approach to be prudent from a design, engineering, and service management perspective and recommend that relocating utility lines below ground along West Rosemary Street is implemented comprehensively and not on a project by project basis.  Our preliminary recommendation does not stipulate that the applicant located existing or proposed utilities underground along West Rosemary Street. 

Anticipating the future relocation of utilities below ground along West Rosemary Street, we recommend that review and approval of the final plans provide for the future connection of underground utilities to this proposed development. We recommend that during final plan review Duke Energy consider and recommend, where practical, how the construction and design of this proposed development could accommodate the installation of underground utilities, at a time such relocation occurs. This preliminary recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A. 

PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS

As proposed, the Special Use Permit application does not comply with the land use intensity standards of the Town Center-3-Conditional zoning district. The applicant is requesting modification to the following regulations:

  1. Primary Building Height Regulations: We understand the applicant is requesting modification to primary height regulations (Section 3.8-1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The provisions of this section of the Ordinance require a primary building height (at the property line) of 44 feet in the Town Center-3 zoning district.

Staff Comment: We recommend that the Council modify the regulations in this case. We believe that it is reasonable to have a 54-foot primary building height on the West Rosemary and West Franklin Street frontages of the proposed building. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree as a downtown “opportunity site” is being redeveloped, as identified in the Downtown Small Area Plan. We recommend modification to regulations to exceed the primary height of 44 feet, by 10 feet, for a total height of 54 feet. See table and graphic immediately below.

  1. Building Envelope Regulations: We understand the applicant is requesting modification to the maximum building envelope permitted in the Town Center-3 (TC-3) zoning district. Appendix A of the Land Use Management Ordinance defines the building envelope in Town Center Zoning districts as a slope of 1:1 on all property boundaries, except West Rosemary Street which has a slope of 1:1.7. The slopes of the building envelope allow a maximum of 1 foot of rise for every 1 foot of run and a maximum of 1 foot of rise for every 1.7 feet of run on the northern (solar setback) property line. This request for modification to regulations would exceed the building envelope allowed by the Land Use Management Ordinance in the Town Center zoning district by allowing a larger envelope (volume), with steeper sides, to accommodate the proposed building. The applicant is requesting that the sides of the building envelope be steeper, or 1/0.25, thereby creating a larger volume and larger building on the Church Street (western) and interior (eastern) sides of the proposed building.

Staff Comment: We recommend that the Council modify the building envelope regulations in this case. We believe that it is reasonable to have a larger building envelope on the Church Street frontage and interior boundary of the proposed building. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree as a downtown “opportunity site” is being redeveloped, as identified in the Downtown Small Area Plan. We recommend modification to regulations to allow steeper sides of the building envelope, or greater volume, with a 1/0.25 slope. See table and graphic immediately below.

Downtown Economic Development Initiative:
Building Envelope Regulations in the Town Center-3-Conditional Zoning District

(Requested Modification to Regulations in Italics)

Town Center-3-Conditional Zoning District

West Franklin Street (South)

West Rosemary Street (North)

Church Street (West)

Interior Property Line (East)

Primary Building Height – At Setback Line

54 Feet

54 Feet

54 Feet

54 Feet

Building Envelope Slope*

1:1

1:1

1:0.25 (steeper)

1:0.25 (steeper)

Secondary Building Height (Maximum) – on Interior of Site

120 Feet

120 Feet

120 Feet

120 Feet

*Building envelope slope example – 1:1 indicates that a building can rise no more than 1 foot vertically for every 1 foot that it retreats horizontally from the setback line of the site, or 1 foot rise to 1 foot run.

The Town Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.  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 to 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.  We recommend that that Council modify the primary building height regulations and the building envelopes 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, and the modification to the regulations, our preliminary recommendation is that the Council could make the four findings necessary in order to approve the application. Our recommendation, Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning Board:  The Planning Board met on May 22, 2007 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with adoption of Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following conditions:

Staff Comment:  We recommend that parking for affordable units be provided on site.  Our preliminary recommendation does not stipulate the location of the parking spaces within the deck.

Staff Comment:   The recommendation of the Planning Board would require the applicant to provide a comparable number or ratio of parking spaces for affordable dwelling units and market-rate dwelling units. 

