TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
SUBJECT: 1609 East Franklin Street Special Use Permit Application
DATE: February 23, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Town Council continues the public hearing from January 21, 2009. Adoption of the attached revised resolution would approve a Special Use Permit to allow a two story 17,318 square foot building and 61 parking spaces on 1.9 acres on the northwest side of East Franklin Street, 470 feet southwest of Elliott Road. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9799-04-7995.
Adoption of Revised Resolution A would approve the application with conditions.
DISCUSSION
At the January 21, 2009 public hearing, several issues were raised. Each is discussed below.
1. Driveway Entrances along this section of East Franklin Street: Noting that this project proposes a driveway not far from the driveways for properties immediately east (psychotherapy office at 1611 East Franklin Street) and west (the Ballet School), Council members indicated a strong desire to see a reduction in the number of curb cuts along the East Franklin Street frontage from Elliott Road to the Franklin Office Park to improve safety in this area. They asked if the applicant would work with owners of properties immediately to the east and west to devise a coordinated access plan that would reduce the number of driveway cuts. The Council requested the applicant, staff, NCDOT, and the adjacent property owners meet again to discuss options that could be implemented with this project or in the near future.
Staff Comment: The staff response is organized around specific aspects regarding vehicular access on this section of East Franklin Street. We continue to include a stipulation in the recommended resolution that would require cross-access easements on this property in order to accommodate future connectivity.
Corridor Study: This section of East Franklin Street was the subject of the 1991 East Franklin Street Corridor Study (attached) which included recommendations for coordinated development for this lot and several adjacent and nearby lots on the north side of East Franklin Street. The recommendations included provision of an internal vehicular circulation pattern among these lots which featured shared access to a single driveway on East Franklin Street.
Since the 1991 Study, individual lots in this section of East Franklin Street were developed (Franklin Office Park, the Hershey Building, and the Ballet School), each retaining an individual driveway. Though discussions were held at the time of plan review to encourage a coordinated access plan, the 1990 Ballet School Special Use Permit did not provide a cross-access easement to adjacent properties. There was no mechanism to force cooperation between adjacent property owners. Consequently, as yet there has been no recordation of cross access easements and simultaneous closure of selected driveways as envisioned in the Study. Unless or until these three or four properties are included in a unified development proposal in the future, or cross-access easements are recorded, there is no legal or regulatory mechanism for implementing this particular Study recommendation. We continue to recommend the provision of cross-access easement in Revised Resolution A.
Driveway Spacing Standards: In addition, the Town’s Design Standards driveway standards recommend a 750 foot separation between driveways on arterial streets such as East Franklin Street. For the same reasons described above, this standard has not been met in any location along the above-described section of East Franklin Street. Absent cooperation and sharing of driveways between the neighbors along this state-controlled road, NCDOT did not require closure of individual driveways for the Franklin Office Park, the Hershey Building, or the Ballet School in the review and approval of these projects.
Driveway Locations: Of three driveway locations in the immediate vicinity (Ballet School, psychotherapy office, and this project), we believe the proposed driveway location to be the safest because it is aligned across Franklin Street with this existing driveway for the rehabilitation center. This location also meets NCDOT requirements for setbacks from property corners and street intersections, alignment with existing driveways, and stem length. The applicant for this project has agreed to provide vehicular access easements to facilitate future shared access with adjacent neighbors.
Cross-Access Easement Configuration: Prior to the hearing, the town staff and applicant met with the owner of the Ballet School property who was not amenable to closing his driveway at that time. Nevertheless, a future connection to the Ballet School property is proposed on this site approximately 50 feet into the site along the western property line, and another is proposed along the eastern property line to the property to the east (psychotherapy office). The site plan identifies these locations as “proposed access easement area – reserved for future connection to adjacent property.” We agree with the applicant’s proposal to not construct these vehicular connections until the opportunity for this connection is more imminent. However, we believe the easements need to be extended from the east and west property lines southward to the terminus of the driveway at the East Franklin Street frontage, to clarify that future access will not be restricted to an east-west line across the property but would also connect to Franklin Street.
Right-in, Right-out Only Option: Absent commitments between the three property owners to share a driveway, Town staff and NCDOT explored other options for improving safety along this frontage, including right-in/right-out only restrictions at this driveway. It was felt that a splitter island with signage was insufficient to deter left turns. Furthermore, this approach did not comply with the current edition of NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways. The addition of a median in East Franklin Street would be necessary to prohibit left turns and meet the NCDOT Policy. However, NCDOT determined installation of a median would create access problems for the adjacent properties and for the rehabilitation center across East Franklin Street, and so would not approve this configuration. Please see the attached email, Attachment #2, from the NCDOT District Engineer.
