MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Planning Manager
subject: Residences at Grove Park at 425 Hillsborough Street, Special Use Permit
date: February 23, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 12, 2009 for a Special Use Permit application from Ram Development Company which proposes a multi-family development. Adoption of the attached revised Resolution would approve a Special Use Permit to allow redevelopment of the Townhouse Apartments site. The 12.9-acre 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.
An accompanying rezoning application was submitted by the applicant proposing to rezone the property to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional. A text amendment amending the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district was approved on November 24, 2008. Please see the accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment memorandum for the proposed Residences at Grove Park for additional information.
DISCUSSION
We have identified several key issues related to this development. Each is discussed below.
1. Fence along Southern Property Line: At the April 21, 2008 Public Hearing, the adjacent property owner to the south (Central Park Condominiums) requested that the applicant construct a 6-foot fence along their shared property line. We understand that the existing chain link fence on the Central Park Condominiums property has been damaged and replaced several times. Comments were presented to the advisory boards indicating that pedestrian movements between these problems and vandalism are a problem for neighbors at Central Park Condominiums and along Hillsborough Street. At the Planning Board and Community Design Commission meetings, it was recommended that the applicant construct a 6-foot fence along their southern property line to prevent people from walking through the property in response to the adjacent neighbor. The Planning Board recommended that the Residences at Grove Park Homeowners’ Association assume responsibility in perpetuity for maintenance of a new fence.
Staff Comment: We do not recommend a stipulation requiring this developer to construct a fence on their property along the southern property line. We do not believe that a fence is the best long-term solution to pedestrian movement and vandalism concerns. Although
connectivity is encouraged with new development, the adjacent neighbor does not want pedestrian connectivity. We believe that the best solution may be both a pedestrian easement through the Resource Conservation District, as noted earlier, and a longer term goal of working with neighbors to identify location(s) for pedestrian connections to downtown and campus. We have not included a stipulation in the attached Resolution A, requiring the construction of a fence.
2. Property Value Impacts: At the March 10, 2008 Public Hearing, the owner of Central Park Condominiums provided statements from three real estate agents. The statements
addressed pedestrian movements between the properties, devaluation of property, loss of privacy, and threats to health and safety (see attached). The following quotes are taken from the agents’ statements:
· “As your photos illustrate, Central Park is already being used as a shortcut to town and campus by non-residents who cut holes in the fence.” [Fred Stevens, York Simpson Underwood]
“If, enabled, if not encouraged by inadequate fencing, a pattern of habitual trespassing occurs at Central Park, I believe you will lose an important part of its value.” [Fred Stevens, York Simpson Underwood]
“In my opinion, its value as a unique opportunity for private, pastoral in-town living will be damaged if the town ignores personal property rights having to do with both safety and equity.” [Fred Stevens, York Simpson Underwood]
· “… heavy pedestrian traffic would tend to increase value in a retail business site but would lower value in a residential area” [Lucia Cooke, RE/Max]
“I find this an accurate statement for valuation purposes. Heavy pedestrian traffic through a residential area raises concerns for both privacy and safety. It also restricts the ability to enjoy common recreational green space.” [Lucia Cooke, RE/Max]
“It is my opinion that if pedestrian traffic is permitted through Central Park, that the value of Central Park will decline.” [Lucia Cooke, RE/Max]
· “The kind of traffic that the Ram development could generate would be detrimental to your property value and to its present and future uses. Such large numbers of walkers and bikers would have a negative impact on the health, safety and welfare
of the residents of Central Park Condos. “[Kelley Hunter and Tommy Watts, Coldwell Banker/Howard Perry and Walston]
Staff Comment: We believe that the pedestrian movements between these properties as described in these documents from the real estate agents is an existing condition. In response, the applicant provided documentation from licensed appraisers. The following quotes were taken from appraisers’ statements:
· “In my opinion, the project will be aesthetically appealing and definitely an improvement compared to the existing apartment complex. I believe this more upscale project will enhance the value of the surrounding area, thereby positively affecting the nearby and adjoining properties.” [Pamela J. Davis, Davis Appraisal Services]
· “In my opinion the development of the project Residences at Grove Park will be a positive enhancement to the neighborhood specifically and the Chapel Hill market in general.” [Ruth B. Williams, Real Estate Appraiser]
Staff Comment: We believe, based on new information supplied by the applicant with statements from the real estate appraisers, that the proposed redevelopment will either maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Please see additional information provided by the applicant under Findings of Fact #3 in the Evaluation of the Application section of the memorandum.
