ATTACHMENT 1

Staff Report

SUBJECT:       Public Hearing:  Marriott Residence Inn Hotel –

                        Application for Special Use Permit/Planned Development-Mixed Use 

                        (File No. 7.27.A.3; PIN #:  9799-48-0252)

DATE:             January 22, 2003                     

INTRODUCTION

Attached for your consideration is an application for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development – Mixed Use to allow the construction of a mixed use development on a 13.29-acre site that is located at the northwest corner of the Erwin Road/Dobbins Drive intersection.  A portion of the site is located in the Town’s Resource Conservation District (RCD).

The application proposes a 73,120 square-foot hotel with 108 lodging units, 3,000 square feet of office space, 3,000 square feet of residential space (4 dwelling units, of which one is proposed to be permanently affordable), and 126 parking spaces.  The site is zoned Residential-3-Conditional, and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block A, Lot 3.

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 1998, the Town Council approved both a Zoning Atlas Amendment that rezoned the site from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-3-Conditional (R-3-C), and a Special Use Permit for a Group Care Facility.  The approved Special Use Permit allowed a Group Care Facility for 103 residents, and included 42,111 square feet of floor area and 58 parking spaces.  The Group Care Facility was never built, and the Special Use Permit approval subsequently expired on March 24, 2000.

The site remains zoned Residential-3-Conditional (R-3-C).  Accordingly, as a conditional use zoning district, any proposed development would need approval of a Special Use Permit in order to be built on this site. 

In April, 2001, the applicant submitted a Special Use Permit application for an 85,500 square foot hotel with 120 lodging units.  The submission also included a Zoning Atlas Amendment application to rezone the site from Residential-3-Conditional (R-3-C) to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C).  Subsequently, on May 3, 2002, the applicant requested that the Zoning Atlas Amendment application be revised to rezone the site from Residential-3-Conditional (R-3-C) to Community Commercial-Conditional (CC-C).

On May 10, 2002, the applicant, and the property owner agreed to dedicate the right-of-way needed for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to construct roadway improvements related to the realignment of the Dobbins Drive/Erwin Road intersection.  Improvements include bike lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Erwin Road and curb, gutter and sidewalk on a portion of Dobbins Drive.  In addition the property owner offered to provide a payment to the Town to cover the local share of cost for the project.

On May 29, 2002, the Town Council granted expedited processing for this application with a scheduled Public Hearing date of November 18, 2002.

On October 23, 2002, the applicant presented a Concept Plan for an alternative development on the site to the Community Design Commission.  The applicant’s Concept Plan, named “Dunstan Garth,” included 52 dwelling units in 26 lots on the 13.29-acre site. 

On October 25, 2002, the applicant withdrew the application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment.

On November 6, 2002, the applicant submitted a revised Special Use Permit application.  The revised application proposed a mixed-use development including a 73,726 square foot hotel with 108 lodging units, 3,000 square feet of office and 3,000 square feet of residential floor area, and 126 parking spaces.

On November 12, 2002, the applicant submitted a second revised Special Use Permit.  This revision reduced the proposed floor area for the hotel to 42,312 square feet, included 80 lodging units and 92 parking spaces.  The 6,000 square feet of office and residential floor area remained unchanged. 

On November 18, 2002 the Council opened a Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit application for a 42,312 square foot hotel, with 80 lodging units, 92 parking spaces and 6,000 square feet of residential and office floor area.  The Public Hearing was recessed until January 22, 2003

On January 8, 2003 the applicant submitted a third revised Special Use Permit.  The third revision increased the hotel square footage to 73,120 square feet, included 108 lodging units and 126 parking spaces.  The 3,000 square feet of office floor space and 3,000 square feet of residential area remained unchanged.

The Town Council is currently scheduled to enactment a new Land Use Management Ordinance on January 27, 2003 that would replace the Town’s existing Development Ordinance. This Special Use Permit application will be considered for action by Council under the new Land Use Management Ordinance.  There are several regulatory changes in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance that will impact this proposal.  For a discussion on these issues please refer to the Key Issues discussion in the attached cover memorandum.  

EVALUATION

The Town staff has reviewed this application for compliance with the standards of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, and the standards of Chapel Hill’s Design Manual, and offers the following evaluation.

General Issues

Existing Conditions:  The 13.29-acre site is located at the northwest corner of the Erwin Road/Dobbins Drive intersection, with frontage on both Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road.  The site is immediately north of the Erwin Road/Europa Drive intersection with US Highway 15-501.

