AGENDA #2b
to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator
subject: Public Hearing: Residences at Grove Park at 425 Hillsborough Street, Special Use Permit (File No. 9788-39-4841)
date: March 10, 2008
Attached for your consideration is an application from Ram Development Company for a Special Use Permit to allow redevelopment of an existing multi-family development with 492,634 square feet of floor area, including 346 dwelling units and 580 parking spaces on a 12.9-acres site. The site is located between Hillsborough Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and is adjacent to North Hampton Terrace. The property is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9788-39-4841, 9788-39-4857, 9788-49-1706, and 9788-49-4924.
This application is not allowable under the current regulations. In order to create an environment in which it is allowable, the developer has proposed new a zoning district and rezoning. Approval of this proposal will require approval of the request to create a new zoning district and approval of the rezoning application, both described in the attached memoranda.
During staff and advisory board review we identified six key issues related to this project:
1. Cross-access Pedestrian Path: Staff has recommended that a pedestrian connection be provided to the adjacent properties on the north and south. At the Community Design Commission and Planning Board meetings, the adjoining property owner (Central Park Condominiums) and neighbors along Hillsborough Street voiced concerns that these proposed pedestrian connections to the south could increase trespassing and vandalism.
Comment: Currently, residents from Town House Apartments and the immediate neighborhood walk across the Central Park Condominium property to access stairs to Cobb Terrace. Residents also walk within an OWASA easement to access E. Rosemary Street and downtown. At the Planning Board meeting, residents from Cobb Terrace and Hillsborough Street complained of trespassing and vandalism, caused by individuals using these informal paths. Attached to this memorandum is an aerial photo identifying these informal pedestrian paths.
The owner of Central Park Condominiums also voiced concern that denser development could increase trespassing and vandalism and recommended replacing the existing chain link fence with a brick wall to prohibit passage. For additional comment on the request for a brick wall, please refer to the following discussion on replacing the fence.
The applicant is proposing a greenway easement for north/south pedestrian cross-access through the Resource Conservation District. We are discussing with the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department staff possible future locations for pedestrian access between this site and Cobb Terrace/Rosemary Street. We anticipate that the Greenways Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission will discuss this issue at upcoming meetings. We will bring forward the Commissions’ recommendations when they are available. The Greenways Commission met February 27, 2008 and the Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on March 19, 2008.
2. Replacing Fence on adjoining property: The adjacent neighbor on the south (Central Park Condominiums) requested that the applicant construct a brick wall along the shared property line. We understand that the existing chain link fence on the adjacent property has been damaged and replaced several times.
Comment: Comments were presented to the Planning Board indicating that trespassing and vandalism are a problem for neighbors south of Central Park Condominiums and along Hillsborough Street. We do not recommend a stipulation requiring this developer to replace/construct the fence along the southern property line. We have not included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring a fence.
3. Affordable Housing: The Council has adopted a resolution stating an expectation that rezoning applications be accompanied with a Special Use Permit application that will provide 15 percent of the units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households. The applicant has proposed to satisfy the 15 percent affordable units by providing 52 affordable bedrooms with a mix of one and two bedroom units.
Comment: Rather than provide 52 affordable dwelling units (15% of the 346 units), the applicant’s proposal would provide 52 affordable bedrooms with a mix of one and two bedroom units. On February 21, 2008 the applicant met with Town staff and staff from the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust to discuss an affordable housing plan that includes a mix of one and two bedroom units. The Town staff and the Land Trust recommend the applicant’s plan to create a mix of one and two bedroom units. We recommend that these affordable units be disbursed evenly throughout the condominium buildings. In addition, we recommend that the applicant implement a transfer fee policy for market rate homes. We believe that the transfer fee will help to ensure the continued affordability for the bedroom units. The Land Trust is working with the applicant to develop the specific terms of a Transfer Fee Fund for this project that would be used to subsidize the affordable units. The staff and the Land Trust recommend that the applicant enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Land Trust, the Town and the applicant to govern the use of such a fund. Resolution A includes stipulations to this affect.
Water Meters on Individual Dwelling Units: At the Community Design Commission meeting, it was recommended that a stipulation be included in Resolution A requiring that each dwelling unit have its own water meter to monitor water usage.
Comment: OWASA does not recommend individual water meters for each dwelling unit. OWASA noted that special plumbing needs make the system infeasible. Alternatively, OWASA recommended a sub-metering system that allows individual dwelling unit responsibility for paying their water bill separately and thus provides some incentive for a user/customer to conserve. We have included our standard stipulation which requires OWASA approval of the proposal. Resolution A also includes a stipulation requiring a sub-metering system.
5. Construction Completion Deadline: The applicant has requested an extension to the standard construction completion date from four to seven years.
