MEMORANDUM

 

 

TO:

Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM:

J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director

Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator

SUBJECT:

Chapel Hill Public Library – Special Use Permit Modification Application

(File No. 9789-94-5308)

DATE:

January 14, 2008

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from November 12, 2007 for the Chapel Hill Public Library Special Use Permit Modification Application to expand the library and increase parking on the existing site on the northwest side of Estes Drive.   The request also includes a conceptual plan for park improvements and public art display areas in Pritchard Park.

 

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

 

  • Cover Memorandum:  Provides background on the development proposal, discusses key issues, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, offers recommendations for Council action, and includes resolutions of approval and denial.

 

  • Accompanying Elements:   Accompanying this memorandum is a memorandum from the applicant (the Town as owner).    Supplemental Transportation Board recommendations, as requested by the Council, will be distributed to Council when they are available.

 

KEY ISSUES

 

Several key issues were raised at the November 12, 2008 Public Hearing relating to the following:

 

These issues are more appropriately addressed to the applicant (the Town as owner).  Please refer to the discussion in the accompanying owner’s memorandum.

 

In addition, issues were raised which can be addressed by the Town as regulator:

 

1.  Application of Public Transportation Payment Legislation to this Project:  A Council member asked if legislation regarding public transportation payments could or should be applied to this project.

 

Comment:  We note that the staff is currently evaluating the special legislation enacted regarding public transportation payments.  A report to the Council about the process to implement the legislation is anticipated in January.  Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines have not yet been revised to incorporate the legislation.  

 

2.  Additional Transit Route through Library Site:  During advisory board review and the public hearing, there were calls for improved transit service to the library.  The prospect was raised of future additional transit routing through the site.

 

Staff Comment:  We note that the currently proposed site design does not preclude such a connection in the future. 

 

Decisions regarding transit routing, as well as funding of necessary road construction and improvements for new transit routes, involve review by the Town’s Transportation Board, the Transit Partners Group (transportation representatives from UNC, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill), the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, and other parties.  

 

Because the Town owns the library site, the Council could direct staff and the Transportation Board to study the prospect of a northern transit route on the library site.  If and when a northern route is deemed desirable, subsequent review by notified neighbors, the Partners Group, and MPO could take place; funding decisions made; and the transit route constructed.   Because of timing and funding issues, we recommend this process take place independent of the Special Use Permit process for the library. 

 

Relative to the Special Use Permit Modification now under review, we have included a stipulation in Resolution A clarifying that future design, construction, and use of a transit connection through the library site would not necessitate further modification of the Special Use Permit.

 

3.  Traffic Signal on Estes Drive, at the end of Library Drive:  A Council member asked staff to look into the possibility of installing a traffic signal at the Library Drive intersection with Estes Drive.

 

Comment:  The findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicate that the traffic generated by the library expansion does not warrant a traffic signal at the intersection of Estes Drive and Library Drive. However, the study recommended monitoring the intersection of Library Drive and Estes Drive, suggesting that a traffic signal would improve the overall operations on the corridor and provide safe crossing for pedestrians.

 

We believe that the library expansion offers an opportunity to look broadly at pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, and bus traffic patterns in the area. We recommend that the applicant design and install a traffic signal with pedestrian amenities and bicycle activated loops at the intersection of Estes Drive and Library Drive, subject to the review and approval of N.C. Department of Transportation and the Town Manager. We also recommend that the design of the traffic signal include the development of coordinated traffic signal timing plans for the following intersections:

 

 

We continue to include a stipulation to this effect in revised Resolution A.

 

4. ADA Compliance:  A Council member asked for assurance that people with disabilities would be able to use the lower building entrance.

 

Comment:  Please see the attached owner’s memorandum for a detailed response on how access for the disabled is provided at the two building entrances. 

 

From a regulator’s standpoint, we note that the proposal meets ADA requirements by providing seven handicap spaces, including two van spaces, within 200 feet of the primary building entrance, close to where most visitor services are provided.  Two additional handicap spaces will be located within 250 feet of the primary building entrance.  At the lower entrance, another handicap van space is proposed.

 

In the revised Resolution A, we have adjusted Stipulation #18 to clarify that handicap access will be provided from the Library Drive sidewalk to the lower building entrance.

 

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.

