AGENDA #11c
MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Orange County Animal Services Facility Application for Special Use Permit (File No. 9870-77-4584) |
|
DATE: |
September 10, 2007 |
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 18, 2007 for the Orange County Animal Services Facility, a Public Use Facility, proposed to be located on the south side of Eubanks Road between the Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Orange County Landfill.
Associated with this application is a proposal to rezone the site from Residential-1 (R-1) to Office/Institutional-1-Conditional (OI-1-C). Prior to providing the applicant with a copy of the Council adopted Special Use Permit document, the Orange County Commissioners must take action on the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for additional information on the proposed rezoning.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Council’s consideration, as is organized as follows:
KEY ISSUES
Several key issues related to this development were raised at the Public Hearing.
1. Eubanks Road improvements: The proposed project includes frontage along the south side of Eubanks Road. We recommended at the Public Hearing that the applicant improve this portion of Eubanks Road to include half of a 37 foot wide cross-section including 11-foot travel lanes, bike lane, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and utility strip. We also recommended that the applicant construct a left turn lane into the site driveway. At the Public Hearing, the applicant expressed a concern over the required road improvements and requested flexibility to continue working with staff and the North Carolina Department of Transportation to evaluate the required improvements.
Comment: Following the Public Hearing, the Town staff, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the applicant met and revisited the issue of roadway improvements around the site. With the recommendation to include curb and gutter along the frontage, a Town design standard, the North Carolina Department of Transportation requires the construction of 12 foot travel lanes, instead of our earlier recommendation of 11 foot travel lanes. Based on these discussions, we summarize the revised recommendations for roadway improvements along the site’s frontage:
We understand that the applicant has agreed with these revised conditions. The applicant has also proposed moving the site driveway location slightly to the west to provide additional distance for the pavement widening tapers to avoid conflicting with the railroad crossing. These recommended roadway improvements, including the relocated driveway, are shown on the attached revised site plans dated August 29, 2007.
2. Bicycle lane width: During the Public Hearing a Council Member asked staff to explain why staff is recommending a 4 foot wide bicycle lane.
Comment: The Town standard bicycle lane is 4 foot wide for collector and arterial streets, not including the 30 inch wide concrete curb & gutter. This standard is shown in the Town’s Design Manual and Standard Details. However, dependent on the adjacent vehicle lane width bicycle lane widths may increase to 5 feet. If bicycle lanes are requested on State maintained roads such as Eubanks Road the State will allow a 4 foot wide bicycle lane when the adjacent vehicle lane is 12 feet or greater. If the travel lane is less than 12 feet wide then a 5 foot bike lane is the minimum width necessary to meet the State’s standard. Because the North Carolina Department of Transportation is requiring 12 foot wide lanes along the frontage of this site we believe a 4 foot wide bicycle lane is appropriate at this location.
3. On-site future utility improvements: The Public Hearing plans identified a future 30-foot wide OWASA sewer easement, traversing the western boundary of the site, intended to provide OWASA service to future development to the south. The revised plans, before the Council tonight, all reference to the future sewer easement have been removed.
Comment: Subsequent to the Public Hearing, the Town staff, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and the applicant met and revisited the issue of proposed sewer easement. Several different scenarios emerged. The Applicant has chosen to removed the “proposed sanitary sewer easement” from the Site Plan. This easement was requested by OWASA to establish a potential link in the extension of public sanitary sewer service from Eubanks Road to “properties to the south”. The Applicant, Orange County, is aware that the Town Council has recently established the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force, which, among other things, will study the various options for utility service to the subject area. Given this new information, the County feels that the work of this committee should be concluded before any permanent utility easements are established on County property.
Orange County has been invited to participate on this Task Force, and has agreed to do so. Since the County has multiple land-holding interests in the area, future utility routes may indeed need to cross County property in order to serve other lands. The County supports long-range planning to determine the best utility options for the area, and will be a partner in this important process.
OWASA has a policy that requires “all design and construction within the service area shall incorporate OWASA’s long range planning objectives and shall provide for the orderly expansion of the system to adjacent properties”. We believe that the proposed easement would provide the opportunity for OWASA to provide services to adjacent or upstream properties. We have revised our recommendation to obligate the applicant to provide a 30-foot sewer easement, if and when the location is determined by the Town Manager and OWASA.
4. Norfolk Southern Railroad: At the Public Hearing, we recommended that the applicant construct a portion of the Eubanks Road sidewalk within the railroad right-of-way or provide a payment-in-lieu for this portion of the sidewalk.
Comment: Since the Public Hearing the applicant has determined that the land area encumbered by the railroad right-of-way is not owned by the applicant. The applicant has revised the plans to indicate the change of boundary. We have revised our recommendations to remove the stipulations requiring construction of the sidewalk within the railroad right-of-way. We have also removed the stipulation regarding impervious surface associated with the railroad right-of-way. In the accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment memorandum, we have modified the boundaries for the proposed rezoning.
5. Invasive Exotic Plantings: The proposed project Landscape Plan includes a plant list for the proposed project. A Council member requested that invasive exotics planting selections be removed from the planting list.