3. Affordable Housing: At the April 21 Public Hearing Robert Dowling, Executive Director of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, discussed affordable housing sales projections for 2008, 2009, and 2010 (attached). Mr. Dowling suggested that the affordable housing requirements for this proposed development be partially satisfied with a payment-in-lieu. In response, the Council recommended that the staff and applicant consider returning with affordable housing stipulations similar to the recently approved East 54 development.
On September 17, 2008, Mr. Dowling returned to the Council and proposed that the applicant satisfy the affordable housing requirements by providing 1) twenty-six bedrooms in a mix of one and two bedroom units; 2) a payment-in-lieu for 13 units; and 3) a mechanism for a transfer fee (associated with sales/resale) to help off-set monthly condominium fees and utilities.
Staff Comment: We recommend that the applicant’s affordable proposal comply with the recommendations offered by Orange Community Housing and Land Trust on September 17, 2008. We recommend that the amount of the payment-in-lieu be $85,000 per unit for the 13 units. We recommend directing these payments to the Town’s Affordable Housing
Fund to support affordable housing projects Town-wide according to recently adopted policy approved by the Council. The applicant has agreed to this proposal. We recommend that the monies collected from a transfer fee associated with the sale/resale of properties be placed into a reserve fund for Orange Community Housing and Land Trust. We also recommend that the applicant execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the Town and Land Trust that outlines the mechanics of the transfer fee and use of the reserve funds.
We also recommend that the Memorandum of Agreement state that the transfer fee funds are for the specific purposes of first paying condominium and townhouse homeowners’ association dues for persons who acquire affordable housing, then any excess funds go to the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust or its successor for the maintenance of affordable dwellings in the development and for other uses in support of affordable housing approved by the Town Manager. We recommend that the Land Trust provide an annual report to the Council by June 30 of each year detailing the use of the transfer fee fund. At that time, the Town will evaluate, and if necessary adjust, the transfer fee amount. This agreement is the same agreement required with the recently approved East 54 development with the addition of the annual report to Council. The applicant has agreed to these conditions. Revised Resolution A includes these conditions.
4. Reduce Vehicular Parking: The Planning Board recommended that vehicle parking be reduced to 520 spaces. The applicant has proposed 580 vehicular parking spaces.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s parking space proposal is within the minimum and maximum vehicular parking requirements. For this development the minimum is 467 parking spaces and the maximum is 586 parking spaces. We have not revised the stipulation in Revised Resolution A regarding the number of vehicular parking spaces because the applicant’s proposal complies with Town regulations. The attached Resolution A stipulates that the applicant provide no more than 580 vehicular parking spaces.
5. Re-evaluate Traffic Impacts: An updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was presented to the Council at the April 21, 2008 Public Hearing. Council members had asked for additional information as recommended by the Planning Board Chair with issues raised at their March 18, 2008 meeting. Some Planning Board members expressed concern that the Traffic Impact Analysis accurately reflected traffic impacts as a result of the proposed development.
Staff Comment: The updated traffic impact analysis provided at the April 21 Council meeting was prepared in accordance with the Town’s Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines and accurately addresses the traffic impacts by the proposed development on the surrounding roadway network including Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and Hillsborough Street. No new traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network were expected with the updated Traffic Impact Analysis.
The updated TIA includes the analysis for revised construction dates proposed by the applicant. The updated TIA included analysis for two different phases as provided below:
· Phase I with 40 town homes and 148 apartments with a construction completion date of 2012 and build analysis date of 2013
· Phase II with 158 apartments with a construction completion date of 2015 and build analysis date of 2016
6. Bicycle Parking: At the April 21, 2008 Public Hearing, a Council member requested that the bicycle parking spaces be increased to one parking space per dwelling unit (346 bicycle
parking spaces). In June 2007, the Land Use Management Ordinance was amended to require a minimum of 54 bicycle parking spaces for this development. The applicant is proposing to exceed that requirement and provide 110 parking spaces.