The applicant is proposing to construct a two level parking deck.  One level includes 158 public parking spaces and is proposed to replace the loss of the public parking spaces on Lot 5.  The other level of the parking deck is a private parking area and includes 177 spaces.  This parking area is intended to provide parking for the proposed residential units (35 one-bedroom, 67 two-bedroom, 36 three-bedroom units) and the 30,690 square feet of retail area.  The proposed 177 parking spaces located on that private parking area, complies with the recently adopted revisions to the parking regulations. Our preliminary recommendation is that the applicant complies with recently adopted parking regulations.

Staff Comment: The applicant indicated at the Planning Board meeting that they propose to provide a $700,000 payment to the Town for public art as stated in the applicant’s Statement of Justification.  We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Staff Comment: The applicant indicated at the Planning Board meeting that they propose to provide a $200,000 payment to the Town for programming public events, as stated in the applicant’s Statement of Justification.  We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum.

Transportation Board:  The Transportation Board met on May 24, 2007 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with adoption of Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following conditions:

Staff Comment: We do not concur. The applicant is proposing 66 bicycle parking spaces placed throughout the development. This satisfies the Ordinance requirement. We believe that making such facilities available to the public will encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. We believe that the required Transportation Management Plan currently requests data about various modes of transportation, including bicycles.

Staff Comment: We do not concur. The applicant is proposing 66 bicycle parking spaces, 56 Class I spaces on the parking deck and 10 Class II spaces above ground. We believe that the applicant should provide additional parking spaces above ground, in the public space. Redistributing the proposed bicycle parking facilities should enhance access and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. We recommend that the applicant provide 22 Class II bicycle parking spaces above ground, in the public space, and 44 below ground, with 22 Class II spaces each on the public and private parking decks. The design shall be subject to Town Manager approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Staff Comment: The applicant has changed their proposal and is now proposing a 30-foot wide parking deck ramp with 2 striped lanes.  We believe that, if necessary in order to accommodate an additional vehicular access lane, that the 30-foot wide ramp can be reconfigured to 3 lanes by parking services as conditions warrant.  Our preliminary recommendation is that the applicant provides a 30-foot wide parking deck ramp with 2 lanes.  We also recommend that the ramp is designed to potentially be reconfigured to 3 lanes, as conditions warrant. We have included a recommendation to this effect in Resolution A.

Staff Comment: We concur. The staff and applicant have met recently and agreed on no more than 20% compact parking spaces on the private parking deck and no more than 15% on the public parking deck. We have included a recommendation to this effect in Resolution A.

Staff Comment: Please refer to the discussion on this item under the Planning Board recommendations.

A copy of the Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to this memorandum.

Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on May 23, 2007 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum,  with the following conditions:

Staff Comment: Please refer to discussion immediately above in the Transportation recommendations section under parking deck ramp width.

A copy of the Summary of the Community Design Commission Action is attached to this memorandum.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board:  The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on June 5, 2007 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following conditions:

Comment: Please refer to discussion above in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Board recommendations section under allocate bicycle parking by use.

Staff Comment: We do not believe that a dedicated bicycle lane is necessary because of the generally slow vehicular speeds in a parking deck. However, we recommend that the applicant provide signs near the entrance and exit of the parking deck that warns motorists to “watch for pedestrians and bicycles” or the like. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

A copy of the Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Board Action is attached to this memorandum.

Parks and Recreation Commission:  The Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on June 20, 2007. We will provide the Council with a Summary of the Parks and Recreation Commission Action when it is available.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation:  The following staff recommendations were added to Resolution A, following Advisory Board review.

