AGENDA #8
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Petition Requesting Expedited Processing of Several Special Use Permit Applications
DATE: May 21, 2001
The Town Council has received and referred petitions from Mr. Philip Post, Mr. Ron Strom, Mr. Josh Gurlitz and Mr. Jim Baker, requesting an accelerated processing schedule for three Special Use Permit applications: 501 Eastowne Drive Office Building Special Use Permit, The Franklin Hotel Special Use Permit and Airport Drive Office Building Rezoning and Special Use Permit Modification (please see attached letters). The requests ask that Public Hearings be scheduled on these applications this June, with Council decisions by July 2. We recommend that the Council take no action on these requests.
Expedited processing grants priority status for review of a project at every step of the process, and grants priority status in being scheduled on agendas of advisory boards and the Town Council. A Special Use Permit or a Special Use Permit Modification application would typically take nine months to a year from submittal to Council action. Steps include review by Town staff, review by all required advisory boards and commissions, and consideration at a Public Hearing.
Following Council approval, an application typically takes three to four months to obtain approval of detailed construction drawings and final plans, prior to obtaining a Building Permit. The review process is often long because of the breadth and depth of review and analysis, and because many projects are usually being reviewed at any given time.
The Council granted expedited processing of the Airport Drive Office Building Special Use Permit Modification on January 22, 2001. The 501 Eastowne Drive Office Building and the Franklin Hotel have not been granted expedited processing.
We note that it would be unusual for the Council to grant “date specific” expedited review.
The petitions request that a special June Public Hearing be arranged for the three development projects, and the petitions state that the three projects are ready for a advisory board review and Council Public Hearing. The petitions make the request that arrangements be made for a June Public Hearing or some equivalent method for the applications to be voted upon before the Council’s July recess.
We address the requests as follows:
The petitioners indicate that the 501 Eastowne Office Building, Airport Drive Office Building, and the Franklin Hotel projects are ready to proceed to advisory boards for review and to Public Hearing. We do not agree. The original submittal and resubmittal dates are provided below:
Airport Drive Office Building Rezoning and Special Use Permit Modification
· Formal applications accepted on March 1, 2001
· Submittal of revised applications on April 26, 2001
Franklin Hotel Special Use Permit
· Formal application accepted on January 9, 2001
· Submittal of a revised application on March 30, 2001
Eastowne 501 Office Building Special Use Permit
· Formal application accepted on March 6, 2001
· Submittal of a revised application on April 25, 2001
These three items are scheduled for review at the next available Planning Board current development meeting, August 7, 2001. We expect the items to be reviewed by the following advisory boards in July/August:
· Planning Board
· Transportation Board
· Community Design Commission
· Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
Planning Staff Reports have not been prepared for any of the three items. Staff evaluation of the revised proposals is currently underway. We are not in a position to prepare a staff report immediately and schedule special advisory board meetings for review given the current workload. We note that three other projects, the revision to the Development Ordinance, the establishment of an Office/Institutional-4 zoning district for the main campus, and rezoning of the main campus, are all Council priority items for June.
We believe the petitions are requesting expedited processing that assures them of a Council vote at or prior to the Council’s July 2, 2001 meeting.
We have generally followed the criteria listed below in making our recommendations to the Council on requests for expedited processing:
1. Recommend expedited processing only in cases where there is a public interest or public objective involved.
2. Recommend expedited processing only when a project that involves public interest would be harmed by following normal rules of procedure.
3. Avoid expedited processing in situations where other applications that do not carry this special status would be delayed.
Projects that have been granted expedited processing are identified in Attachment 1. As we noted earlier, it would be unusual for the Council to grant date specific expedited review.
Regarding the request for expedited processing, we did not find justification for granting expedited processing as we reviewed the petition submitted by Mr. Post for the 501 Eastowne Drive project or the Franklin Hotel project. The Airport Drive Office Building project has already been granted expedited processing. We expect all three items to be before the Council this fall for Public Hearing. The tentative schedule indicates that Airport Drive Office Building application may be heard at the October Public Hearing. And, we expect an October or November Public Hearing for the 501 Eastowne Drive Office Building project and the Franklin Hotel development.
We note that the September Public Hearing tentatively is scheduled for the final draft of the revised Development Ordinance as well as a University Development Plan for the main campus. If the University Development Plan associated with the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district is not received in time for the September Public Hearing, then the expedited status of the Airport Drive Office Building Rezoning and Special Use Permit Modification would likely result in the placement of those applications on the September Public Hearing, along with the revised Development Ordinance.