Staff Comment: We have not revised the stipulation in Revised Resolution A regarding the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required because the applicant’s proposal complies with the ordinance requirements. The attached Resolution A stipulates that the applicant provide a minimum of 110 bicycle parking spaces. We anticipate that many residents will store their bicycles in their dwelling units.
7. Additional Sidewalks: At the April 21, 2008 Public Hearing, the Council supported the recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board for additional sidewalks in
front of Building 1 and 2 and along one side of the pavement leading into the parking garage located between Buildings 1 and 2.
Staff Comment: We have included a stipulation in Revised Resolution A for sidewalks to be constructed on the east side of the roadway in front of Building 1 and Building 2 and along one side of the pavement leading into the parking garage located between Buildings 1 and 2. The additional sidewalk represents 1,349 square feet of additional impervious surface as shown with the updated and attached Project Fact Sheet. A portion of the sidewalk (754 s.f.) would be constructed within the Upland Zone of the Resource Conservation District. All land disturbance associated with new sidewalk construction is on land already proposed to be disturbed with the development proposal.
Payment for transit provisions: At the April 21, 2008 Public Hearing, a Council member asked if the applicant was proposing to make a payment for transit improvements.
Staff Comment: The applicant has prepared the following list of proposed improvements related to transit and transportation improvements.
Off-site Transit Improvements:
· Bus Stop Improvements on Hillsborough and
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. $35,000
· ROW for New Bus Stop on Hillsborough ( 300 SF @ ~$20/SF): $ 6,000
· Cost for additional traffic impact analysis: (1st Analysis: $19,192) $13,365
· Bus Pull Off & Left Turn Lane on Hillsborough Street
Construction Cost $30,000
· Utility Relocation Cost $40,000
· Pedestrian-Median refuge and Crossing Facilities Payment
for Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. $50,000
· Additional ROW required (~2,650 SF @ ~$20/SF) $53,000
Off-site Transit Improvements $227,365
Transportation Improvements:
· Traffic Calming Measures on Hillsborough St. $10,000
· Traffic Signal re-timing Payments $5,000
In addition to these proposed improvements, we recommend that existing bus stops on the east and west sides of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. be relocated and include bus shelters. We also recommend that the bus stop on the west side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. include Next Bus signage. We have included stipulations to this effect in revised Resolution A.
We recommend that the bus stop on the west side of Hillsborough Street be relocated closer to the driveway entrance, include a bus shelter and Next Bus signage, and be located outside of the Duke Energy easement. We recommend that the bus stop on the east side of Hillsborough Street include a bench and trash can. We have included stipulations in Revised Resolution A to this effect.
8. Reclaimed Water: At the September 17, 2008 Public Hearing, a Council member asked the applicant to consider having the buildings at Residences at Grove Park plumbed for reclaimed water lines for future hook-up.
Staff Comment: This project is approximately 4,000 feet away from the nearest reclaimed water line, located on the main UNC campus. The cost to extend a reclaimed water line from the campus to the Residences at Grove Park would be expensive, especially given that
the new reclaimed water line would have to be installed in a very tight corridor with extensive utility conflicts. The Town and NCDOT would likely require the repaving of the affected streets in which lines would be installed.
The staff of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has advised us that existing State regulations do not allow reclaimed water to be plumbed inside individual residential units for toilet flushing or other purposes. Therefore, the attached Resolution A does not include a stipulation requiring dual-plumbing.
9. Stream and Riparian Area Restoration and Maintenance: At the April 21, 2008 Public Hearing, a Council member asked if the land disturbance proposed within the Resource Conservation District for removal of kudzu and other invasive exotic vegetation and revegetating would be prohibited by the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Staff Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance permits stream and riparian area restoration and maintenance within all zones of the Resource Conservation District including the removal of invasive exotic vegetation. We understand the applicant is working with the North Carolina Botanical Garden on plans for removal of the kudzu and invasive exotic vegetation. The work proposed would require a Resource Conservation District encroachment permit and a detailed plan by a person certified in Invasive Plant Management or in consultation with specialists at the North Carolina Cooperative Extension or the North Carolina Botanical Garden. We have included stipulations in the attached Resolution A to this effect.
