AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Red Hot and Blue (Whole Foods Plaza): Application for Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 7.46.B.8)
DATE: September 22, 2003
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from September 15, 2003, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application to allow daytime dining at the building that is presently occupied by the Red Hot and Blue Restaurant. Adoption of Resolution A would approve a Special Use Permit Modification application. Adoption of Resolution B would deny the request.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background information on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action.
¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.
|
Background
On September 15, 2003, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit Modification application to allow daytime dining at the building that is presently occupied by the Red Hot and Blue Restaurant. The site is located in the Whole Foods Plaza shopping center, at the southeastern intersection of East Franklin Street and Elliott Road.
This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification. 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 regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on September 15, 2003, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.
evaluation of the application
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification.
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 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.
Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide evidence in support and opposition of the four findings of facts for this application that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification.
|
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: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (Attachment 3, p. 17) provides evidence in support of Finding #1. We note the following key point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The modification of the Special Use Permit is for the limited purpose of allowing daytime dining in the second building (Red, Hot & Blue Restaurant). Serving food at the restaurant during the day will not jeopardize the public health, safety, or general welfare of the citizens of Chapel Hill.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: No evidence was presented at the September 15, 2003, Public Hearing 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 this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained 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: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 3, p. 17) provides evidence in support of Finding #2. We note the following key point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The approval of the modification of the Special Use Permit is only intended to “officially permit” a use in the second building that has existed since 1974. Thus, the modification of the Special Use Permit will not change the site as it relates to compliance with Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, and with all other applicable regulations.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: No evidence was presented at the September 15, 2003, Public Hearing 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 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.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 3, p. 17) provides evidence in support of Finding #3. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “For over twenty-nine years, the restaurant operation in the second building of Village Plaza has served lunches and dinners. By serving lunches, the restaurants located in the second building of the Ginn Parcel have helped draw customers to the theatre and retail establishments on the contiguous property, and have served as a convenient eatery for customers of the theatre and retail stores on the neighboring property. Thus, the approval for the second building to provide daytime dining will enhance the value of all contiguous properties.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Approving the modification of the Special Use Permit is in effect only “putting on paper” what has existed at Village Plaza for almost three decades. Therefore, it is not anticipated that approval of the modification of the Special Use Permit will have any negative impact on the values of any of the contiguous properties.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: No evidence was presented at the September 15, 2003, Public Hearing 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 this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 3, p. 17) provides evidence in support of Finding #4. We note the following key point:
· “To the extent that the second building is located in an area zoned Community Commercial (CC), in which restaurants serving lunch during the day is anticipated, the approval of the modification of the Special Use Permit conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town, as embodied in the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition: No evidence was presented at the September 15, 2003, Public Hearing 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.
key issueS RAISED AT PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Bill Wilson, a representative from Eastern Federal Corporation, the adjoining property owner, came to the public hearing and requested that certain conditions be included with the approval of this Special Use Permit Modification. These requested conditions, outlined in Attachment 3 (p. 15), include requiring the applicant to:
· Provide a service vehicle access driveway connection behind the Whole Foods Plaza shopping center in the same manner that Eastern Federal and Mark Properties is required to do;
· Provide ingress and egress access on the Whole Foods/Gateway Commons site permitting tenants and customers from the adjoining properties vehicular and service vehicle ingress, egress and regress across the Whole Foods/Gateway Commons properties in the same manner that Eastern Federal and Mark Properties is required to do;
· Provide at least two on-site weekend security monitors to direct restaurant patrons to park on the Whole Foods site and discourage restaurant patrons from parking on adjacent properties in the same manner that Eastern Federal Corporation and Mark Properties is required to do.
When the Town Council called the Public Hearing, the Council limited the scope of review of this Special Use Permit Modification application to the issue of daytime dining. We believe that the conditions requested by Mr. Wilson are not roughly proportional to the potential impacts of the proposed Special Use Permit Modification. We recommend that the Council not adopt the additional conditions proposed by Mr. Wilson.
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.
Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this proposal on September 2, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the application. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Transportation Board’s Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this proposal on September 2, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the application. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.
Community Design Commission’s Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this proposal on September 17, 2003. We will provide the Council with a summary of the Commission’s action at tonight’s meeting.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this proposal on August 26, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the application. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.
Manager’s Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our recommendation is that the Council approve the application by adopting Resolution A.
Resolution B would deny the application.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE WHOLE FOODS PLAZA PROPERTY (2003-09-22/R-7a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Ginn and Company, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lot 8 (PIN 9799-14-7917), if developed according to the conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit Modification for the Whole Foods Plaza property in accordance with the condition listed below:
1. That the Special Use Permit Modifications approved by the Town Council on February 9, 1981 (Deed Book 359, Page 224) and October 26, 1981 (Resolution of Approval) be amended to delete Condition A(4), imposed originally on March 10, 1969 (Deed Book 261, Page 557).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Whole Foods Plaza property in accordance with the condition listed above.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE WHOLE FOODS PLAZA PROPERTY (2003-09-22/R-7b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Ginn and Company, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lot 8 (PIN 9799-14-7917), if developed according to the conditions listed below, would not:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the specific standards contained in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
3. 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;
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
(INSERT ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR DENIAL)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for the Whole Foods Plaza property as proposed by Ginn and Company.
This the 22nd day of September, 2003.