MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
SUBJECT:	UNC South Electrical Substation, 120 Old Mason Farm Road, Special Use Permit Modification Application (File No. 9788-54-5304)
DATE:	June 9, 2008

INTRODUCTION

Adoption of the attached resolution would approve a Special Use Permit Modification for upgrading the University’s electrical substation on the east side of Fordham Boulevard, on the south side of Old Mason Farm Road, next to the North Carolina Botanical Garden. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9788-54-5304.

BACKGROUND

At the May 12, 2008 public hearing on this application, there were no issues raised by the Town Council or by citizens. Therefore, we have made no changes to the conditions of approval in Resolution A.

Recommendations

Staff Recommendation: As no issues were raised at the public hearing, we continue to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application with the adoption of Resolution A as presented at the public hearing.

PROCESS

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued public hearing 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 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). Additional evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, 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

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. 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 points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“No permanent additional vehicular traffic will be generated as a result of the South Substation Upgrade project….It is anticipated that the new equipment included in this project will result in fewer visits per week, and, therefore, slightly reduced traffic flow in and out of the site.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Existing graveled area on the site will scraped to remove the gravel and over-seeded with grass to provide natural filter areas for surface drainage and increase surface percolation.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“….the plan has been designed to minimize adverse environmental and flooding effects on the RCD. …With no net increase in impervious surface area and no net increase in runoff rates, stormwater mitigation is no longer required.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“The new replacement electrical transformers will be gas-insulated and enclosed within a building which will lengthen their expected longevity and reduce risk of potential failure due to unpredictable environmental conditions.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

Finding #2: That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“Improvements planned for this project are consistent with the existing Special Use Permit approved for the site. All requirements for driveway access, planted screenings and landscape buffers, setbacks, building heights and other zoning regulations will be met in development of the site. All of the existing exterior-mounted electrical equipment presently on the site will be re-installed inside the new Substation building thus improving the appearance of the existing site.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.

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;

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“The OWASA water treatment plant is adjacent to the property on the east and the UNC Botanical Gardens is adjacent to the property on the west. The Ronald McDonald House and the Family House, serving UNC Hospitals, are across Old Mason Farm Road, north of the site. The new building planned for the site will be built with slopes, gable roofs to match the appearance, scale and character of the surrounding buildings.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“The South Substation is a public necessity. This substation currently serves as the sole source of electrical power for large areas of the University campus and all of the UNC Hospitals and will remain the primary source even when other ductbank projects are completed.” [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 to 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 South Substation site is zoned R-1. The planned improvements for the existing facilities on this site are permitted with a Special Use Permit and are therefore in conformance with the general plans for the physical development of the Town. The proposed improvements do not alter the character of the site, existing site grading has not been significantly altered, the use of the site as an Electrical Substation has not changed, and mitigation measures are in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.”[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 AND RECOMMENDATION

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, we believe that, with the requested modifications to the regulations, the Council could make the four required findings necessary to approve the application. Our recommendation, Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application. [Resolution B would deny]