  1. Affordable Housing:  The applicant provide 15% affordable housing units as 21 one-bedroom units; or a combination of 1, 2, and/or 3-bedroom units with the total number of bedrooms equal to 21 bedrooms.
  2. Public Art Payment: The applicant shall provide a $700,000 payment to the Town for public art.
  3. Public Programming Payment: The applicant shall provide a $200,000 payment to the Town for programming of events in the public space.
  4. Public Art Payment: The applicant shall provide a $700,000 payment to the Town for public art.
  5. Public Programming Payment: The applicant shall provide a $200,000 payment to the Town for programming of events in the public space.
  6. Parking Deck Ramp Width: The applicant shall widen the proposed parking deck ramp from West Rosemary Street to 30 feet wide.
  7. Additional Bicycle Parking Spaces: The applicant shall provide a minimum of 66 on-site bicycle parking spaces, including 22 Class I bicycle parking spaces each level of two parking deck levels. The applicant shall also provide 22 Class II bicycle parking spaces above ground placed around the site in the public space.
  8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety in Parking Deck: Add warning signs at entrance and exit to parking deck warning motorists of bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
  9. Locating Utilities Underground on West Rosemary Street:  The construction and design of this proposed development shall, if practical, accommodate the future installation of underground utilities along West Rosemary Street.

Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. If the Council makes the required findings for approval of the Downtown Economic Development Initiative Special Use Permit, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.

Resolution B would deny the application.

Downtown Economic Development Initiative – Parking Lot 5

DIFFERENCES AMONG ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

 

ISSUES

Staff Preliminary

Planning Board

Transportation

Board

Comm. Design

Bicycle &

Pedestrian

Provision of Affordable Housing

 

15% or mix of 1,2,and/or 3 bedroom units (21 bedroom total)

NA

NA

NA

NA

Affordable Unit Parking Space Allocation

Onsite

 

Locate all spaces on private deck

 

NA

 

NA

 

NA

Affordable Housing: Parking Spaces/Unit Allocation

Comply With Parking Provisions in Ordinance

31 spaces for 21 affordable units

21 spaces for

21 units

NA

NA

Parking Deck Access Ramp

30-foot wide (accommodate 3 travel lanes)

Wide enough to provide one ingress and two egress lanes

30-foot wide (accommodate 3 travel lanes)

Wider ramp with 2 lanes

NA

Maximum % Compact Parking Spaces

20% on the private deck 15% on the public deck

NA

20%

NA

NA

Monitor Public Bike Parking

No

NA

Yes

NA

NA

Bicycle Parking Spaces

Redistribute location 22 spaces above ground, and on each parking deck

NA

Delineate Btwn. Uses

NA

Add 10 Spaces Above Ground

Bicycle Safety in Parking Deck

Add Signs

NA

NA

NA

Dedicate Bike Lanes

Payments for public art & programs

$700,00 for art

$200,000 for programs

$700,00 for art

$200,000 for programs

NA

NA

NA

Future W. Rosemary St. Utility Plan Recomm.

Bldg designed to accommodate future utility plans where practical

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA = Issues not raised at Advisory Board meeting, and therefore not included in the Resolution

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Staff Report (p. 14).
  2. Checklist of Project Fact Sheet Requirements (p. 30).
  3. Resolution A (Preliminary Recommendation) (p. 31).
  4. Resolution B (Denying the Application) (p. 43).
  5. Advisory Board Summaries of Action (p. 44).
  6. March 20, 2006 Town Council Concept Plan Review Summary Minutes and Applicant’s Response (p. 48).
  7. March 15, 2006 Community Design Commission Summary Of Concept Plan Review and Applicant’s Response (p. 55).
  8. Table Comparing Concept Plan and Special Use Permit Proposals (p. 60).
  9. Transportation Impact Assessment – Executive Summary, Dated February 22, 2007 (p. 61).
  10. Building Envelope and Elevation Drawings Indicating Request for Modifications (p. 71).
  11. Applicant’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Energy Efficiency Information, Dated April 2, 2007 (p. 77).
  12. Statement of Justification (p. 79).
  13. Request by Applicant to Increase Land Use Intensities, Dated May 11, 2007 (p. 91).
  14. Project Fact Sheet for TC-3 Zoning District (p. 92).
  15. General Development Agreement, Dated February 12, 2007 with First Amendment Dated April 3, 2007 (p. 94).
  16. Applicant’s Affordable Housing Plan Recommendations with Attachment, Dated May 11, 2007 (p. 147).
  17. Letter from Orange Community Land Trust, Dated June 12, 2007 (p. 149).
  18. Area Map (p. 151).
  19. Reduced Plans (p. 152).