to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
subject: University of North Carolina Hospitals Imaging and Outpatient Center, 1350 Raleigh Road - Application for Special Use Permit
date: February 16, 2009
Attached for your consideration is an application for a Special Use Permit, submitted by representatives from UNC Hospitals. The application proposes a two-story building for clinic use, on a 2.5-acre site, at the intersection of Raleigh Road and Finley Golf Course Road. The site is located in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district, identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9798-44-1499.
As part of the application, the applicant is requesting a modification to Land Use Management Ordinance vehicular parking standards, to allow fewer parking spaces than required.
Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the Special Use Permit application.
The Special Use Permit application proposes to construct a two-story building with 31,078 square-feet of floor area for clinic use with a 104-space parking lot. Vehicular access to the development is proposed from Finley Golf Course Road. An existing curb-cut on the Raleigh Road frontage is proposed to be closed. There is a proposed vehicular and pedestrian cross-access to the adjacent East 54 property to the west. A concrete walkway is proposed along the western side of Finley Golf Course Road, along the frontage of the site. The proposed development includes the extension of the Raleigh Road greenway/bikepath, across the frontage of the subject site.
A refuse and recycling collection area for roll-out trash and recycling bins is proposed within the parking lot along the center of the western boundary of the site.
The applicant proposes bio-retention basins within the parking area islands.
During staff and advisory board review we identified the following key issue related to this project:
Internal Vehicular Cross-Access: In order to improve vehicular connections between the adjoining properties, we recommend that the applicant provide internal vehicular cross-access, through the proposed parking lot, by connecting to two existing stub outs (Prestwick Place and East 54).
Staff Comment: The two stub outs are on 1) the western boundary to the East 54 development and 2) the southern boundary to the Prestwick Place office building. It is Town policy to connect adjacent developments providing cross access to minimize the necessity of local traffic accessing surface streets to travel between or through adjacent developments. We believe this provides a more efficient transportation network.
We understand the applicant is opposed to the recommended vehicular connection to Prestwick Place because they believe that this access drive would increase through vehicular traffic in the proposed parking area. The applicant is concerned about the safety of pedestrians and patients visiting the Outpatient Center. The applicant is also concerned that the construction of this driveway to Prestwick Place will eliminate up to 4 parking spaces. Please refer to the Vehicular Parking Quantity Standards section below and the Modifications to Regulations section in the attached Staff Report (Attachment 1) for more detail about the applicant’s request to modify the minimum vehicular parking requirement.
We support the vehicular connections. We think pedestrian movement through the site can be designed in a manner to accommodate vehicular connections and pedestrian safety. We do not think that the loss of 4 proposed parking spaces would have a significant impact on parking. An alternate vehicular connection to the Prestwick Place development is also desirable, in light of the fact that the current vehicular access to the Prestwick Place development crosses the potential transit corridor between the UNC main campus and Durham. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring the vehicular connection to Prestwick Place.
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 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 from the Board of Adjustment.
The applicant is requesting that the Council approve modifications to the Land Use Management Ordinance with respect to vehicular parking standards.
Vehicular Parking Quantity Standards: The applicant is proposing 104 parking spaces and is requesting a modification to regulations to provide 34 fewer parking spaces than the minimum required of 138 parking spaces. The applicant believes that public purposes are satisfied regarding the request for modification.
Staff Comment: We think that the applicant is satisfying public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree with the proposed reduction in parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 104 parking spaces, which does not meet the minimum vehicular parking requirements of the Section 5.9.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Our parking requirements for a clinic are generic and do not take into account the type of clinic proposed. Given the nature of this proposal and the hospital’s experience with parking, we believe this adjustment is reasonable. The final number of parking spaces would be reduced by 4 spaces to 100 to comply with the recommended vehicular connection to Prestwick Place to the south. See Internal Cross Access section above for additional information. We recommend that the requested modification to parking regulations be approved. Please refer to the Modification to Regulations section in the Staff Report for additional information.
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.
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 assessment 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.
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.