10. Construction Start/Completion Deadlines: At the April 21, 2008, Public Hearing a Council member asked what allowances were permitted with the Land Use Management Ordinance for extensions to the construction start and completion deadline dates.
Staff Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance Section 4.5.5(b) allows the Town Manager to grant a single extension to the construction start time for up to 12 months unless it is determined that paramount considerations of health, the general welfare, or public safety require Town Council approval.
The Land Use Management Ordinance Section 4.5.5(c) also allows a single extension of the construction completion time for up to 12 months if the permit holder requests the extension from the Town Manager within 60 days of the completion date and the Town Manager determines that the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith and that condition have not changed so substantially as to warrant Town Council reconsideration of the approved development.
11. Public Art: The recently amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district includes the following goal from the Comprehensive Plan:
Promotion of Art (Private and Public) in private development that is visually accessible to the public and/or providing direct/indirect opportunities for public art.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to satisfy this goal with a payment-in-lieu of $25,000 to the Town for off-site public art. We have included a stipulation in Revised Resolution A to this effect.
12. Modification to the Regulation: The applicant is requesting that the Council approve modifications to the Land Use Management Ordinance with respect to the following:
· Impervious surface in the Resource Conservation District;
· Land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District;
· Land disturbance on Steep Slopes; and
· Secondary height limits.
Staff Comment: For discussion on these issues, please refer to the following section in this memorandum on Modification to Regulations.
MODIFICATION TO 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 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 the following:
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 Resource Conservation District. Table 3.6.3(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a Disturbance Area Ratio 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 24,430
square feet of impervious surface area for driveway and sidewalk 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. Table 3.6.3(f)(1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a Disturbed Area Ratio of .40. This proposal contains 46,335 square feet of land area inside the Upland Zone. 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.
Land Disturbance on Steep Slopes Greater than 25%: As proposed, the Special Use Permit application does not comply with the steep slopes provisions regarding land disturbance. Table 5.3-1 Slope Construction Restrictions of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies a percentage of land disturbance not exceeded on slopes containing greater than 25%. This proposal involves 53% of the slopes that contain slopes greater than 25%. A Steep Slopes map is attached to this memorandum indicating the location of the steep slopes on the site. The applicant states that most of the steep slopes were created when the Townhouse Apartments were constructed and are therefore man-made. Land disturbance is proposed with the construction for safety and pedestrian improvements, drive aisles, kudzu and invasive exotic plant removal and
replanting, soil and erosion control measures, entrance widening, sidewalk connections and regrading of slopes to allow for slopes conducive to native plant growth.
Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could modify all three of the regulations with respect to impervious surface in the Resource Conservation District, land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District, and land disturbance on steep slopes 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 natural vegetation and reshaping contours with steep slopes.
Secondary Height Limits: As proposed, the Special Use Permit application does not comply with the secondary height for the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district. Table 3.8-1: Dimensional Matrix of the Land Use Management Ordinance specifies that the secondary height in the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district not be
greater than 60 feet. This proposal includes a secondary height of 90 feet in order to place two levels of parking below three of the buildings. The applicant is proposing to increase the green
space and minimize impervious surface by placing parking areas under the buildings. Increases in height are proposed to the buildings that the applicant states will be almost completely
obscured from Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and Hillsborough Street because of the low topography at the building locations.
Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could modify the regulations to exceed the secondary height limit of the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district beyond what the Land Use Management Ordinance permits for three buildings in this case by making the finding that public purpose would be served. The modification would allow placement of two
levels of parking under the buildings allowing for greater green area and less impervious surface as well as preservation of several specimen trees.
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 submitted our report and preliminary recommendation to 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 conclusion is that the application as submitted complies with the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, and Design Manual, with the conditions included in Revised Resolution A.
Tonight the Council receives our 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 the following findings:
Special Use Permit – Required Finding of Fact
Finding #1: That the development be 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 Revised Statement of Justification:
Chapel Hill to grow in a sustainable way that preserves its natural and cultural amenities.” [Applicant’s Statement]
commercial projects already Downtown.” [Applicant’s Statement]
greatly improved going forward when our residents get to enjoy the new green walking corridors and our planned RCD investments without a sea of parking or the danger of through traffic on the site.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in Opposition: At the September 17, 2008 Public Hearing, a citizen spoke about concerns with public water impacts and a second citizen spoke about concerns with traffic
congestion.
