AGENDA #1b

memorandum

to:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator
subject:	Public Hearing: Orange United Methodist Church, 1220 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Special Use Permit Modification
date:	February 18, 2008

INTRODUCTION

Attached for your consideration is a proposal for a Special Use Permit Modification to allow a 57,000 square-foot addition and 188 new parking spaces, to the existing Orange United Methodist Church located at 1220 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Accompanying this application is an application to rezone a portion of the 16-acre site from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-3-C (R-3-C). The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9880-20-9389 and 9880-30-2035.

DISCUSSION

During staff and advisory board review we identified five key issues related to this project:

1. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Landscape Buffer: In May 2007, the Council endorsed the recommendations of the NC 86/Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Corridor/ Town-wide Pedestrian Safety Evaluation Study. We are coordinating with NCDOT to implement the adopted recommendations of the Pedestrian Safety Implementation Study.

At its December 18, 2007 meeting, the Planning Board discussed how the goals of the NC 86 Corridor Study could be implemented through the Orange United Methodist Church plan. The Planning Board recommended that the Council consider relocation of the existing sidewalk, north of the Homestead Road/main entrance driveway (in part because no specimen trees exist along this portion of the site’s frontage).

Comment: The NC 86 Corridor Study provides two potential sidewalk design options:

1) a sidewalk separated from the roadway with landscaping and street trees, or

2) landscaping and larger shade trees at the back of the sidewalk.

Typically, the staff recommendation is for option 1, which provides a more extensive buffer between pedestrians and the roadway. However, the staff acknowledges that in situations of limited right-of-way or other topographical vegetative limitations, the second option is acceptable. The Orange United Methodist Church frontage includes several large specimen trees along its Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. frontage, between the parking lot and the sidewalk. For this reason, and the fact that option 1 would require moving the existing parking lot as well as building(s), the staff finds option 2 to be acceptable, along the portion of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd between the southern property line and Homestead Road. The applicant is proposing and Resolution A includes a stipulation for additional landscaping along this section of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Because of concerns regarding proximity to existing overhead utilities, we have not incorporated the recommendation for sidewalk relocation or additional landscaping north of the main driveway entrance into Resolution A.

2. Park/Ride Lot: The Planning Board asked that the Council encourage the applicant to consider a park/ride facility at this location.

Comment: We recommend that the staff continue to study this option, taking into consideration issues such as the proximity of the location to the Town Center/University main campus, potential coordination with bus-rapid-transit, and the recommendations of the Long Range Transit Plan for park/ride facility locations. Resolution A does not include language authorizing a park/ride lot.

3. Erosion Control: At the December 18, 2007 Planning Board meeting, a citizen expressed concerns about the potential impact of erosion on Lake Ellen, and spoke about the increases in silt in the lake over the past several years. He asked about bonding and strengthening erosion control measures.

Comment: These concerns were forwarded to the Orange County Erosion Control office. The information provided by Orange County staff in response included the description that sediment traps are proposed to be used during construction, using a top-down de-watering device (skimmer). Lab tests at NC State and Penn State have shown these traps to capture around 98% of the sediment, versus around 50% for “conventional” traps. The site’s permanent stormwater locations to control peak flow would be used in the construction phase as sediment traps and only converted to a stormwater function when the site is stabilized and has no exposed soil to generate sediment.

According to Orange County Erosion Control staff, several changes have occurred in the State Code in the past few years, strengthening erosion control regulations. These changes include stabilization measures, ground cover requirements and stormwater outlet protections. Resolution A includes our standard erosion control-related stipulations.

4. Tree Replacement: The plans call for the removal of approximately 24 rare and specimen trees including approximately ten in an area of open space between the two proposed building additions. The applicant has indicated that the installation of stormwater facilities necessitate the removal of trees just to the east of the Fellowship Center.

Comment: The applicant is proposing to replant the area of tree removal with 2” caliper maples, ashes, and honey locusts. The applicant has indicated that the trees in the area between the two proposed buildings must be removed in order to revise grades and extend the existing drainage system that serves Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and properties to the north and west of Orange United Methodist Church. This stormwater system extension necessitates the removal of trees just to the east of the Orange United Methodist Church’s Fellowship Center. The grove directly behind the existing church structures is also proposed to be removed for building expansion, parking, and stormwater improvements.

In light of the extensive tree removal, we recommend that the final landscape plan replace the proposed 2-inch caliper trees with a minimum of 3-inch caliper trees. We also recommend that the revised plans provide a larger diversity of canopy trees, including two more native species of oaks. Resolution A includes these conditions.

5. Modification of Regulations: The applicant is requesting the Council modify the parking landscaping standard requirement to allow a small portion of the parking lot which does not meet the parking lot landscaping requirement.

