|
MEMORANDUM |
|
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Chapel Hill Library – Special Use Permit Modification Application (File No. (File No. 9789-94-5308) |
|
DATE: |
November 12, 2007 |
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your consideration is a request from the Town of Chapel Hill for a Special Use Permit Modification for expansion of the Chapel Hill Public Library. The request also includes a conceptual plan for improvements in Pritchard Park. The Chapel Hill Library/Pritchard Park site is located on the east side of Estes Drive, approximately 225 feet north of East Franklin Street. The 34.25 acre site is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district and the Resource Conservation District. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9789-94-5308.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
BACKGROUND
|
1986-1989 |
In 1986, the citizens of Chapel Hill approved general obligation bonds of $2.5 million for parks and $5 million for library improvements. The 35-acre Library/Pritchard Park site was purchased in FY 1988-89 from the Pritchard family. The cost for the property was split evenly between the 1986 Parks and Library bonds. The Pritchard family also donated $100,000 for the development of a public park on the site. |
|
April 8, 1991 |
A Special Use Permit was approved by the Council, authorizing a 27,450 square foot library with 118 parking spaces. |
|
May 22, 1994 |
The Chapel Hill Library opened. |
|
June, 2007 |
The Community Design Commission and the Town Council reviewed a Concept Plan proposal to expand the Chapel Hill Library. |
|
June 27, 2007 |
The Council granted expedited processing for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Chapel Hill Public Library expansion. |
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
The Special Use Permit Modification application proposes to expand the current library building. The proposal includes 40,000 square feet of new floor area and 121 new parking spaces. The request also includes a conceptual plan for park improvements and public art display areas in Pritchard Park. The applicant is also proposing that the Council grant a modification to the building height regulations and building setback along Library Drive.
KEY ISSUES
We have identified several key issues concerning this application:
1. New Parking on Library Drive: The applicant proposes 14 new parking spaces, within the Library Drive public right-of-way, south of the library building. The Community Design Commission and Planning Board felt these proposed perpendicular parking spaces would create safety problems, and recommended they be deleted. Both Boards endorsed the resulting reduction in parking space number (242 less the 14 spaces, resulting in 228).
Comment: We too have concerns about the applicant’s proposal to create 14 perpendicular on-street parking spaces on Library Drive. We believe there will be limited visibility when drivers back out of parking spaces and into both travel lanes on Library Drive. Library Drive is a public street; the Town’s Design Standards do not permit perpendicular on-street parking. We recommend that this new proposed parking area on Library Drive be eliminated. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
We also believe that the parking needs described by the applicant are reasonable and that the proposed number of 242 total parking spaces is necessary. Therefore, we recommend that the loss of the 14 perpendicular spaces on Library Drive be off-set with additional compact parking spaces in the other parking areas. Resolution A includes this recommendation.
2. Separation of Pedestrian Path from the Road: Currently a concrete sidewalk is situated adjacent to the curb line along the entire west side length of Library Drive. An asphalt bike path, parallel and separated from this sidewalk by a 30-inch strip of grass, is also located along Library Drive. In order to enhance pedestrian safety, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that the pedestrian path be relocated away from Library Drive. The Board recommended that the applicant create a buffer (type and width unspecified) between the sidewalk and the roadway.
Comment: The applicant is not proposing any reconstruction of the bike or pedestrian paths south of the proposed parking on Library Drive.
North of the proposed Library Drive cross-walk, a new 10-foot wide bike/pedestrian path is proposed. This proposed path will veer away from Library Drive and continue around the south and west of the building, and terminate near the relocated main pedestrian entrance. This relocated bicycle path will provide alternate bike/pedestrian access away from auto traffic on Library Drive. We recommend the new bike/pedestrian path route and construction as proposed.
3. Modifications of the Regulations: The applicant is requesting the Council allow a 28-foot encroachment into the street setback on Library Drive. The applicant is also requesting that the Council modify the building height requirements for the building expansion.
