MEMORANDUM |
|
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Freedom House – Application for Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 9880-22-3617) |
|
DATE: |
May 7, 2007 |
Tonight, the Council continues consideration of a Special Use Permit Modification application proposing to construct 18,300 square feet of new floor area and 30 new parking spaces on the Freedom House facility. Freedom House, a group care facility, is located on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. between Parkside Subdivision and Homestead Community Park.
Based on the record to date, with the conditions in Revised Resolution A, we believe that the Council could make the four findings required to approve the Special Use Permit Modification. We recommend that the Council adopt Revised Resolution A, approving the application.
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
We have identified six key issues related to this development: 1) Traffic calming on New Stateside Drive; 2) Relocated driveway on New Stateside Drive; 3) Payment towards transit/transportation improvements; 4) Proposed number of parking spaces; 5) Citizen concerns with safety; and 6) Impacts on property value. A brief discussion follows:
1. Traffic calming on New State Side Drive: A Council member recommended installing traffic calming devices on New Stateside Drive.
Staff Comment: Because of the pedestrian and vehicular activity associated with the adjacent Homestead Community Park, we believe that some type of traffic calming feature on New Stateside Drive is appropriate.
As illustrated on the attached aerial (Attachment 3) we recommend that the applicant be required to install a raised pedestrian crosswalk between the Freedom House site and the existing public sidewalk on the west side of New Stateside Drive. We also recommend the construction of the raised crosswalk, associated accessible ramps, sidewalk improvements, and appropriated advance warning signs on New Stateside Drive. We have included this recommendation in Revised Resolution A.
2. Relocated driveway on New Stateside Drive: During the April 17, 2007 Council meeting, a Council member asked if staff had considered relocating the Freedom House driveway directly across from the existing driveway entrance into the Homestead Community Park.
Staff Comment: We do not recommend adjustment to the Freedom House driveway. There are two curb cuts on New Stateside Drive that provide ingress/egress to Homestead Community Park. The northernmost entrance is one-way in, and the southern driveway is one-way out. The Freedom House driveway is located just north of the northernmost Homestead Park driveway (one-way in). Because this northernmost Homestead Park driveway is signed as a “one-way” travel lane into the park, there are no left turning conflicts between the Freedom House and Homestead Community Park driveways.
We also believe that construction of a traffic calming feature on New Stateside Drive, as discussed in item #1 above, will address concerns regarding pedestrian and vehicular safety. Revised Resolution A does not include a recommendation to relocate the Freedom House driveway on New Stateside Drive.
3. Payment towards transit/transportation improvements: The Transportation Board recommended that the applicant provide funding, in an amount not to exceed one percent of the total project cost, for transit and pedestrian improvements.
Staff Comment: The applicant is providing several “transit/transportation improvements’ with this proposed development. New public sidewalks are proposed in two locations with the proposed expansion to Freedom House: 1) a sidewalk segment from the interior of the site eastward connecting to the Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. sidewalk, and 2) construction of 225-foot segment across the street, along a portion of New Stateside Drive adjacent to the Homestead Community Park. The applicant has also agreed to construct a raised pedestrian cross-walk as described above.
The Traffic Impact Analysis did not expect any traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways associated with this proposed development. We do not believe that the amount of vehicle traffic anticipated with this proposed development warrants additional transit or transportation improvements beyond the sidewalk and raised pedestrian crosswalk improvements that the applicant has agreed to.
We have not included the recommendation of the Transportation Board in Revised Resolution A.
4. Proposed number of parking spaces: A Council member asked about the necessity of the number of new parking spaces (30 new spaces) proposed by the applicant, in addition to the 24 existing parking spaces.
Staff Comment: In response to this concern the applicant has provided additional information regarding the expanded services at the site (Attachment 2). Building C, a 4,200 square-foot building for future program expansion, is proposed to be constructed in about eight to 10 years. Associated parking for Building C is 13 spaces and is proposed to be constructed with the building. Seventeen (17) new spaces are proposed to be constructed with the immediate expansion, for a total of 41 on-site spaces. The applicant has indicated that the immediate building expansion proposes construction of a new meeting hall and an associated expansion of services.
At final build out the ratio of parking spaces to floor area will be approximately one parking space for every 500 square feet of floor area. We believe that the applicant’s proposal to increase the number of parking spaces from 24 to 54 is reasonable based on the information presented by the applicant. We have included a stipulation in Revised Resolution A for a maximum of 54 parking spaces.
5. Citizens concerns with safety: At the April 17, 2007 meeting, citizens from the adjacent Parkside neighborhood addressed the Council with safety concerns associated with expansion of Freedom House. Concerns expressed included police intervention with group home residents. A Council member suggested that the staff return with information on police activity at Freedom House over the last several years.
Staff Comment: According to the Chapel Hill Police Department review of department records over the last seven years shows that three arrests occurred on the Freedom House property. Two involved trespassing. The third arrest involved the Chapel Hill Police serving a warrant for an individual wanted in Granville County.
Based on this information we believe that the Council could make the finding 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.
6. Loss of property values: On April 17, 2007, several of the Parkside neighbors expressed concern with a potential loss of property value as a consequence of the Freedom House expansion.
Staff Comment: We anticipate that the applicant will be providing additional information at tonight’s meeting in response to this concern.
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. 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:
Evidence in opposition: During the Public Hearing several citizens expressed a concern that the public safety of the Parkside neighborhood may be compromised by this facility.
Comment: Please refer to the Key Issues section and the discussion under “Citizens concern with safety” of this memorandum for additional evidence received in support of Finding #1 since the April 17th Public Hearing.
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.
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes 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.
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.
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.
Evidence in opposition: During the Public Hearing several citizens stated that they believe the proposed development may negatively impact surrounding property values. No evidence has been submitted in opposition, to date.
Comment: Please refer to the Key Issues section and the discussion under “Loss of property values” of this memorandum for additional information on this matter.
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.
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes 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. Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the four findings.
We have attached a revised resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, and the additional evidence presented tonight by the applicant, we believe that the Council could make the four findings required to approve a Special Use Permit. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
The Planning Board, Community Design Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification with the adoption of Resolution A with conditions. Summary Actions of these Advisory Boards are attached to the April 17, 2007, Public Hearing memorandum.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on April 13, 2007, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application with the adoption of Resolution A with the following stipulation:
Comment: Please refer to the Key Issues section of the memorandum for additional discussion on the recommendation.
A copy of the Summary of Transportation Board Action is attached to this memorandum (Attachment 1).
Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A.
Revised Resolution A includes the following change to the Staff’s Preliminary Resolution from the April 17, 2007 Public Hearing:
· New Raised Crosswalk on New Stateside Drive – That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant construct a raised crosswalk on New Stateside Drive, just north of the Freedom House driveway. That these improvements also include construction of associated accessible ramps, sidewalk improvements, and appropriate advance warning signs on New Stateside Drive. The applicant shall submit detailed final plans for approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit Modification with conditions in Revised Resolution A would comply with the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. Resolution B would deny the application.
|
Issues |
Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board, Community Design Commission |
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Transportation Board |
|
Canopy trees be a minimum or 2 ½ inch caliper |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
*
|
|
Traffic/Pedestrian Control Plan to separate const. traffic from Homestead Park users |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Provide fund for transit/pedestrian improvements |
No
|
* |
* |
Yes (not to exceed 1% of total project cost) |
|
Install raised pedestrian crosswalk/speed table |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
*Issue not discussed at this particular meeting and is therefore not included in this recommendation.