Meeting with NCDOT: After the public hearing, Town staff met again with NCDOT to discuss the Council’s concerns and to receive an updated NCDOT position. NCDOT restated that without adjacent property owners’ agreement, a shared driveway was not possible at this time. However, it is NCDOT’s opinion that with the recordation of cross access easements and shared driveway access easements on 1609 East Franklin Street property, in the future NCDOT may be in a better position to close the driveways on one or more adjacent properties, should the property owners propose redevelopment of those lots. Please see the attached email response from NCDOT, restating an earlier position.
Meeting with Adjacent Property Owners: As of the printing of this memorandum, the applicant was unsuccessful in attempts to arrange a joint meeting between, the applicant, adjacent property owners, and Town staff.
Revised Resolution A continues to include a stipulation requiring the provision of cross access easements connecting to a driveway access easement on the final plat, and that the plat be recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
2. Cross-Access Easements to Adjacent Properties: The application includes vehicular and pedestrian access points to the adjacent properties to the east and west. A Council member asked for assurance that these access points be wide enough to accommodate a range of vehicles (including heavy trucks such as for refuse collection, fire/rescue, etc.) anticipated as part of through traffic, should all the parcels eventually have a comprehensive vehicular circulation pattern.
Staff Comment: We recommend a cross access easement at least 20 feet wide on the proposed drive aisles shown between the abutting properties located to the north and south of this site and for the proposed driveway connection to Franklin Street. We also recommend that the final easement dimensions provide for the turning radii and maneuvering room necessary to accommodate service and emergency vehicles.
In Revised Resolution A, we have revised Stipulation #6 regarding the access easements to specify a width of at least 20 feet and appropriate turning radii to accommodate the turning movements of service and emergency vehicles.
3. Velma Road Pedestrian Access: This site was included in the 1991 East Franklin Street Corridor Study, adopted as part of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. This study called for encouraging pedestrian connection between the businesses fronting Franklin Street and the surrounding neighborhoods. Accordingly, the staff recommended the applicant provide pedestrian access from this site to the Velma Road frontage. Resolution A, as presented at to the advisory boards and at the public hearing, including the following stipulation:
· That the applicant construct a pedestrian connection to Velma Road and sidewalk along the Velma Road frontage if the grade allows; or a concrete pad at the end of the recommended pedestrian connection to Velma Road. The Town Manager may approve a payment-in-lieu for construction of the sidewalk.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Transportation Advisory Board were made aware that this recommendation was included in Resolution A, the adoption of which they recommended. The Community Design Commission and Planning Board did not support the pedestrian connection. At the public hearing, neighbors from Velma Road and Michaux Road presented a petition in opposition to the recommended pedestrian connection. In the discussion that followed, the following points were raised by the neighbors, the Planning Board Chair, the applicant, and Council members:
· The existing topography presents the challenge of a steep 16-foot grade change at the Velma Road frontage, which would require a set of 32 or more steps to negotiate.
· The Planning Board felt that encouraging pedestrian traffic through the site may encourage unsafe crossing of East Franklin Street, as this site’s frontage is not near a pedestrian crosswalk or traffic signal.
· Neighbors felt a pedestrian crossing might encourage business-related parking on Velma Road.
· Neighbors felt that the pedestrian connection was not needed, as there was convenient walking access to Elliott Road to the bus stop there and to the signalized intersection with East Franklin Street.
Staff Comment: In general we recommend pedestrian connections where possible, to give pedestrians more off-road options for getting to their destinations. Specific to this vicinity, we note there is no sidewalk on the west side of Elliott Road on the approach to Velma; the shoulder is unpaved.
The recommended Velma Road pedestrian connection would provide a route for pedestrians walking from the Elliott Road/East Franklin Street intersection, through the site, on a short section of Velma (915 feet) and Michaux (150 feet) to the paved pedestrian path to the public library and Pritchard Park, for example. Compared to walking from the same intersection west on Elliott, south on Velma Road and Michaux Road to the pedestrian path on the library site, the recommended pedestrian connection would shorten the walk by approximately 300 feet.
Regarding the grade change, we believe a series of steps would accommodate the slope.
Regarding the prospect of jaywalking across East Franklin Street at this site’s frontage, we believe that pedestrians traversing the site could choose to walk either east or west along East Franklin Street to a safer crossing point. The signalized intersections are 500 feet to the east (at Elliott Road) and 2,000 feet west (at Estes Drive). In addition, a pedestrian refuge island is planned for East Franklin Street near Couch Road (within 500 feet of this site’s frontage).