 

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

 

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:

 

“The new work at the library will [be] located and designed so as to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in that it is being designed to be added to the existing facility.  This addition will allow for the preservation of other natural areas, and will keep a compact design on a large, wooded site.  Also, the layout utilizes the flattest areas on the site for the parking lot expansion.  The additions for parking areas are adjacent to existing pavement and walkways in areas cleared in the initial stages of construction.

 

A new traffic study is being performed at the existing entrance drive in order to evaluate the need to add a signal, if warranted and permitted by NCDOT.”  [Applicant’s Statement] 

 

Evidence in opposition:  During the public hearing, the Council received information expressing concern about bicycle and transit access to and through the site.  For additional information on this issue, please refer to the Key Issue section of the accompanying owner’s memorandum.

 

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 point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

 

“This project will comply with all applicable provisions and regulations of Articles 3 and 5, except the following:  Primary and Secondary Heights.  The new building will rise up to approximately 57’ in height in order to work into the existing grade of the site and to provide a multi-story facility that limits impacts to the site.  The existing ordinance for this site and the R-1 zoning states that secondary height may be no more than 40‘ and the primary height 29’l (sic).  The primary height is 37” (sic) and therefore it is 8’ above the ordinance.

 

Some existing steep slopes on the site exceed 25%.  The project will disturb 20.8% of the 25% and greater slopes, as shown on sheet SA-2.  All work in the area will be in compliance with the development ordinance for steep slopes.”   [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.

 

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 addition to the Chapel Hill Public Library is a public necessity.  The library provides the community with cultural and educational opportunities.  The project also includes four new meeting rooms to be available for community use.”  [Applicant’s Statement]

 

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 Library expansion addresses the Comprehensive Plan as follows:

  1. The proposed addition to the library encourages the economic development goals expressed in the plan in that it provides for “institutional employees of medium scale” located in a transit services area.
  2. The proposed addition will incorporate sustainable development elements, such as daylighting, energy-efficient systems, recycling, reuse of materials, etc. so as to achieve a LEED’s Silver Certification.
  3. The proposed addition is designed to promote environmental sensitivity by utilizing already cleared areas and areas with flatter slopes for the majority of the site expansion.
  4. The proposed addition and the associated sitework will incorporate state-of-the-art treatment for stormwater runoff to minimize the effects of the development on the site.
  5. The proposed building addition takes advantage of the existing system of pedestrian access and walkways so that routes are tied to existing trails throughout the park and to a future greenway system.
  6. Pedestrian paths and trails and conveniently located bike racks are shown on the plan to promote alternate means of transportation to the site.
  7. Energy efficiency requirements are being made to meet standards for reductions in carbon emissions.”   [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 original recommendations of the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and the Parks and Recreation Commission are summarized in the comparison chart and are included in the November 12, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum.  A copy of the November 12, 2007 memorandum may be viewed at the following web page link:  http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2007/11/12

 

At the Public Hearing, the Council directed the Transportation Board to review and comment on a number of transit-related concerns raised.  The Transportation Board will meet on January 10, 2008 to review these issues.  The Revised Summary of Transportation Board Action will be distributed to the Council when it is available.

 

Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A. 

 

Since the Public Hearing, the following have been incorporated into revised Resolution A:

 

 

 

 

Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, we believe that the proposed Special Use Permit Modification 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.

 

CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY

SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION

Differences between Recommendations

 

ISSUE

Staff’s Revised

Planning Board

Bicycle/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 chose not to review this application

Parking space

number

 

242

 

228

 

*

 

242

 

*

 

228

 

*

 

Off-site signage for bicyclists,  pedestrians

 

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 part of greenway system

Not applicable to this permit

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

Yes

Southern parking lot one-way, with book drop

 

No

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

Yes

 

*

8 additional bicycle parking spaces

 

 

Yes

 

 

*

 

 

*

 

 

*

 

 

*

 

 

*

 

 

*

 

ADA access at lower entrance

 

Yes

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

Book drop, unspecified location

 

Yes

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

Specified lower lot

 

 

*

 

Future transit route possible, without another SUP Mod

 

Yes

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (January 14, 2008)

  1. Adopted (2008-01-14/R-13a) as Amended.
  2. Staff PowerPoint Presentation [8.3 MB pdf]
  3. Transportation Board Summary of Action