|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Manager |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: UNC South Electrical Substation, Old 120 Mason Farm Road, Special Use Permit Modification Application (File No. 9788-54-5304) |
|
DATE: |
May 12, 2008 |
INTRODUCTION
Attached for consideration is an application from the University of North Carolina for a Special Use Permit Modification which proposes to upgrade the University’s electrical substation at 120 Old Mason Farm Road. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-54-5304.
In 1981, the Town Council approved a Special Use Permit for an electrical substation for the university on a 1.2 acre portion of a larger university-owned tract.
On April 4, 2004 the applicant submitted a Concept Plan proposal for the Special Use Permit Modification to upgrade the University’s substation. Comments from the Community Design Commission review (April 21, 2004) and the Council’s review (June 21, 2004) are attached.
The proposed upgrade of the University’s electrical equipment entails construction of a 1,980 square foot building to house the equipment.
The site is located east of the Fordham Boulevard/Mason Farm Road intersection, north of the NC Botanical Gardens, west of the OWASA sewage treatment center, and across Mason Farm Road from the Ronald McDonald House and the Family House. The site is in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district, in the Watershed Protection District, and partially within the Resource Conservation District and 100-year floodplain.
1. Landscape Bufferyard Planting in Coordination with OWASA: An existing berm along Old Mason Farm Road contains a 30-foot OWASA sewer easement. Typically, all landscaping must be 15 feet away from the existing sanitary sewer lines. OWASA has indicated it intends to abandon its lines within the berm at some point in the near future. The location of new plantings will depend in part upon whether the sewer lines are still active and the 15-foot “no plant” zone is still in effect at the time of landscape installation. The Planning Board recommended that the new plantings be approved by and coordinated with OWASA, if the sewer lines are still active at the time of planting.
An additional complication is that an 18-foot “no planting” zone around the electrical substation between the security fence and the base of the berm is imposed to prevent vegetation interference with electrical equipment.
If the OWASA lines are still active and the 15-foot “no plant” zone is still in effect at time of landscaping, this constraint, in combination with the electrical “no plant” zone will result in a strip about 9 feet wide available for planting for an Alternative Type C along Mason Farm Road.
The applicant proposes to provide additional plantings on the berm to augment existing plantings and to thin aging pine trees that no longer contribute to an effective screen.
Comment: We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that calls for the Community Design Commission to review and approve an Alternative Buffer, if one is needed, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This stipulation also calls for approval by and coordination with OWASA on the planting of the buffer.
2. Modifications of Regulations: The applicant is requesting the Council modify the regulations pertaining to parking lot landscaping.
Comment: For discussion on this issue, please refer to the section on Modifications of the Regulations below.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS
Modification to the Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements: The Special Use Permit application does not comply with Sections 5.6.7 and 5.9.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance regarding parking lot landscaping requirements. The applicant is asking for modification to the regulations with respect to the parking lot shading, screening, and installation of a landscaped strip separating the parking area from the new building.
Comment: Staff considered the circumstances, the intent of landscaping requirements, and the nature of the development. The substation site will be partially screened by a landscaped buffer and berm along the Old Mason Farm Road frontage, and the new substation building will be located between the 3 proposed parking spaces and the road frontage, effectively screening the parking from most view angles from the road. In addition, only three service vehicles can be accommodated on the site at a given time, and service visits are expected to be infrequent. We recommend approval of the applicant’s request to modify the regulations to exclude parking lot landscaping requirements.
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. The Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. We believe that with respect to the applicant’s request to modify the parking lot landscaping regulations, the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because parking at the site will be infrequent, and because the new building, the existing berm, and landscaping (both proposed and existing) will screen the parking of service vehicles from views from Mason Farm Road,
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on April 15, 2008 and voted 8-0 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 change:
Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A. Please refer to the Discussion Section for additional information.
A copy of the Planning Board Summary of Action is attached.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on April 24, 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.
A copy of the Transportation Board Summary of Action is attached.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on April 22, 2008 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum.
A copy of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action is attached.
Greenways Commission Recommendation: The Greenways Commission reviewed this application on April 23, 2008 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of the resolution attached to the Advisory Board memorandum.
A copy of the Greenways Commission Summary of Action is attached.
A copy of the Community Design Commission Summary of Action is attached.
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 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 assessment 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.
UNC South Electrical Substation Special Use Permit Modification
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Preliminary |
Planning Board |
Community Design Commission |
Greenways Commission |
Transportation Board |
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board |
|
Coordination of bufferyard plantings with OWASA |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