Regarding neighbors’ concerns about parking on Velma Road, whether or not there is a pedestrian connection at this site’s frontage, we believe that if parking becomes a danger or nuisance, the neighbors can petition the Town to prohibit parking on this section of Velma Road.
In Revised Resolution A, we have retained Stipulation #9 calling for a pedestrian connection. This stipulation could be removed if a pedestrian connection is determined to not be desirable.
4. Velma Road Curb: A stipulation in Resolution A calls for replacing the existing curb cut on Velma Road with Town standard curb and gutter. A Council member asked that the curb be ramp curb instead of standing curb.
Staff Comment: The existing 30 inch curb and gutter installed on Velma Road meets current Town standards. We generally recommend standing curb for the following reasons:
· stormwater channelinge capacity
· gradual transition from the gutter to the Town standard curb inlet
· barrier between the roadway and the shoulder or sidewalk to redirect slow moving errant vehicles back on to the travel lane.
However, a non-standard curb and gutter (e.g., ramp) could be installed here as an alternative for case-specific reasons.
In Revised Resolution A, we have not revised Stipulation #8 calling for ramp curb instead of standing curb.
5. Pedestrian Traffic Continuation Along Franklin Street Frontage during Construction:
A Council member requested the staff ensure pedestrian traffic flow along the East Franklin Street frontage would not be interrupted during project construction.
Staff Comment: As is typical in final plan review, the applicant will be required to submit plans for construction traffic management and pedestrian traffic management during project construction. In Revised Resolution A, we have added a sentence into the standard stipulation, stating that the pedestrian management plan and construction traffic management plan will maintain pedestrian access across this site’s frontage for the duration of the construction phase.
6. Parking Space Number: Owners of adjacent property submitted a letter (attached) objecting to the rezoning of this property. One of the objections pertained to the number of parking spaces (61) proposed in the Special Use Permit application:
“The request for 61 additional parking spaces is counter to reducing traffic accidents, etc. and does not support public transit.”
Staff Comment: According to the Land Use Management Ordinance parking provisions, the minimum parking space number for an office building of this size is 50 spaces and the maximum parking space number is 70.
Regarding transit use, there are 4 pairs of bus stops between Elliott Road and Estes Drive, the closest being at the Elliott Road/Franklin Street intersection, about 500 feet northeast of this site’s frontage.
7. Tree Protection Fencing: On the Landscape Protection Plan, the applicant has shown a detail calling for plastic fencing typically used for demarcating the tree protection zone. A Council member asked the applicant to provide more substantial metal fencing to further reduce the chance of encroachment on the tree protection areas.
Staff Comment: We recommend the applicant provide temporary metal fencing (not necessarily chain link). In Revised Resolution A, we have added this detail into existing Stipulation # 13 pertaining to tree protection.
8. Notification of Neighbors: At the public hearing, a Velma Road resident stated that he was notified by mail of the rezoning application for this site, but did not receive earlier notification of the Special Use Permit application.
Staff Comment: As part of the required application submittal, the applicant is responsible for generating a list of owners of property within 1,000 feet of the site to be developed and/or rezoned, and for supplying the corresponding envelopes for mailing Town-generated notices pertaining to the project’s review. We have examined the list for the 1609 East Franklin Street project, and Dr. Wright was included in the list submitted by the applicant.
Our records indicate that notification was mailed to neighbors within 1,000 feet of the subject site on October 22, 2008 for the November 4, 2008 Planning Board meeting and the January 21, 2009 public hearing. The notice included descriptions of both the rezoning and Special Use Permit applications.
On January 7, 2009, we sent out an additional notice to neighbors within 100 feet of the site (including the Velma Road property owner) regarding the public hearing for the rezoning, per state statutory requirements. This notice also briefly described the pending associated Special Use Permit application.
The site has also been posted with yellow signs on both the Velma Road frontage and the East Franklin Street frontage since late December directing inquiries to the Planning Department.
9. Corrections of Errors in Resolution A: At the public hearing, the applicant pointed out the following errors in Resolution A:
· The proposal calls not for two buildings but for two building sections connected by an atrium.
· There were typographical errors in Stipulation #14 listing the types and specifications of the proposed landscape bufferyards.
Staff Comment: In Revised Resolution A, in Stipulation #2 regarding the project intensity specifications, we have corrected the text to read one building instead of two.