The Summerfield Crossing and Foxcroft Apartment developments are located west of the site.  Several single-family residences and a Duke Power Substation are located east of the site, across Erwin Road.  The Sheraton Hotel, Europa Office Building, and several small commercial establishments are located across Highway 15-501 to the south of this property.  Two single-family lots are located north of the site, and the larger of the two lots includes a large pond.  The drainage area below the pond (which runs across the northwestern corner of this site) has been evaluated and determined not to be located within the Town’s Resource Conservation District.

The site has two driveways off Erwin Road and nine small structures, primarily near the middle of the property, which are each proposed for removal.  One of these structures, known as the Bennett-McFarling House, was noted in the 1992 Chapel Hill Historic Sites Survey.

A perennial stream runs along the southern edge of the site, from east to west.  This perennial stream triggers requirements of the Resource Conservation District.  A natural drainage swale runs across the northwest corner of the site, providing drainage from the pond located on an undeveloped lot located north of the site.  A determination by staff is pending as to whether this drainage feature would meet the definition of “intermittent stream” in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance.   

The site is not located in the Town’s Watershed Protection District. A ridge runs through the middle of the site from east to west, with drainage either moving towards the south, or towards the northwestern portion of the site.  The vast majority of the site consist of modest slopes (0-8%), with one small pocket of steeper slopes (8-20%) in the southeast corner of the site. 

The site includes a modest number of significant hardwood and evergreen trees, most of which are either located along the ridge that runs through the site, or in or along the southern portion of the site that is located in the Resource Conservation District (RCD).  There are two significant trees located on the eastern portion of the site, a 34-inch willow oak (located approximately 220 feet off of Erwin Road) and a 26-inch maple (located approximately 160 feet off of Erwin Road). There are also several cedars located on the western edge of the ridge that runs through the site.

Development Description: This Special Use Permit application proposes construction of a mixed use development that would include the following components:

· 73,120 square-foot hotel with 108 lodging units,

· 3,000 square-foot office building,

· 3,000 square feet of residential space (4 dwelling units), and

· 126 parking spaces. 

The proposed two-story hotel building would include 108 lodging units.  A separate one-story building would contain guest check-in and the front desk, management and maintenance offices, a hearth room for limited breakfast service, a small meeting/conference room, and an exercise room.  A third building would consist of two stories, and would contain 3,000 square feet of office space on the ground floor, and 3,000 square feet of residential space on the second floor.  The three buildings together would enclose a courtyard that would contain a swimming pool, outdoor sports court, gazebo, and landscaping.

The applicant has proposed to provide a 100-foot undisturbed western buffer against the Summerfield Crossing townhome development, where a minimum 30-foot buffer is required.  On-site stormwater facilities are proposed to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater leaving the site.

Intensity Standards: The application proposes 79,120 square feet floor area on the site.   As currently proposed, the Land Use Management Ordinance will increase floor area ratios in the Residential-3 zoning district.  Anticipating that the Council will adopt the Land Use Management Ordinance with the increased Residential-3 floor area ratios on January, 27, 2003, this proposal, if authorized by the Council, will comply with floor area standards in the Residential-3 zoning district.  Addition discussion on this issue can be found in the Key Issue section of the attached cover memorandum.

Transportation Issues

Access and Circulation: Vehicular access to the site is proposed via a single point of access on Erwin Road, north of the intersection of Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road.  We believe road improvements are necessary along both Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road in order to provide appropriate access and circulation for this site.  These improvements are further discussed below, by street frontage. 

Dobbins Drive – Portion to be Reconfigured:  The applicant’s site plan identifies the dedication of public right-of-way along the Dobbins Drive service road, to correspond with the State’s preliminary plans to reconfigure this roadway (so that it lines up with the eastern intersection of Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road).  We believe that this reconfiguration is a necessary improvement associated with the development of this site.  Accordingly, we have included a stipulation in Resolution B that requires the developer to dedicate the necessary public right-of-way for the Dobbins Drive/Erwin Road reconfiguration project, as approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).  In particular, Resolution B includes a stipulation that requires the developer to dedicate a 60-foot right-of-way along the realigned section of Dobbins Drive, including any additional right-of-way necessary to complete the reconfiguration project.

We recommend that the reconfiguration of the western Dobbins Drive/Erwin Road intersection should include a minimum of 26 feet of pavement, curb and gutter, and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk along one side of the road.  We also recommend that these improvements be constructed prior to the construction and occupancy of this site.  Accordingly, we have included a stipulation in Resolution B requiring the Dobbins Drive/Erwin Road reconfiguration improvements to be constructed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this site.