We have attached Resolution A and Resolution B to approve and deny the application respectively. Resolution A, to approve the application, includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions, incorporating input from all Town departments involved in the review of this application. We recommend that the Council consider these conditions, and the modification to the regulations, in the context of making the four findings necessary to approve the application.
We will return to the Council with a recommendation for action after the Council has received evidence this evening and reconvened the hearing.
Planning Board: The Planning Board met on December 2, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum. A Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Part of Attachment 3).
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission met on December 3, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum. A Summary of the Greenways Commission Action is attached to this memorandum (Part of Attachment 3).
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on December 4, 2008 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Staff Comment: Our initial recommendation to Advisory Boards included a stipulation that required the applicant to relocate an existing bus stop on Raleigh Road to the far side of Finley Golf Course Road. Because the applicant has expressed concerns that the construction of a bus stop at this location might involve wetlands or similar complications associated with construction activities, we recommend that the applicant provide a $10,000 payment-in-lieu of relocating the bus stop. This payment will be used by the Town to either relocate the bus stop or to improve the existing bus stop to the west. The applicant has agreed to provide this payment-in-lieu prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.
A copy of the Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Part of Attachment 3).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on December 16, 2008 and voted 8-0, to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Staff Comment: Our initial recommendation to Advisory Boards included a stipulation that required the applicant to relocate an existing bus stop on Raleigh Road to the far side of Finley Golf Course Road. Because the applicant has expressed concerns that the construction of a bus stop at this location might involve wetlands or similar complications associated with construction activities, we recommend that the applicant provide a $10,000 payment-in-lieu of relocating the bus stop. This payment will be used by the Town to either relocate the bus stop or to improve the existing bus stop to the west. The applicant has agreed to provide this payment-in-lieu prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.
A copy of the Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Part of Attachment 3).
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on December 17, 2008 and voted 8-0, to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with Resolution A, attached to the Advisory Board memorandum, with the following changes:
Staff Comment: We do not concur. The applicant is proposing a sidewalk along the frontage of the site. Furthermore, we have added an additional recommendation since the advisory board meetings to include a widened road cross-section on Finley Golf Course Road, along the frontage of the site, to accommodate bicycle travel. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Staff Comment: We do not concur. The critical root zones of two significant trees in the northwest corner of the site have curbing and a parking area encroaching on them. This is not proposed to change with the new development proposal. The Town Forester’s recommendation is that additional measures are not required to protect these trees. The existing Landscape Protection Plan is adequate protection for these significant trees.
A copy of the Summary of the Community Design Commission Action and the proposed revisions to Resolution A submitted by the applicant, is attached to this memorandum (Part of Attachment 3).
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: The following stipulations were added to Resolution A, or amended, following Advisory Board review.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. We recommend that the Council open the Public Hearing and receive evidence in support of and in opposition to the UNC Hospitals Imaging Center Special Use Permit application. We will return to the Council with a specific recommendation for action after the Council has received public comment this evening and reconvened the hearing.
Resolution A would approve the application, with the associated request for modification to regulations.
Resolution B would deny the application.
[See also Town Manager’ Memorandum]
UNC Hospitals Imaging Center: Special Use Permit
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Preliminary Recommend-ation |
Planning Board |
Transport-ation Board |
Community Design Commission |
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Greenways Comm-ission |
|
Widen Finley Golf Course Rd to Accommodate Bicycles |
Yes, Along Frontage of Site |
* |
* |
* |
Yes, Along Frontage of Site |
* |
|
$10,000 Payment-In-Lieu to Relocate Eastbound Raleigh Road Transit Facilities |
Yes |
No, Relocate Stop |
No, Leave Stop In Current Location |
No, Relocate Stop |
No, Leave Stop In Current Location |
No, Relocate Stop |
|
Require Bus Shelter in Addition to Previously Requested Transit Facilities |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Revise Landscape Protection Plan |
No, Current Proposal is Entirely Adequate |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
*Issues not discussed, and therefore not included in the recommendation |
||||||
