MEMORANDUM

 

to:                  Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

 

from:            J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director

                        George Small, Engineering Director

                        Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator

 

subject:   Starbucks at Eastgate Shopping Center - Application for Special Use Permit Modification (PIN 9799-25-5527)

 

date:            November 6, 2006

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 4, 2006, regarding a request for Special Use Permit Modification for a proposed general business or convenience business use at the Eastgate Shopping Center. The application proposes to remodel a 1,920 square-foot vacant service station at 1800B East Franklin Street. The 21,270 square-foot site is located on the south side of East Franklin Street adjacent to Brueggers Bagels. No additional floor area is proposed. Twenty-three parking spaces are proposed. The site is located in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district, the Resource Conservation District, the floodway, and is identified as part of Orange County Property Identifier Number 9799-25-5527.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit Modification application.  We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application.

This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:

KEY ISSUES

 

We believe that the key issues raised during the October 4, 2006 Public Hearing focused on the following item:

  1. Vehicular Access to East Franklin Street:  During the October 4, 2006 Public Hearing Council Members expressed concern about the safety of the proposed right-in/right-out driveway on East Franklin Street. Council Members requested that the safety of the driveway access be evaluated.

Comment: The Town’s traffic engineer re-examined the question of safety relative to the proposed right-in/right-out driveway that would provide access to/from East Franklin Street to the proposed Starbucks site in the Eastgate Shopping Center. The Town traffic engineer has provided a Technical Memorandum prepared by the Town’s traffic consultant, HNTB Engineers (Attachment 2). The report assesses vehicular access to the site, a) with the recommended right-in/right-out driveway off East Franklin Street, and b) without the East Franklin Street driveway and with access to/from the site only via Eastgate Shopping Center Drive. 

 

The report concludes that: “There are no significant traffic operations and/or safety issues allowing the existing Franklin Street Site Driveway to have RIRO (right-in/right-out) access.” Alternatively, if the existing East Franklin Street driveway was closed, the report concludes that “Both potential options for the existing Starbucks Site Driveway do not cause any significant peak hour traffic operations problems for the proposed study area intersections of Franklin Street/Eastgate Drive, Franklin Street/Site RIRO Driveway, or Eastgate Drive/Proposed Site Driveway.”

 

We believe that the traffic signal at the East Franklin Street/Eastgate Shopping Center Drive intersection will interrupt east-bound traffic flow at established intervals on East Franklin Street thereby providing reasonable opportunities for vehicles to utilize the proposed right-in/right-out driveway.  Therefore, we continue to recommend the East Franklin Street right-in/right out driveway access to the Starbucks site.

 

If the Council decides not to support the staff recommendation for the East Franklin Street right-in/right-out driveway, thereby directing all traffic to Eastgate Shopping Center Drive, we have prepared the following alternative stipulation #5 to accomplish this:

 

 

Including this stipulation in Resolution A would prohibit direct access to East Franklin Street from the Starbucks site.

 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COUNCIL

 

2.  Public Vehicular Easement on Eastgate Shopping Center Drive: A Council Member requested clarification of the staff recommendation for a Public Access Easement on Eastgate Shopping Center Drive.

 

Comment:  We continue to recommend a public access easement that extends for approximately the first 310 feet of Eastgate Shopping Center Drive eastward from the intersection at East Franklin Street for the purpose of accommodating current cross traffic through the Eastgate Shopping Center site as well as possible future bus routes. As future applications for development occur, we recommend including a requirement for extension of the public access easement through the site.

 

We do not recommend dedication of public right-of-way. We believe that the dedication of public right-of-way and the associated maintenance responsibilities would not be to the Town’s benefit. We continue to include a stipulation in revised Resolution A requiring the applicant to provide a public vehicular access easement through the western portion of the site.

 

3.   Replacement of Invasive Exotic Plant: A Council Member requested that the invasive exotic plant, Butterfly Bush, be replaced with a comparable non-invasive species.

 

Comment:  We concur. The applicant has revised their proposal to replace Butterfly Bush with a non-invasive plant species selected from the approved plant list in the Chapel Hill Design Manual. We have included a stipulation requiring replacement of invasive plants and referencing the non-invasive species list of the Design Manual in revised Resolution A.

 

4.  Extended Planting Strip or Potted Shrubs near Booker Creek Culvert: A Council Member recommended that the applicant provide large potted shrubs, in the area over the Booker Creek culvert at the southeast corner of the site, rather than the applicant’s original proposed parking lot striping.