Comment: For discussion on this issue, please refer to the section on Modifications to the Regulations.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS
1. Street Setback: Table 3.8-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a minimum street setback of 28 feet. At the southeast corner of the new building addition (southern), the applicant proposes pedestrian access to serve visitors entering the library’s southern entrance. The proposed stairs and associated retaining wall would encroach into the Library Drive street setback 28 feet.
Comment: We recommend a modification of the regulations to permit the applicant to construct these improvements in the proposed location. We believe the applicant’s request is a reasonable tradeoff for incorporating an entrance into the southern addition. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, because the proposed pedestrian improvements would enhance the public’s access to the library.
2. Building Height: Table 3.8-1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a maximum secondary building height in the Residential-1 zoning district of 40 feet. The applicant is proposing to exceed this maximum height by 12 feet in order to fit the building onto the hillside and to provide clerestory windows for daylighting the interior of the building.
Comment: We recommend this modification to the regulations. We believe the applicant’s request is reasonable in order to better fit the building additions to the existing topography, minimize land disturbance in the natural areas, and in order to provide daylighting to the interior of the building, thus saving energy. Regarding potential for negative impact on surrounding property owners, the applicant has stated that the taller portions of the building will be topographically situated in such a way that there is limited visibility of the building from offsite. (This portion of the building is approximately 240 feet from the nearest property line.) We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the proposed building design and height help obviate the need for further encroachment into natural areas on the site and would provide daylighting from the clerestory windows, which will help conserve energy.
Council Findings and Public Purpose: The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in this 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 alternatives are to comply with regulations or request a variance from regulations.
We believe that with respect to the applicant’s request to modify the regulations, the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is providing community facilities to meet the needs of the Town’s population.
PROCESS
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification 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 Modification 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, and modifies the regulations as proposed by the applicant, 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.
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, including the proposed modifications to the regulations, 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. 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 Modification. The four findings are:
Special Use Permit Modification – Required Findings of Fact
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;
Finding #2: That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;
Finding #3: That the use or development is 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; and
Finding #4: That the use or development conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.
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, our preliminary recommendation is that, with the requested modifications to the regulations, 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 October 30, 2007 and voted 5-1 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with the adoption of the resolution attached to the October 30 Planning Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: Resolution A prohibits the creation of new parking spaces with the Library Drive right-of-way. For additional discussion please refer to the Key Issues section of the memorandum.
Comment: Although Resolution A recommends removal of new parking on Library Drive, the number of recommended parking spaces remains at 242. For additional discussion please refer to the Key Issues section of the memorandum.
The Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on October 25, 2007 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with the adoption of the resolution attached to the October 25, 2007 memorandum with the following change:
Comment: Our initial recommendation, concerning the construct of new parking spaces within the Library Drive right-of-way, stipulated angled parking spaces instead of the perpendicular spaces proposed by the applicant. We are no longer recommending angled or parallel parking spaces in this location. For additional discussion on prohibiting new parking spaces within the Library Drive right-of-way, please refer to the Key Issues section of this memorandum.
Comment: Resolution A includes a stipulation that permits the applicant to design the parking areas with compact parking spaces and thereby maintain 242 parking spaces. For additional discussion please refer to the Key Issue section.
The Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to this memorandum.
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on October 24, 2007 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with the adoption of Resolution A, as attached to the October 24, 2007 Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: Resolution includes this recommendation. Please refer to the Key Issue section for additional information.
Comment: The applicant has submitted information justifying the 242 parking spaces. Based on our analysis, and considering the additional information submitted by the applicant, we recommend that the approval of the Chapel Hill Library Special Use Permit Modification authorize 242 parking spaces based on a proposed land use of a town park, Public Cultural Facility with 59,000 square feet of floor area, and a Place of Assembly with 284 seats. Resolution A recommends 242 parking spaces.