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:
Evidence in Opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to this
Finding.
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 included the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
“Based on the responses and neighborhood concerns we received during the CDC process; we increased the number and depth of the town homes on the Hillsborough St. side of the project to protect, preserve and enhance the nearby Franklin-Rosemary Historic District.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Our budget also includes significant reinvestment in open green space, the realignment of buildings and parking to preserve specimen trees, and RCD improvements that the surrounding properties will also benefit from as a solution is sought for our currently kudzu choked western RCD.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Additionally, we have designed the parking and inter-site roads to discourage traffic going out onto Hillsborough St., hopefully dramatically reducing it from the existing
level caused by the Townhouse Apartments.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “…we have included with this submittal two letters provided by prominent, long time, local property appraisers in Chapel Hill both of which support that the property values of surrounding parcels will be preserved and increased by the development of Residences at Grove Park.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Financially speaking, the development will replace 1960’s vintage student rental housing, with a current tax value of $4,464,000 or $40,200/unit, with new for sale homes and capital improvements of better than $200,000/unit. Based on these tax values compared to the projected value of the Grove Park project, one can quantifiably and
objectively determine that Grove Park will increase rather than decrease property values for all our neighbors in the area.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence presented indicates that pedestrian movements between these properties are an existing condition. We have found no evidence that property values will not be maintained, based on new information submitted by the applicant. The applicant has submitted two letters from real estate appraisers offering statements that the proposed Residences at Grove Park will enhance the value of the surrounding properties and real estate market. Please see the attached letters for additional information.
Evidence in Opposition: We have received two letters from a citizen (hand-outs to the April 21, 2008 Public Hearing) offering statements in opposition. The citizen’s principal concerns were the number of vehicular parking spaces, access to Hillsborough Street, and request for rezoning. Please see the attached letters from a citizen offering statements in opposition and from the applicant for additional information in support.
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 included the following points from the applicant’s revised Statement of Justification:
· “Since the area inside the Urban Services Area is approximately 94% built out, one of
the few remaining opportunities for Chapel Hill to accommodate the nearly 50% population growth forecast in the 2035 Long Range Plan is to seek out sustainable urban redevelopment sites like 425 Hillsborough St.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “In cooperation with the Town and Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, we will provide our 15% affordable housing requirement with 26 affordable residences in a mix of one and two bedroom housing condominiums and 13 payments in lieu totaling $1.105
M in order to provide a flexible affordable housing opportunity that meets the needs of
the community.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “From the well-lit subterranean parking decks to the expansive green spaces and active recreation areas enjoyed by all our residences, the Grove park project will improve the RCD and the currently clear-cut site to make it a model community for sustainable infill and renewal.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “By generating substantial new property tax revenue per annum for the region as well as additional sales tax from nearby Downtown retailers, Grove Park gives Chapel Hill
additional funding to address future fiscal issues without requiring additional infrastructure and service investments from the Town.” [Applicant’s Statement]
In response to the request for rezoning the property to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district, the applicant has presented additional evidence to demonstrate
compliance with the conditions of approval. Please refer to the Residences at Grove Park
rezoning application Statement of Justification attachment.
Evidence in Opposition: We have received an email from a citizen offering comments in opposition. She is concerned about the way the Council is addressing real estate development challenges and a vision for the community. Please see the attached emails for additional information.
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 revised Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the four findings.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL-SPECIAL STANDARDS-CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT
The Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district includes several Comprehensive Plan objective/goal statements. We believe the proposed Special Use Permit could be justified based on the applicant’s compliance with these goals and objective. For a discussion on this subject, please refer to the associated memorandum on the proposed Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district Zoning Atlas Amendment.
SUMMARY
We have attached a revised 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 findings necessary to approve the application if the property is rezoned as proposed. Our recommendation, Revised Resolutions A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: At the March 18, 2008 meeting the Planning Board recommended approval of the application with revised Resolution A by a vote of 6 to 1.