 

Comment: The applicant agrees with the staff recommendation to provide curbing and a vegetated planting strip. With respect to the suggestion of large potted shrubs, the applicant is concerned that the potted plants may be difficult to maintain in the summer months. We recommend that the applicant be given the choice of providing either a vegetated planting strip or large potted shrubs. We have included a revised stipulation in revised Resolution A to that effect.

 

5.  Provision of Additional Vegetation Near the Southwest Corner of the Building: A Council Member recommended that the applicant provide additional vegetation near the southwest corner of the building to provide more shade and soften the corner of the building.

 

Comment: The applicant is proposing to provide additional vegetation on the southwest corner of the building. We concur. We have included a stipulation in revised Resolution A requiring that the applicant provide these additional plantings.

 

6.  Number of Bicycle Racks: A Council Member requested that the applicant provide 12 bicycle parking spaces, rather than six.

 

Comment: The applicant has revised their proposal to include 12 bicycle parking spaces located on the north side of the building. We concur. We recommend that the applicant provide 12 bicycle parking spaces (six inverted U racks) and have included a stipulation to this effect in revised Resolution A.

 

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

 

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, 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.

 

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.

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.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

 

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s revised Statement of Justification (Attachment 4).

 

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

 

 

Please see the applicant’s revised Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application (Attachment 4).

 

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #2:  That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

 

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s revised Statement of Justification (Attachment 4).

 

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

 

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.

 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #3:  That the use would be 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.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

 

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s revised Statement of Justification (Attachment 4).

 

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

 

 

Evidence in opposition:  We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.

 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #4:  That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

 

Evidence in support:  Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s revised Statement of Justification (Attachment 4).

 

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

 

 

Evidence in opposition:  We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.

 

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

 

SUMMARY

 

We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application.  With these conditions, our conclusion is that the Council could make the finding necessary in order to approve the application.  The staff recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Advisory Boards Recommendations are Summarized Below:

 

Transportation Board:  On September 28, 2006, the Transportation Board voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution C with conditions. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action (Attachment 3).

 

The Transportation Board made the following recommendation:

 

That the condition requiring bus-stop improvements be revised to require that the applicant provide electricity for the provision of electronic signage and lighting.

 

This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A.  Recommendations from other Advisory Board were previously discussed and are part of Attachment 1.

 

Stipulations Incorporated into Revised Resolution A:

 

Following the October 4 Public Hearing, the following recommendations have been incorporated into Resolution A, the Staff Revised Recommendation:

Staff Revised Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our revised conclusion is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.  

 

We recommend that the Council adopt revised Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.

 

Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board.

 

Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board.

 

Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Community Design Commission.

 

Resolution E would approve the application as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

 

Resolution F would approve the application as recommended by the Greenways Commission.

 

Resolution G would deny the application.

 

Starbucks at Eastgate Shopping Center - Special Use Permit Modification

Differences Among Resolutions

 

Issues

Resolution A

(Approval)

 

Staff Revised Rec.

Resolution B (Approval)

 

Planning Board Rec.

Resolution C (Approval)

 

Transportation Board Rec.

Resolution D (Approval)

 

Community Design Commission Rec.

Resolution E (Approval)

 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec.

Resolution F (Approval)

 

Greenways Commission Rec.

Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces

12

6

6

6

6

3

Sidewalk Width on East Franklin St. Frontage

10

10

10

*

*

10

Number of Vehicular Parking Spaces

23

23

13

13

13

13

Provide Bus-Stop Signage And Lighting

Yes

*

Yes

*

*

*

Replace Butterfly Bush With Approved Plants

Yes

*

*

*

*

*

Provide Planting Strip or Potted Shrubs in Culvert Area

Yes

*

*

*

*

*

 

Additional Vegetation at SE Corner of Building

Yes

*

*

*

*

*

*Issue not discussed at this particular meeting and is therefore not included in this Resolution. 10/27/06

 

ATTACHMENTS

  1. October 4, 2006 Special Use Permit Modification Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1).
  2. Technical Memorandum prepared by HNTB Engineers Regarding Franklin St. Driveway, Dated October 23, 2006 (p. 94).
  3. Summary of Transportation Board Action, Dated September 28, 2006 (p. 98).
  4. Applicant’s Revised Statement of Justification, Dated October 26, 2006 (p. 99).