We understand that the North Carolina Department of Transportation has funding to undertake the Dobbins Drive reconfiguration project, but that there is no funding for right-of-way acquisition.  In addition, a local share cost must be provided for the project to be constructed.  In May, 2002, the applicant, in coordination with the property owner, agreed to dedicate the right-of-way needed for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to construct these roadway improvements related to the reconfiguration of the western Dobbins Drive/Erwin Road intersection.  In addition, on January 7, 2003 the applicant provided a payment to the Town of $82,550 to cover the local share cost for the project.  The Town is presently coordinating with NCDOT on this project. 

Dobbins Drive – Existing Portion (No Reconfiguration Needed):  We recommend that the remaining portion of Dobbins Drive that is not involved in the NCDOT reconfiguration project be improved as follows:

· That one-half of a 60-foot right-of-way shall be dedicated for this portion of Dobbins Drive, along this site’s frontage.

· That Dobbins Drive shall be improved to include curb and gutter, and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk.

Resolution B includes these stipulated improvements. 

Erwin Road:  The applicant’s site plan identifies the dedication of additional public right-of-way along the property’s Erwin Road frontage, the construction of an additional turn lane (which would provide a northbound left turn lane into the site, and a southbound left turn lane onto the portion of Dobbins Drive located east of this site) and the construction of a bicycle lane along this site’s frontage.  We believe that these improvements are consistent with NCDOT’s plans to improve Erwin Road, and are necessary for the development of this site.  Accordingly, we recommend that Erwin Road be improved as follows along this property’s frontage:

· That one-half of a 110-foot right-of-way be dedicated along this site’s Erwin Road frontage. 

· That Erwin Road be widened to provide 44 feet of pavement along this site’s frontage, including a bicycle lane and a turn lane, curb and gutter, a three-foot wide planting strip, and a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk.

            Resolution B includes these stipulated improvements.

Improvements stipulated above for Dobbins Drive and Erwin Road which are all included in Resolution B, are not worded so as to specify who is responsible for said improvements.  Alternatively, each stipulation is simply worded to specify that each respective improvement must be completed (without reference to who is responsible for constructing the improvement) prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this site.  This allows appropriate flexibility for NCDOT and/or the developer to construct the improvement.

Parking:  The single driveway point of access for this development would lead into the parking areas for the facility.  Parking is generally split equally between two parking areas on the site.  A southern parking area is proposed to provide parking spaces for the hotel and guest check-in building, while a northern parking area is proposed to provide spaces for the hotel, and office/residential building.  The applicant is proposing a total of 126 parking spaces for the 73,120 square-foot hotel and office (3,000 square feet)/residential (3,000 square feet) building.

In accordance with the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, the minimum required parking on the site is as follows:

Use	Minimum Parking Space Requirement	Minimum # Parking Spaces Required
Hotel  (73,120 SF) 108 lodging units	1 per lodging unit	108
Office  (3,000 SF)	1 per 350 SF of floor area	9
Residential  (3,000 SF) 4 one-bedroom units	1.5 per dwelling unit	6
TOTAL:		123

Based on the requirements of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, we believe that a minimum of 123 parking spaces are required on this site.   The applicant is proposing 126 parking spaces.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution B, requiring the development to have a maximum of 126 parking spaces.

We also recommend that the parking lot be constructed to Town standards.  We have also included this stipulation in Resolution B.

Bus Stops: We recommend that a bus stop, including a bench, shelter and a 5-foot by 10-foot pad, be provided along Dobbins Drive once this road is reconfigured.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution B that this bus stop, or a payment-in-lieu, shall be provided prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  We have included this stipulation in Resolution B.

Sidewalks:  A sidewalk network is proposed along the internal parking areas, around the proposed buildings, and within the interior courtyard.  The applicant is also proposing and we are recommending that they construct sidewalks along the property’s Erwin Road and Dobbins Drive frontages.  We believe that the number and location of the sidewalks is appropriate to serve the pedestrian needs associated with this site, with one exception.  We believe that a direct sidewalk connection should be provided between the southern parking area and Dobbins Drive, in order to provide a pedestrian connection between this development and the required bus stop on Dobbins Drive (see previous item).  We have included a stipulation in Resolution B to this effect. 

Bicycle Parking:  The Town’s Design Guidelines for bicycle parking for a commercial/retail use require that the number of bicycle parking spaces shall be 10% of the number of automobile spaces.  Since we have recommended stipulating that the applicant provide 126 parking spaces, we believe that a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces are required.  The Town’s Design Guidelines specify that these 13 spaces shall be provided as follows:

q 20% of the bicycle parking spaces (3 spaces) shall be Class I (enclosed); and

q 80% of the bicycle parking spaces (10 spaces) shall be Class II (stationary ‘U’ rack).