June Public Hearing
The Petitioner asks “. . if we can continue as originally scheduled,” and requests that the 501 Eastowne project be scheduled “as intended for the June Public Hearing . . . and not deferred to the fall.” The Petitioner also describes that a June Public Hearing schedule was given “in return for the voluntary change to the project.”
We believe that referring to this situation as a “deferral” is inaccurate, because this Eastowne 501 Office Building project was never calendared for the June Public Hearing. In January, we discussed a tentative schedule that included the possibility of a June Public Hearing. But all discussion was preliminary, and the tentative nature of any dates was made clear to the applicant. Regarding the voluntary change in the project in return for scheduling considerations: We noted to the applicant last year that the initial proposal for this property had significant problems, we indicated that it would likely not receive a positive recommendation, and we suggested that the project be changed. The applicant did subsequently change the project as we had suggested. We do not agree that a June hearing was given in return for the changes.
On May 7, we responded to the Council at the Council meeting that we did not think it would be possible to bring these three items to the Council in June. Now, it is May 21 and we continue to believe that it would be impossible to grant the requests without a major re-shuffling of Council priorities and extension of Council and advisory board calendars. If the Council wants to accommodate this request, we believe the following four actions would be necessary:
· Scale back the work with the University for the creation and application of an OI-4 zoning district;
· Delay work on the revisions to the Development Ordinance;
· Have the Council call a special meeting in the latter part of July for Public Hearing, with possible action as early as the August 27 meeting; and
· Have the Council direct review by the following advisory boards during the summer:
Planning Board
Transportation Board
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
Design Commission
Manager’s Recommendation: We do not find justification for granting expedited processing for the 501 Eastowne Drive project or the Franklin Hotel. We note that the Airport Drive Office Building applications already have expedited processing status.
Despite the expedited processing status for the Airport Drive Office Building applications, we do not believe it is possible for that application (and therefore also the other applications without such status) to be considered at a special Public Hearing during June/July because:
· The necessary staff reviews of the three items have not been completed;
· The three items have not been scheduled for advisory board review;
· An additional Council meeting and possibly additional advisory board meetings would need to be arranged; and
· The schedules for other Council-initiated projects (such as the revisions to the Development Ordinance and the establishment and application of the University Office/Institutional-4 zoning district) would need to be adjusted to accommodate the requested expedited treatment.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Council take no action at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Projects that have been Granted Expedited Processing (p. 6).
2. Letter from Mr. Jim Baker, Requesting Expedited Processing (p. 7)
3. Petition prepared by Mr. Phil Post (p. 9)
ATTACHMENT 1
List of Projects Granted Expedited Processing
May 2, 2001
After receiving staff recommendations based on these criteria, the Council has approved expedited processing for:
Ø Intimate Bookshop,
Ø Erwin Village Subdivision,
Ø Ruth Faison Shaw Museum,
Ø Chapel Hill Public Library,
Ø Chapel Hill Public Housing,
Ø Culbreth Park Subdivision,
Ø East Chapel Hill High School,
Ø Orange County Southern Human Services Center,
Ø Hargraves Gymnasium addition,
Ø Transitional Housing on Clark Road,
Ø Chapel Hill Day Care at Southern Village,
Ø Bolin Creek Greenway Phase II,
Ø Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Transportation Center,
Ø WUNC Tower request,
Ø Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center,
Ø Pavilion,
Ø Southern Village Elementary School,
Ø Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity,
Ø Neville Tract,
Ø McDade House relocation,
Ø Freedom House,
Ø Orange Community Housing Corporation Scarlette Housing,
Ø Kenan Stadium Expansion,
Ø UNC Co-generation Facility Boiler Replacement,
Ø Chapel Hill Internal Medicine,
Ø Midway Business Center,
Ø Carol Woods Retirement Community (for Village Charter School use),
Ø University Mall Redevelopment,
Ø Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity House,
Ø Greene Tract rezoning,
Ø Manley Estates Housing,
Ø University Fraternity and Sorority applications (sprinkler projects),
Ø Carol Woods Retirement Center (for day care addition, dining hall expansion and new units),
Ø Church of the Holy Family Expansion,
Ø Eastwood Lake Project,
Ø Chapel Hill Pediatrics,
Ø UNC Airport Drive Office Building, and
Ø Meadowmont School and Park.
Requests for this special application processing by East Franklin Car Care, Kappa Alpha Theta Sorority, and an application for parking and refuse facilities at 317 W. Rosemary Street were not approved by the Town Council.