AGENDA #10a

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

From:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject:      Aquatic Center at Homestead Community Park - Application for Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 7.24..19)

DATE:                        November 9, 2005

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 19, 2005, regarding a Special Use Permit Modification for Homestead Community Park, to add a proposed 27,400 square-foot Aquatic Center. The 40-acre park site is located on the west side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., north of Homestead Road, south of Parkside Subdivision and east of Vineyard Square. The site is located in the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district and contains Resource Conservation District. The property is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map Number 7.24..19, PIN 9880-12-7274.

Accompanying this memorandum is a separate report from the Town Manager responding to issues raised by the Council from the perspective of the Town as owner of the project.

MANAGER’S 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:

• Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal, discusses key issues raised at the October 19, 2005 Public Hearing, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action and includes resolutions of approval and denial.

• Attachments: Includes a copy of the Vicinity Map (showing properties within 1,000 feet from the site) and the October 19, 2005 Public Hearing memorandum.

BACKGROUND

Concept Plan reviews of the Aquatic Center application were conducted by the Community Design Commission on June 16, 2004 and by the Town Council on June 21, 2004.

KEY ISSUES

During the Council October 19 public hearing on the Special Use Permit Modification application, four key issues were raised associated with this development, discussed below.

Handicapped Access:  A Council Member asked if the drop-off access to the front of the building would be handicapped accessible.

Comment: The applicant is proposing a smooth-transition, slightly ramped curb. The applicant also is proposing to install bollards along the edge of the ramp to prevent motor vehicles from entering onto the hardscape area. The bollards are proposed with lighting directed toward the pavement for added visibility. We agree with the proposed design and recommend that the applicant submit a detail for this section, for the Town Manager to approve, prior to approval of a Zoning Compliance Permit. A stipulation to this effect has been included in Resolution A. 

Sidewalks: During the public hearing, a Council Member identified two sidewalk gaps on the submitted site plan.

Comment: The applicant has indicated that the plans will be revised to eliminate the sidewalk gaps. Resolution A includes a stipulation that requires the Town Manager to review and approve a sidewalk plan prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Bicycle Parking: A Council Member asked the applicant about proposed bicycle parking spaces.

Comment: The applicant is proposing covered bicycle parking in front of the entrance to the Aquatic Center.  We believe the proposed location and type of bicycle parking is appropriate for the Aquatic Center use.  Resolution A includes a stipulation that states that the development shall comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking design. 

Homestead Road Crosswalk: A Council Member asked why the staff was not supporting the recommendation from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board that the $1,000 payment stipulated in Resolution A for a traffic signal warrant study is used instead to help build a pedestrian crosswalk on Homestead Road.

Comment: The recently approved Southern Orange Senior Center Special Use Permit included a stipulation for a crosswalk on Homestead Road. We recommend that the $1,000 payment be used for the warrant study as stated in Resolution A.

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 it can make each of the 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 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 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:  Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 2).

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

• “The proposed Aquatic Center will provide an indoor venue for recreational swimming for all ages. This addition to the Community’s recreation facilities will promote and contribute greatly to the health and general welfare for Chapel Hill and surrounding Orange County citizens. The Center will be designed to be fully accessible.” [Applicant’s Statement]

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.  Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application (part of Attachment 2).

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 Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 2).

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

• “This site is allowed a floor area of 143,266 square feet. The total number of square feet, including existing and proposed uses, is 28,113, less than the maximum permitted.” The building setback and number of parking spaces exceed the minimum. [Applicant’s Statement]

• The application has been submitted using, and is following procedures outlined in the Land Use Management Ordinance. [Applicant’s Statement]

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

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment 2).

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

• “The proposed Aquatic Center is located within the existing Homestead Park in a site originally proposed and approved for a Community Center Facility.”

• “A public vote to consider the issuing of bonds to support the development of this facility received overwhelming support and was passed by the voters of Chapel Hill. This public vote proves the need for this facility and makes the development of the facility a public necessity.” [Applicant’s Statement]

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.  Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the application (part of Attachment 2).

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 Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (Part of Attachment 2).

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

• “This proposed facility development is in conformance with the Zoning Atlas and the Comprehensive Plan for the development of Chapel Hill and its environs.”

• “By their actions in supporting the sale of bonds [to create the Aquatic Center], the citizens of Chapel Hill have voted to include this facility in their vision for the future. Therefore it is consistent with the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan.” [Applicant’s Statement]

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 application (part of Attachment 2).

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, we believe that the Council could make the findings regarding health, safety and general welfare, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Stipulations Incorporated into Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation:

Following public hearing review of the application, the following recommendations were included in Resolution A, the Town Manager’s revised recommendation:

1. Handicapped Access: That the applicant design the drop-off area in front of the Aquatic Center with a smooth-transition, slightly ramped curb and lighted bollards. The applicant shall submit a detail for the drop-off area, for the Town Manager to approve, prior to approval of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Comment:  Please refer to the Key Issues section for additional information about inclusion of this stipulation in the Revised Recommendation A.

2. Sidewalks: That the applicant provide a continuous sidewalk around the edge of the parking lot, to provide access to the Aquatic Center.

Comment:  Please refer to the Key Issues section for additional information about inclusion of this stipulation in the Revised Recommendation A.

Recommendations From Advisory Boards and the Town Manager are Summarized Below:

Parks and Recreation Commission: On October 24, 2005, the Parks and Recreation Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution F.

Summary of Action for the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, are included in Attachment 2.

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

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 Parks and Recreation Commission.

Resolution G would deny the application.

Homestead Park Aquatic Center – Special Use Permit Modification

Differences Among Resolutions

ISSUES	Resolution A (Approval) Manager’s 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/Ped Board Rec	Resolution F (Approval) Parks /Rec Board Rec
Delete Req for Parking  Landscaping	No	No	Yes	Yes	*	No
Complete traffic signal  study at Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. and Stateside Drive	No	No	Yes	*	*	No
Increase in bicycle parking	Yes (60 spaces)	Yes (60 spaces)	*	*	Yes (48 spaces)	No (40 spaces)
Delete stip for signal study and direct $1,000 as P-I-L to construct  ped crossing on Homestead Rd	No	No	*	*	Yes	No
Handicapped Access in front of entrance	Yes (roll down curb with bollards)	*	*	*	*	*
Fill in sidewalk gaps	Yes	*	*	*	*	*

* Issue raised after the advisory board meeting

ATTACHMENTS

1. Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action (p. 24).

2. October 19, 2005 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1).