We have included a stipulation in Resolution B to this effect.

Traffic Impact:  The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for this project was prepared by the Town’s Consultant in accordance with the Town’s new TIA guidelines.  The Traffic Impact Analysis was completed in September, 2002.

The September, 2002 Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared with the assumption that the uses on the site would consist of an 85,500 square foot hotel with 120 lodging units as described in the applicant’s original application as submitted in April 2001. 

The Traffic Impact Analysis that was prepared by the Town’s Consultant in September, 2002, concluded the following:

“In general, the additional traffic generated by the proposed Residence Inn is expected to have minimal impact to the surrounding roadway network with the improvements that are planned under the superstreet design, the Dobbins Drive/Erwin Road project, and the improvements that are deemed necessary regardless of whether the site is built out.”

The Traffic Impact Analysis Summary for the Proposed Residence Inn is provided as an attachment to this memorandum. 

On January 7, 2003, the applicant revised the proposal to reduce the hotel to 73,120 square feet with 108 lodging units, include 3,000 square feet of office space and 3,000 square feet of residential floor area.

In response to this revised proposal, the Town’s traffic consultant performed a trip generation analysis comparing the revised proposal to the September 2002 Traffic Impact Analysis findings. The consultant determined that the applicant’s current proposal (73,120 square foot hotel with office and residential floor area) will generate less traffic on a typical weekday that the original plan (85,500 square foot hotel).  We concur with the consultants findings.  A copy of the consultant’s report is included as Attachment 21 to the cover memorandum.

We believe that the road improvements noted previously under the Access and Circulation Section, and included in Resolution B, are consistent with the assumed improvements per the September 2002 Traffic Impact Analysis and the consultant’s trip generation comparison study. 

Transportation Management Plan:  We recommend that a Transportation Management Plan be submitted for this development.  A Transportation Management Plan outlines measures for encouraging employees of a development to utilize alternative modes of transportation, minimizing traffic to and from the site.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution B that a Transportation Management Plan be approved by the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Landscaping & Architectural Issues

Buffers and Landscaping: We provide the following table which illustrates the landscape bufferyards that are required by the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance in comparison to the landscape bufferyards that are proposed by the applicant:

	Western Property Line- Summerfield Crossing	Southern Property Line – Dobbins Drive	Northern Property Lines	Eastern Property Line – Erwin Road
Required by Ordinance	20-Foot Type ‘C’	30-Foot Type ‘D’	20-Foot Type ‘C’	15-Foot Type ‘A’
Proposed by Applicant	100-Foot Type ‘C’	30-Foot Type ‘D’	20-Foot Type ‘C’	50-Foot Type ‘D’

The applicant is proposing to provide a substantial additional western buffer, in an effort to provide additional screening for residents in the Summerfield Crossing neighborhood (several of whom live in units that are very close to the shared property line).  We also note that the applicant has designed the site to preserve several significant trees, including the 34-inch Willow Oak tree and 26-inch Maple tree located near the entrance to the development.

The applicant has also agreed to provide a 50-foot buffer along the property’s Erwin Road frontage.  This buffer width is consistent with the Erwin Road buffer that was previously approved on this site as part of the former Village Oaks Assisted Living Facility Special Use Permit. 

These buffer widths are included in Resolution B.  We have also included a stipulation in Resolution B requiring that the 24-inch Cedar tree located in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the southern detention basin be preserved. 

Building Elevations: We recommend that detailed building elevations, including the location and screening of all HVAC/Air Handling Units, be approved by the Community Design Commission, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recommendation is included in Resolution B.

Lighting Plan: We recommend that a detailed lighting plan be approved by the Community Design Commission, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recommendation is included in Resolution B.

Environmental Issues

Watershed Protection District:  This area is not in a critical or protected watershed district.

Resource Conservation District: As previously noted, a portion of this site is located in the Resource Conservation District. As currently proposed this application does not involve land disturbance activity in the Resource Conservation District. The submitted plan identifies a 75 foot Resource Conservation District boundary.

As currently proposed, the Land Use Management Ordinance may require the expansion of the Resource Conservation District boundary on this site.  For additional information on this issue, please refer to the discussion in the Key Issues section in the cover memorandum.

We have included a stipulation in Resolution B that would prohibit land disturbance in the Resource Conservation District, in accordance with Article 5 of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance.

Stormwater Management:  The applicant is proposing to manage stormwater on the site, through the use of two extended dry detention basins that would be designed to meet the Town’s requirement that the post-development stormwater runoff rate not exceed the pre-development rate.   

