memoranduM
|
to: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
from: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
|
|
|
subject: |
Public Hearing: Freedom House - Application for Special Use Permit Modification (File No.9880-22-3617) |
|
DATE: |
April 16, 2007 |
Attached for your consideration is a request for a Special Use Permit Modification for Freedom House. The application proposes to construct 18,300 square feet of new floor area including 30 new parking spaces. Details are included in the attached memorandum.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
|
|
October 13, 1997 |
The Town Council approved a Zoning Atlas Amendment and a Special Use Permit to expand a group care facility located on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. |
|
June 22, 2005 |
Community Design Commission reviewed a Concept Plan Proposal for Freedom House. This project did not meet the intensity threshold for Council review of a Concept Plan proposal. |
|
May 31, 2006 |
Applicant submitted an application for a Special Use Permit Modification application. |
This development is for a modification to the 1997 Special Use Permit to allow expansion to the existing Freedom House group care facility. The proposal includes construction of two new buildings and demolition and replacement of an existing building. A total of 18,300 square feet of new floor area and 30 new parking spaces are proposed. The buildings are all proposed to be one story. This proposal will not increase the number of residents though services are proposed to expand. Public sidewalk improvements are proposed along a portion of New Stateside Drive on the opposite side of the street.
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification 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 preliminary 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). 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 Modification 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.
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 preliminary 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 Resolution A.
Tonight the Council receives our attached evaluation and information submitted by the applicant and citizens. 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 each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification.
The four findings are:
|
Special Use Permit – Required Findings of Fact
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;
Finding #2: That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;
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; and
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. |
Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.
We have identified one key issue associated with this development, discussed below:
Neighbor Concern Regarding Development: At the Public Information Meeting on August 24, 2006, neighbors voiced concerns about the development proposal. Petitions in opposition to the proposed expansion were submitted to staff and are attached to this memorandum (Attachment 9).
Comments: In response to concerns expressed at the Public Information Meeting, the applicant agreed to hold a follow-up meeting. On September 26, 2006, a second Public Information Meeting was held in the Council Chambers. The applicant has also prepared a response to the attached petitions (Attachment 8).
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 preliminary conclusion is that the Council could make the four findings necessary in order to approve the application. The Town Manager’s recommendation, Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
Planning Board: The Planning Board met on March 6, 2007 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of Resolution A, as attached to the staff report, including the following modifications to stipulations:
Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.
Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.
A copy of the Planning Board Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.
Community Design Commission: On March 21, 2007, the Community Design Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of Resolution A, as attached to the staff report, including the two modifications to stipulations as recommended by the Planning Board, and described above.
A copy of the Community Design Commission Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: On March 27, 2007, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of Resolution A as attached to the Staff Report.
A copy of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board reviewed this item on March 22, 2007. At the meeting, the Board asked the applicant to return to the April 12 meeting with additional information. The Summary of Transportation Board Action will be provided when it becomes available.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our preliminary recommendation is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinances.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. If the Council makes the required findings for approval of a Special Use Permit Modification, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A. Resolution B would deny the application.
Freedom House Group Care Facility
Special Use Permit Modification
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
Issues |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, Planning Board, Community Design Commission |
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
|
Canopy trees be a minimum or 2 ˝ inch caliper |
Yes |
* |
|
Traffic/Pedestrian Control Plan to separate const. traffic from Homestead Park users
|
Yes |
* |
*Issue not discussed at this particular meeting and is therefore not included in this recommendation.