Comment: Our standard recommendation to the Advisory Boards included a stipulation that construction begin within two years from Council approval and be completed within four years of Council approval. The Town’s Traffic Engineer has indicated that a 7-year construction completion deadline, as requested by the applicant, will require the applicant to update the Traffic Impact Analysis for a 2015 build-out. We believe that the Traffic Impact Analysis can be updated by the applicant prior to the Public Hearing consideration by the Town Council. The applicant is working with the Town’s Traffic Engineer to update the Traffic Impact Analysis. We will provide the update information when it is available.
6. Modifications to the Regulations: The applicant is requesting that the Council approve modifications to Section 3.6.3(f)(1)) of the Land Use Management Ordinance: 1) additional impervious surface in the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District, and 2) additional land disturbance in the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District.
Comment: For discussion on this issue, please refer to the section on Modifications to the Regulations.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS
Council Findings and Public Purpose: The Council has the ability to modify regulations in particular circumstances, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance if they make a finding in a particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or lesser degree. 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 alternative is to comply with regulations or request a variance.
Impervious Surface in the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District: As proposed, the Special Use Permit application does not comply with the impervious surface area allowed in the Upland Zone of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Table 3.6.3(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a Disturbance Area Ratio for the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District of .20. This proposal contains 46,335 square feet of land area inside the Upland Zone. Using the .20 Impervious Surface Ratio, a maximum of 9,267 square feet of impervious surface is allowed. The applicant proposes 23,676 square feet of impervious surface area for driveway improvements. The applicant proposes to remove an existing driveway from the more environmentally critical Managed Use Zone of the Resource Conservation District and relocate it further from Mill Race Branch within the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District.
Land Disturbance in the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District: As proposed, the Special Use Permit application does not comply with the land disturbance limitations inside the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Table 3.6.3(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a Disturbed Area Ratio of .40 for the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District. This proposal contains 46,335 square feet of land area inside the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District. Using the .40 Disturbance Area Ratio, a maximum disturbed area of 18,534 square feet of land area is allowed. The applicant proposes 37,955 square feet of land disturbance for improvements to the driveway and sidewalk. The applicant proposes to relocate the driveway further from Mill Race Branch within the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District. The application proposes dual egress to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. increased sight visibility and a separate sidewalk to improve safety for pedestrians.
Comment: We recommend both modifications of the regulations. We believe the applicant’s request to increase the impervious surface and land disturbance beyond what the Land Use Management Ordinance will allow construction of wider driveway with sidewalk for increased pedestrian and vehicular safety, improve emergency access with wider turning radii, and protect and enhance the sensitive environmental area within the Resource Conservation District by replacement of existing impervious surface with earth and relocating the driveway further from the environmentally critical area of Mill Race Branch. We believe that the Council could modify the regulations in this case by making the finding that public purposes would be served, because pedestrian, vehicular, and emergency improvements are proposed and because a sensitive environmental area would be enhanced by removing asphalt and replacing it with earth.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board: The Planning Board met on February 19, 2008 and tabled the recommendation to the March 4, 2008 Planning Board meeting. We will provide the Planning Board’s recommendation when it is available.
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on February 20, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of the Resolution A with the following changes:
Comment: We have not included a stipulation in Resolution A for a fence along the south property line. For additional information, please refer to the Discussion section in this memorandum.
Comment: Resolution A includes a stipulation requesting a sub-metering system. For information on this recommendation pleases refer to the Discussion section in this memorandum.
Comment: Residents in the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District and along Hillsborough Street expressed concerns about construction traffic on Hillsborough Street. Pedestrian safety, vehicular ingress and egress out of driveways, and noise were mentioned as concerns. We recommend that except for construction associated with improvements within the Hillsborough Street right-of-way and Martin Luther King Jr. driveway, that construction traffic, including deliveries and machinery, be prohibited from Hillsborough Street. This recommendation has been incorporated into the Construction Management Plan stipulation in Resolution A.
A copy of the Summary of Community Design Commission Action is attached.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on February 26, 2008. We will provide the Board’s recommendation when it is available.
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission met on February 27, 2008. We will provide the Commission’s recommendation when it is available.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on March 19, 2008 following the Public Hearing on March 10. We will provide the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation when it is available.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board will meet on March 13, 2008. We will provide the Board’s recommendation when it is available.
Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation: Following advisory board review of the Special Use Permit application, the following items are included in Resolution A:
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 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, and modifies the regulations as proposed by the applicant, 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, including the proposed modification to the regulations with the conditions included in Resolution A complies with the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, and Design Manual, if the new zoning district is created and if the property is rezoned to the new district.
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. The four findings are:
|
Special Use Permit – 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.
Residences at Grove Park Special Use Permit
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Community Design Commission |
|
Installation of new Fence on S. property line
|
No |
Yes |
|
Water Meters on indiv. condo unit
|
No (sub-meters instead) |
Yes |
|
Prohibit Construction Traffic on Hillsborough St.
|
Yes (except for work in the right-of-way) |
Yes |
ATTACHMENTS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (March 10, 2008)