The reason for the dissenting vote was: 1. The project was presented as a transit-oriented development and therefore additional restrictions on parking amounts should be placed on the development and 2. Traffic Impacts as a result of the development should be re-evaluated.
Staff Revised Recommendation: We recommend approval of the application with revised Resolution A.
Resolution A has been revised to include:
1. Construction Deadline: The stipulation has been revised to indicate that construction begins by three years from Council approval and be completed by seven years from Council approval.
2. Affordable Housing: The stipulation has been revised to include a combination of payments-in-lieu and constructed units:
· The applicant to provide 26 bedrooms in a mix of one and two bedroom units;
· A payment-in-lieu for 13 units;
· An Affordable Housing Transfer Fee not to exceed 1% of the sale of every unit to be put into a special fund for this purpose; and
· Transfer Fee funds to be available to the Land Trust for expenses that extend beyond the costs associated with the Residences at Grove Park, as long as those expenses are approved by the Town Manager.
3. Bus Stop Improvements: The stipulation has been revised for relocated bus stops on Hillsborough Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
4. Sidewalks in front of Buildings 1 and 2: A new stipulation has been revised for additional sidewalk and impervious surface area in front of Building 1 and Building 2 and along one side of the driveway leading into the parking garage located between Buildings 1 and 2.
5. Impervious Surface Limited in the Resource Conservation District: The stipulation has been revised to include a new calculation including new sidewalks at Buildings 1 and 2.
6. Public Art: A stipulation has been added to include a $25,000 payment-in-lieu for public art.
7. Compatibility with the adjacent Historic District: That the Community Design Commission review and approval of the buildings along Hillsborough Street shall be considered with the goal that: 1) the building heights be compatible to building heights in the adjacent historic district; and 2) the facades of the proposed building contain similar architectural elements and building features as nearby structures in the adjacent historic district.
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.
Residences at Grove Park Special Use Permit
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
Issues |
Staff Revised Recomm. |
Planning Board |
Community Design Commission |
Transportation Board |
Bicycle and Ped. Adv. Board |
Greenways Commission |
Parks and Rec. |
|
Sidewalk constructed on east side of roadway in front of Bldg. 1 and 2 |
Yes, with associated impervious surface |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Restrict construction traffic on Hillsborough St. |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Indiv. Water Meters for condo. Units |
No (sub-metering) |
* |
Yes |
* |
* |
*` |
* |
|
Reduce Vehicular Parking beyond regulatory limits |
No, 580 spaces allowed |
Yes, 520 spaces |
Issue discussed |
Yes, 524 spaces |
* |
* |
* |
|
Re-evaluate Traffic Study |
No |
Yes |
Issue discussed |
Issue discussed |
Issue discussed |
* |
* |
|
Increase Bicycle Spaces |
No, 110 bicycle spaces |
* |
* |
Yes, 173 bicycle spaces |
Issue discussed |
* |
* |
|
No Impact on adjacent properties from Ped. Paths |
Stipulation not included |
* |
* |
* |
Issue discussed |
Issue discussed |
Yes |
|
Construction Deadline |
3 years start 7 years complete |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Public Art |
$25,000 payment-in-lieu |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Affordable Housing Include Payment-in-lieu |
Yes, for 13 units |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Reclaimed water line |
No |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Affordable Housing Transfer Fee |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Additional/Relocated bus stops |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Hillsborough St buildings |
Compatible to adj. historic district |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
*Issues not discussed, and therefore not included in the Resolution. Please refer to Advisory Board Summaries.
ATTACHMENTS
· Revised Statement of Justification.
· Revised Project Fact Sheet.
· Steep Slopes Exhibit.
· RCD Impervious Surface Exhibit.
· Letters from real estate appraisers.
· Letters from Real Estate Agents.
· Citizen Correspondence.
· Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Sales Projections.
· Revised Traffic Impact Statement, May 2008.
3. Citizen email, November 25, 2008 (p. 78).
4. Area Map [http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/03/10/2/2b/2b-19-residences_at_grove_park_sup_map.jpg]
5. April 21, 2008 Residences at Grove Park Special Use Permit [http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/04/21/3/3b/]
