to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Planning Manager
subject: 1609 East Franklin Street Zoning Atlas Amendment
date: February 23, 2009
reissued: March 9, 2009
Tonight the Town Council continues the public hearing from January 21, 2009 for a rezoning of most of the site at 1609 East Franklin Street. The majority of the site is in the Residential-5 (R-5) zoning district and a portion of the site is in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district (close to Velma Road). The application proposes to rezone all the Residential-5 (R-5) portion and part of the Residential-1 (R-1) portion to Neighborhood Commercial-Conditional (NC-C). A narrow strip of Residential-1 (R-1) would remain along the Velma Road frontage. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9799-04-6951 and 9799-04-7995.
Adoption of the attached ordinance would approve a zoning atlas amendment for a conditional use rezoning for 1609 East Franklin Street as described above.
Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for additional information on the Special Use Permit application associated with this conditional use rezoning application.
At the January 21, 2009 public hearing, no issues were raised in the discussion regarding the rezoning application. However, included in the public hearing packet and in tonight’s packet is a letter from adjacent property owners to the east (1611 East Franklin Street), voicing the following objections to the rezoning application:
· Rezoning of individual lots is a “piecemeal request” with no master plan for “this part of town;” and
· 61 parking spaces proposed in the Special Use Permit site plan “does not promote public transit.”
Comment: With respect to parking spaces, we believe this is an issue that pertains to the proposed Special Use Permit associated with this rezoning, rather than to the rezoning proposal per se. Please see the memorandum on the accompanying Special Use Permit application, #6 in the Discussion section. Regarding master planning of this section of East Franklin Street, please see the discussion under Zoning Atlas Amendment Analysis, section (c).
Citizens opposed to this proposed rezoning were provided an opportunity to file a protest petition. A petition protesting a proposed amendment would be subject to the provisions of North Carolina General Statutes Sections 160A-385 and 386, as may be amended from time to time. As of the deadline specified we did not receive a valid protest petition for the Zoning Atlas Amendment application.
As stated above, a rezoning is considered a Zoning Atlas Amendment. Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning Amendments (including both atlas and text amendments to the Ordinance) by stating that, “In order to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development within the planning jurisdiction of the Town it is intended that this chapter shall not be amended except:
a.) to correct a manifest error in the chapter; or
b.) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally; or
c.) to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Article 4.4 further indicates:
It is further intended that, if amended, this chapter be amended only as reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis of an application to amend the zoning atlas is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance as stated in Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. To evaluate the application as a request for rezoning to the Neighborhood Commercial-Conditional (NC-C) zoning district, please see the following section and the applicant’s Statement of Compliance (attached).
A) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (text amendment) is necessary to correct a manifest error in the chapter.
Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
B) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (text amendment) is necessary because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.
Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
C) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (text amendment) is justified to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
The applicant’s statement of compliance includes a list of the Study’s recommendations followed by the applicant’s response and staff response:
1. Encourage property owners to consolidate individual area into a master plan.
“This site is the recombination of two individual parcels allowing for master planning of the larger tract with provision to provide pedestrian and auto access to adjacent properties.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Staff Comment: Please see the staff comment in the discussion section below on Arguments in Opposition.
2. Protect landmark trees.
“The position of the building footprint and plaza protects the two large oak trees along Franklin Street integrating them into the overall building and streetscape massing.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Staff Comment: We concur that the building design and siting complies with the tree preservation goal in the Study.
3. “The East Franklin Street Corridor Study also discusses uses appropriate for this site. The study states:
Buildings along Franklin Street would be suitable for a mix of uses – office, commercial and residential.
Although the intent of the Small Area Plan was to encourage more pedestrian activity, the uses constructed since adoption of that plan have been anti-pedestrian. Thus far, with the development along Franklin Street of the Dance School, Barbara Hershey’s building and Franklin Park, no commercial or retail activity has been generated. And all those projects were built after this study. There are both office and residential occupants creating auto trips along Franklin Street because there are few pedestrian destinations in close proximity other than Appleby’s or Il Palio. It is the intent of this project to create additional office square footage to blend with the surrounding office and residential neighborhood in a harmonious and inviting manner.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Staff Comment: We note that the Study stated this area would be suited to a mix of uses, but stopped short of specifying that all three uses, or particular ratios, should apply to a specific lot. To date, the uses of newly developed properties (Franklin Office Park, the Hershey Building, and the Ballet School) have been office and commercial only. However, we do not think that the proposed office use for 1609 East Franklin would contradict the Study’s recommendation.
For additional points made by the applicant, please see the attached Statement of Compliance provided by the applicant.
Argument in Opposition: At the January 21, 2009 public hearing, no issues were raised in the discussion regarding the rezoning application. However, included in the public hearing packet and in tonight’s packet is a letter from adjacent property owners to the east (1611 East Franklin Street), voicing the following objections to the rezoning application:
· Rezoning of individual lots result in piecemeal development with no master plan for “this part of town;” and
· 61 parking spaces proposed in the Special Use Permit site plan does not promote public transit use.
Staff Comment: With respect to parking spaces, we believe this is an issue that pertains to the proposed Special Use Permit associated with this rezoning, rather than to the rezoning proposal per se.
With respect the comment about master planning for this property and adjacent properties, this section of East Franklin Street was the subject of the East Franklin Street Corridor Study in 1991 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, property owners developed on individual lots in this section of East Franklin Street (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 Ballet School Special Use Permit did not provide a cross-access easement to adjacent properties. There was no mechanism to mandate 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, we are not aware of a legal or regulatory mechanism for implementing this particular Study recommendation.
We note that the accompanying Special Use Permit application includes vehicular and pedestrian cross access easements to the adjacent properties to the east and west, continuing down the new driveway to the Franklin Street right-of-way, to facilitate the coordination of driveway access for the abutting three properties in the future.
The Council has discretionary authority to approve or deny a rezoning request. With a conditional use rezoning request, the specific proposal in the accompanying Special Use Permit application is related to the rezoning request. We believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider a specific Special Use Permit proposal, in tandem with a rezoning hearing. If the Council does not find the Special Use Permit proposal to be an acceptable use of the property, we would recommend that the Council not approve the rezoning request.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on November 4, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning.
Staff Recommendation: We recommend approval of the rezoning of part of the 1609 East Franklin Street site from Residential-5 (R-5) to Neighborhood Commercial-Conditional (NC-C) and part of the site from Residential-1 (R-1) to Neighborhood Commercial-Conditional.
We believe the rezoning could be justified based on Finding C, as described above, associated with goals and objectives of the 1991 East Franklin Street Corridor Study, a component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Please find attached for Council consideration an Ordinance to enact the rezoning request and a Resolution to deny the rezoning request for Council consideration.
1. Applicant’s Statement of Compliance (p. 8).
2. East Franklin Street Corridor Study (1991) (p. 10).
3. Legal Description (p. 20).
4. Citizen Letter (p. 21).