AGENDA #5f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Petition from Elkin Hills and Adjacent Neighborhoods
DATE: August 26, 2002
At the June 24 regular business meeting, the Council received the attached petition from members of the Elkin Hills and surrounding neighborhoods regarding a proposed University Facilities and Maintenance Complex on a 23.5-acre site between Estes Drive Extension and Barclay Road (Attachment 1) . Petitioners raised a number of concerns, including environmental impacts and overall effects on quality of life in the area.
BACKGROUND
Mayor Foy wrote Chancellor Moeser on June 28 to request communication with the Council and neighborhoods (Attachment 2). Chancellor Moeser replied on July 9, stating that the University was working to improve the project concept based upon citizen comments, and that a meeting would be scheduled with neighbors before formally submitting the Special Use Permit (SUP) application (Attachment 3).
DISCUSSION
We understand that University representatives met with a group of neighbors and Council members in mid-July. Neighbors requested a meeting that would accommodate a larger group, which was held on August 22 at the Chapel Hill Public Library. According to the attached letter from Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor, Facilities Planning and Construction, the University plans to submit an SUP application to the Town in September for an addition to the facilities complex at the corner of Airport Road and Estes Drive (Attachment 4).
The Special Use Permit process includes a number of opportunities for citizen participation. An SUP application undergoes a review process by both staff and advisory boards before it is considered by the Council. The following advisory boards will review the application in public meetings: the Planning Board, Transportation Board, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and the Community Design Commission.
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 the SUP application. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during a Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of the SUP application. These required findings are:
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 complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations.
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.
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.
If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at a Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Development Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit application shall then be approved. Conditions of approval typically accompany such action. 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.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the Town’s Special Use Permit application review process includes opportunity for review by the Council, advisory boards, and Town staff, and that citizens will have further opportunity to comment on potential development at this site. We believe that the citizen concerns about the potential development, including environmental impacts and overall effects on quality of life in the area, will be addressed as part of that process.
ATTACHMENTS