Comment: For discussion on this issue, please refer to the section on Modifications to the Regulations, below.

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS

Parking Lot Landscaping: As proposed, the Special Use Permit Modification application does not comply with the parking landscaping standard (Section 5.9.6(a)) of the Land Use Management Ordinance, which requires a five-foot buffer strip between parking facilities and the exterior wall of a structure. In the rear of the proposed Worship Building, a portion of the parking lot does not meet the parking lot landscaping requirement due to a proposed small retaining wall. The applicant proposed a landscaped courtyard between the retaining wall and the building, to provide screening.

Comment: We recommend that the Council modify the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance regarding screening between the parking and the building. For additional information, please refer to the attached request for modification from the applicant.

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. 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 exceeding the parking lot screening requirement in other areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning Board: The Planning Board met on December 18, 2007 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:

Revised Construction Start/Completion Date: That stipulation #1 be revised from “construction begin by two years from approval date” to “construction begin by four years from approval date”and revised from “completed 14 years from approval date” to “completed 15 years from approval date.”

Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.

Correction to Staff Error: That stipulation #2 be modified to 267 parking spaces, to correct a staff error in the Planning Board memo.

Comment: This correction has been made to Resolution A.

Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on December 19, 2007 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd Landscape Buffer: That the sidewalk north of the main driveway entrance be relocated to allow trees between the sidewalk and the street.

Comment: See discussion under Discussion section, above.

Revised Construction Start/Completion Date

Comment: This change has been made. Please see description under Planning Board Recommendation.

Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on January 10, 2008 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:

Revised Construction Start/Completion Date

Comment: Please see description under Planning Board Recommendation. This change has been made to Resolution A.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on January 29, 2008 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of the Resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum with the following changes:

Additional Sidewalk Connection: That the applicant construct a sidewalk across the eastern-most parking lot planting island/bio-retention area to provide improved pedestrian circulation.

Comment: We believe that a sidewalk in the proposed location would interfere with the bio-retention area, and have therefore not added it to Resolution A.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd Landscape Buffer: That the sidewalk north of the main driveway entrance be relocated to allow trees between the sidewalk and the street.

Comment: See discussion under Key Issues.

Staff Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend approval of Resolution A, if the rezoning is approved.

Following Advisory Board review, the following changes have been incorporated into Resolution A:

Revised Construction Start/Completion Date
Correction to Number of Parking Spaces

Resolution B would deny the application.

A copy of a matrix comparing the differences between the above recommendations is included at the end of this memorandum.

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 modification 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.

Orange United Methodist Church Special Use Permit Modification

DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUES	Staff’s Preliminary	Planning Board	Community Design Commission	Transportation Board	Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Board
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Buffer	No change to applicant’s plan	*	North of main driveway entrance - trees between sidewalk and street	*	Buffer as shown on NC 86 Sidewalk Plan
Construction Date	That construction begin by four years from, and completed 15 years from approval date	That construction begin by four years from, and completed 15 years from approval date	That construction begin by four years from, and completed 15 years from approval date	That construction begin by four years from, and completed 15 years from approval date	*
Sidewalk Connection	No change to applicant’s plan	*	*	*	Construct a sidewalk across the eastern-most parking lot planting island/bio-retention area

* = Issues not recommended, and therefore not included in the Resolution

ATTACHMENTS

Staff Report (p. 9).
Resolution A (Preliminary Recommendation) (p. 20).
Resolution B (Denying the Application) (p. 28).
Planning Board Summary of Action (p. 29).
Applicant’s Response to Planning Board Meeting (PDF) (p. 30).
Community Design Commission Summary of Action (p. 32).
Transportation Board Summary of Action (PDF) (p. 33).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action (p. 34).
Town Council 11/14/05 Concept Plan Review Minutes, and Applicant’s Response (PDF) (p. 35).
Community Design Commission 9/28/05 Concept Plan Review Summary and Applicant’s Response (p. 40).
Applicant’s Description of Differences between Concept Plan and Special Use Permit Modification Applications (PDF) (p. 42).
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Executive Summary, January 2007 (PDF) (p. 44).
Original Traffic Impact Analysis Recommendations, May 2006 (PDF) (p. 50).
Stream Determination Letter (PDF) (p. 58).
2002 Special Use Permit Resolution (PDF) (p. 64).
Project Fact Sheet (PDF)(p. 67).
Statement of Justification (PDF) (p. 70).
Request for Modification from the Regulations (PDF) (p. 75).
Applicant’s Energy Management Commitment (p. 76).
Area Map (p. 77).
Reduced Plans (PDF) (p. 78).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (February 18, 2008)

Staff PowerPoint Presentation [4.2 MB pdf]
Applicant PowerPoint Presentation [3.8 MB pdf]