We have also corrected Stipulation #14 regarding the landscape bufferyards to reflect the changes as noted by the strikethrough text below:
Landscape Bufferyards: That the following landscape bufferyards shall be provided, and that if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, the vegetation shall be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:
|
Location |
Bufferyard Required |
|
|
|
|
Western property line (along Ballet School) |
|
|
Western property line, southern portion |
20 ft Type C |
|
Southern property line (E. Franklin St.) |
30 ft. Type D, alternative |
|
Eastern property line (office) |
10 ft. Type B |
|
Northeastern property line (vacant residential) |
|
|
Northern property line (Velma Road) |
|
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:
· “This office building is designed using principals [sic] of Green Architecture. As such it looks to minimize its carbon footprint within the town through the use of regional materials, an internal open-air courtyard and clerestory windows for day-lighting, and site design to maintain existing specimen trees. The major utilities already on-site will require only minimal extension from their main routes to serve this new development.” [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:
· “A primary feature of this building is a pedestrian entry through a landscaped courtyard that bisects the building creating a connection to Franklin Street. Careful consideration was given to the location of green space in and around this office building to maintain several existing specimen trees. All regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance have been met.” [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 proposed development is of a character and scale that will maintain and/or improve the surrounding property values. We expect this new office building to become a welcome addition to the character of Franklin Street.” [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 rezoning of this parcel and the construction of an office building on this site maintains the existing use type along Franklin Street and continues its pedestrian friendly character. This development then furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Chapel Hill.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: Offered in opposition to Finding #4 is a letter from owners of the property adjacent to the east. The letter states:
“The town is appropriately wanting to support public transit, lessening carbon footprints, curb excess traffic and congestion, pollution and accidents. The request for 61 additional parking spaces is counter to reducing traffic accidents, etc. and does not support public transit.” [Letter from adjacent property owners]
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
We have attached Revised Resolution A that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, we believe that the Council could make the four required findings necessary to approve the application. Our recommendation, Revised Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A, which includes the following revised stipulations following the January 26, 2009 public hearing:
· Correction of Stipulation #2 regarding intensity standards: – one building instead of two.
· Correction of Stipulation #14 regarding bufferyard specifications:
|
Location |
Bufferyard Required |
|
|
|
|
Western property line (along Ballet School) |
|
|
Western property line, southern portion |
20 ft Type C |
|
Southern property line (E. Franklin St.) |
30 ft. Type D, alternative |
|
Eastern property line (office) |
10 ft. Type B |
|
Northeastern property line (vacant residential) |
|
|
Northern property line (Velma Road) |
|
· Stipulation #6 extension of access easements for adjacent properties: Extending the proposed access easements down the project’s driveway to its terminus on East Franklin Street, to assure future shared access to the arterial.
· Add width specifications to Stipulation #6 regarding vehicular cross access easements: specifying the width of at least 20 feet and appropriate turning radii to accommodate service and rescue vehicles.
· Add a specification to Stipulation #13 regarding tree protection: requiring the use of metal fencing instead of plastic fencing.
· Add a specification to Stipulation #38 regarding pedestrian traffic management: specifying unobstructed pedestrian flow along the East Franklin Street frontage.
Revised Resolution A also retains our recommended Stipulation #9 calling for pedestrian connection to Velma Road. Our recommendation is based on consistency with the Town’s policy to provide pedestrian connection between commercial and surrounding neighborhoods, as well as consistency with the recommendations in the 1991 East Franklin Street Corridor Study. This stipulation can be removed from Revised Resolution A if the Council so chooses.
Resolution B would deny the application.
A matrix comparing the differences between staff and advisory board recommendations is included at the end of this memorandum.
1609 East Franklin Street Special Use Permit
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Revised Staff Recommendation |
Planning Board |
Transportation Board |
Community Design Commission |
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
|
Extended construction start and completion deadlines by one year each |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
Handicapped parking spaces comply with NC Accessible Code instead of ADA |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
Provide Velma Road pedestrian connection and sidewalk |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
Cross access easements to extend to NCDOT r.o.w & dimensioned to accommodate large vehicles |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Metal tree protection fencing |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Pedestrian traffic along Franklin Street frontage continuously throughout construction process |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
*Issue not discussed at advisory board meeting; therefore not included
in the advisory board’s recommendation
Revised February 17, 2009
ATTACHMENTS
1. 1991 East Franklin Street Corridor Study (p. 20).
2. Email letter from NCDOT District Engineer (p. 29).
3. Applicant’s Statement of Justification (p. 31).
4. Petition from Coker Hills neighbors (January 21, 2009; addendum February, 2009) (p. 32).
5. Letter from owners of 1611 East Franklin Street (p. 35).