Comment: We have revised Resolution A to remove the two invasive exotic planting selections – Lonicera fragrantissima and Pennisetum alopecuroides.
6. Parking Lot Shading Requirement: A Council member requested additional information regarding parking lot shading requirements.
Comment: Land Use Management Ordinance Section 5.9.6 requires that at least 35 percent of the parking area surface be shaded on noon on August 21 when the vegetation matures. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with this regulation during final plan review.
7. Genestu Drive Improvements: At the Zoning Atlas Amendment Public Hearing, a citizen requested information regarding improvements for Genestu Drive.
Comment: Genestu Drive is a private access easement providing access to several properties located to the south of the proposed Orange County Animal Services Facility. Initially, the applicant was proposing to use Genestu Drive to access a portion of the site. However, the applicant has revised the site plan and is not proposing to provide any access from Genestu Drive. We are not recommending any improvements to Genestu Drive.
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:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
“The proposed building will house all functions under one roof, providing greater efficiency, improved oversight and additional space to deal with an animal population that grows steadily along with the county’s people population.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
“The Orange County Animal Services site plan is in full compliance with the Land Use Management Ordinance and other Town standards”. “Based on the proposed land use, a Public Use Facility, one parking space per 350 square feet of floor area, 69 spaces, is required. 49 spaces are needed to meet operational and public service objectives”. [Applicant’s Statement]
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.
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.
“We define the value of the contiguous property as market value and believe that a public facility of this type will maintain the value of surrounding properties. The perimeter buffers provided along with a well designed building and landscape will visually enhance the property. New sewer and gas service along the West side of the railroad track will benefit surrounding neighborhoods and property owners.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.
“Orange County and the entire design team have worked diligently to develop a site and building plan that minimizes disturbance to the site, embraces a style and palette of materials that complement the site and that is appropriate, functional, and sustainable. This is consistent with the Land Use Management Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.” [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.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE REGULATIONS
The Town staff recommends modification to the regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance for the issue identified below.
Minimum Parking Requirements: We understand the applicant is requesting modification to parking requirements (Section 5.9.7) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow a reduction in the minimum parking requirement. Based on the proposed land use, a Public Use Facility, one parking space per 350 square feet of floor area, 69 spaces, is required.
Comment: The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 in the Land Use Management Ordinance. We recommend that the Council modify the regulations in this case. The applicant states that they need 49 spaces to meet their operational and public service objectives. The facility anticipates approximately 30 employees, plus animal control officers, volunteers, veterinarians, and general public. The site plan before the Council tonight includes 49 parking spaces. We believe the applicant’s assessment is reasonable and recommend 49 parking spaces as the maximum number of parking spaces for this site. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because of the unique nature of this application.
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.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on June 14, 2007 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A as attached to the staff report, with the following change:
· Eubanks Road Sidewalk: That the sidewalk should be constructed along the Eubanks Road frontage but not extending into the Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way.
Comment: Subsequent to the Transportation Board meeting, Orange County has determined that the property does not extend into the railroad right-of-way.
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on June 20, 2007, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A as attached to the staff report.
Revised Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A. Since the Public Hearing, the following revisions have been incorporated into Revised Resolution A:
1. Eubanks Road Improvements:
a. Require dedication of one-half of an 80 foot right-of-way instead of one-half of a 70 foot right-of-way.
b. Require half of a 41 foot cross section instead of half of a 37 foot cross section.
c. Delete requirement for sidewalk improvements within the rail-road right-of-way.
2. Exotic Invasive Plants: Remove Lonicera fragrantissima and Pennisetum alopecuroides from the plant list.
3. Final Sewer Plan Approval: Approval of final sewer plan may occur after issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit, in order to allow applicant adequate time to acquire off-site utility easements.
4. Driveway Location: Approves site plan moving driveway closer to the western property line, and further into the Resource Conservation District, to accommodate safer left hand turning lane design on Eubanks Road and to comply with NCDOT standards.
5. OWASA Easements: That when an appropriate location for a OWASA sewer easement is determined, easement documents as required by OWASA be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager and recorded.
Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, we believe that the proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Revised Resolution A and proposed modification 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.
Resolution B would deny the application.
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Revised |
Planning Board |
Bike & Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Transportation Board |
Community Design Commission |
|
Eubanks Road sidewalk |
Entire frontage
|
Between railroad ROW and east side of proposed driveway |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Eubanks Road ROW width |
Half of 80-foot width |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Eubanks Road cross-section |
Half of 41-foot section |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Roadway improvement within railroad right-of-way |
No |
No |
N/A |
No |
N/A |
|
Move driveway to the west: further into RCD |
Yes (improves driver safety at left turn lane; complies with NDCOT) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Remove OWASA easement |
Yes, but obligates the easement when location is determined |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Impervious Surface Limits |
Does not include area within Genestu Dr |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Eastern buffer width |
30’ adjacent to railroad, 20’adjacent to private property |
Minimum required buffers or alternate buffer approval |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Exotic Invasive Plants |
Delete from plant list |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transportation Board Summary of Action (p. 20).
2. Community Design Commission Summary of Action (p. 21).
3. Reduced site plans (p. 22).