Comment: The Community Design Commission cited safety concerns relative to turning radii in the proposed parking lot near the Siena Hotel. It recommended creation of a one-way circulation pattern as a way to reduce awkward turning movements. We have reexamined the parking lot design, whose triangular shape is dictated by close proximity to the Resource Conservation District (RCD) to the south and the required landscape buffer to the east. The applicant notes that the proposed drive aisle widths at the internal corners will adequately accommodate turning movements, while minimizing site disturbance and impervious surface. Resolution A does not include the recommendation to include one-way vehicular circulation in this parking lot.
Regarding the recommendation of a book drop in this parking area, we understand that there are operational concerns with such a remote location. We understand that this issue will be addressed in a Town-as-owner memorandum to the Town Council for its January 14, 2008 business meeting.
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 October 23, 2007 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with the adoption of the resolution attached to the October 23, 2007 Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: We believe that off-site signage directing the public to the library site is a reasonable recommendation. We have included in Resolution A a stipulation calling for approval of a signage plan for directing the public to the library site, including signage on East Franklin Street.
Comment: We believe that bicycle parking at the lower building entrance would help serve the bicycling library staff and patrons. Resolution A includes a stipulation calling for bike racks at the lower building entrance.
Comment: Resolution A does not include this Recommendation. Please refer to the Key Issus section of this memorandum for additional information.
The Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to this memorandum.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission met on October 17, 2007 and unanimously voted to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with the adoption of Resolution A, as attached to the October 17, 2007 Advisory Board memorandum, with the following change:
Comment: Resolution A includes this recommendation. See discussion under Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Board section above.
The Summary of the Parks and Recreation Commission Action is attached to this memorandum.
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission reviewed this application on October 24, 2007 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification, with the adoption of Resolution A, as attached in the October 24, 2007 Advisory board memorandum, with the following changes:
Comment: Resolution A includes this recommendation. See discussion under the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Board section above.
Comment: We anticipate this will be addressed in a Town-as-owner memorandum to the Town Council for its January 14, 2008 business meeting.
Comment: Resolution A does not include this recommendation, but rather includes a stipulation that permits the applicant to design the parking areas with compact parking spaces and thereby maintain 242 parking spaces. For additional discussion please refer to the Key Issue section.
Comment: We anticipate this will be addressed in a Town-as-owner memorandum to the Town Council for its January 14, 2008 business meeting.
The Summary of the Greenways Commission Action is attached to this memorandum.
Public Arts Commission: The Public Arts Commission will meet on November 14, 2007. Comments will be made available at the January 14, 2008 Town Council business meeting.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the request for a Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of Resolution A.
Following review by the Town’s Advisory Boards, the following changes have been incorporated in Resolution A:
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 Chapel Hill Library Special Use Permit Modification, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A. Resolution B would deny the application.
CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY
SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION
Differences between Recommendations
|
ISSUE |
Staff’s Preliminary |
Planning Board |
Bike/Ped Board |
Transportation Board |
Parks & Rec Commission |
Community Design |
Greenways Commission |
Public Arts Commission |
|
New parking spaces Library Dr |
No |
No |
* |
Yes – as angled parking only
|
* |
No |
* |
The PAC will discuss at its 11/14/07 meeting and a copy of the meeting summary will be provided as soon as it is available |
|
Parking space number |
242 |
228 |
* |
242 |
* |
228 |
*
|
|
|
Off-site signage for bicyclists and pedestrian |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
|
Add bike parking lower level |
Yes |
* |
Yes
|
* |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
|
|
Separate ped path from road |
No |
* |
Yes |
*
|
* |
* |
* |
|
|
Future RCD disturbance for stream restoration & greenway |
Not applicable to this permit
|
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
|
Pedestrian path as part of greenway system |
Not applicable to this permit |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
|
Southern parking lot one-way, with book drop |
No |
* |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
* not discussed at meeting
ATTACHMENTS