As currently proposed, the Land Use Management Ordinance will require this proposal to address stormwater quality and runoff volume. For additional information on this issue, please refer to the discussion in the Key Issues section in the cover memorandum.  We have included a stipulation in Resolution B requiring that the proposed development comply with the stormwater quality and runoff volume standards in the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance

We recommend that prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for approval by the Town Manager.  Based on the 1-year, 2-year, and 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate.  Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. 

Depending on the development site location, size in area and the condition of the existing conveyance system and associated lands, the Manager may waive or change the peak discharge rate criteria in part of in whole if, based on an approved Stormwater Management Plan, it is demonstrated that detention would intensify existing peak discharges or cause other problems on abutting or downstream properties.  In addition, the plans shall show all storm drainage outlets and address any impact the stormwater from these outlets may have on abutting properties.  We also recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant submit an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities.  These stipulations have been incorporated into Resolution B.

Erosion Control:  We recommend that an soil erosion and sedimentation control plan (including provisions for maintenance of facilities and modification of the plan if necessary), be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, and that a copy of the approval be provided to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.   This stipulation has been included in Resolution B.  A letter of credit is now required as part of this approval.

Utility & Service Issues

Utilities:  We recommend that detailed utility plans be reviewed and approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth, Time Warner Cable and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution B.

Fire Safety:  We have included our standard stipulation in Resolution B requiring that a fire flow report sealed by a professional engineer, be submitted for review and approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.  

In accordance with Town Code, the proposed buildings will need to be sprinklered.  The Town seeks to maintain a 50-foot maximum distance between fire hydrants and fire department connections for sprinklered buildings (in a clearly visible and accessible location on the street side of buildings). 

Refuse Management:  The applicant proposes to provide a bulk refuse collection area on the site, to be serviced by the Town.  The refuse area would be located at the western end of the southern parking lot.  The applicant is proposing to provide two eight (8) cubic yard container for refuse.  We believe that these two refuse dumpsters are sufficient to provide capacity for the site.

Recycling:  The applicant proposes to provide a common refuse collection/recycling area on the site, at the western end of the southern parking lot.  We believe that the applicant’s proposal provides adequate recycling facilities to service the needs for the overall site.  We have included our standard stipulations in Resolution B requiring (1) that a Solid Waste Management Plan be developed for review and approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, (2) that all drive aisles which provide access to the compactor, future dumpsters and recycling facilities, be constructed with heavy duty pavement, and (3) that the following note be included on final plans; “prior to any construction activity on the site the applicant will hold a pre-construction conference with Orange County Solid Waste staff.”

Other Issues

Recreation Space:  In accordance with the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance, the applicant is required to provide recreation space for the four residential dwelling units proposed to be located in the northeastern portion of the site.  In particular, the existing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 593 square feet of recreation space be provided for the proposed 3,000 square feet of residential space on the site.  The applicant is proposing that the hotel’s recreational amenities, which constitute approximately 7,000 square feet of recreational space, including a pool, be utilized to fulfill this requirement.  We believe that this is an acceptable approach to fulfilling the recreation space requirement of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance.

We have included a stipulation in Resolution B stipulating that the residents of these 4 dwelling units shall have access to the recreational amenities of the hotel facility.

Affordable Housing:  The applicant is proposing that one of the four residential dwelling units (25%) proposed on the site shall be a permanently affordable unit.  Accordingly, we have included stipulations in Resolution B that would restrict this affordable unit to ownership or rental by an individual or family earning 80% or less of the median income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

SUMMARY

In addition to reviewing the application for compliance with the standards of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, we provide the following analysis of the application with regard to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and the findings required to approve a Special Use Permit Application.

Comprehensive Plan:  This site is designated as low-density residential (1-4 units per acre) on the Land Use Plan that was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan on May 8, 2000.  We believe that this proposal for a hotel is inconsistent with the adopted Land Use Plan.  The applicant presents the argument that the application does meet other goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.  Several possible goals and objectives, including limited impervious surface, additional tax base, minimal impact on schools, and minimal impact on the provision of Town services are identified in the applicant’s attached Statement of Justification for this Special Use Permit application.  We agree with several of the applicant’s points.  On balance, however, we believe that the key point is that the Comprehensive Plan’s adopted Land Use Plan designates this site, specifically, for low-density residential development (1-4 units per acre).  Consequently, we believe that the applicant’s proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Special Use Permit Findings:  For approval of a Special Use Permit, the Council must make the following findings, as set forth in Section 18.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance:

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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;

(d) 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.

Upon review of the application and information that has been submitted to date, our preliminary recommendation is that the Council can make findings (a), (b) and (c).  On balance however, we do not believe that addressing general statements and goals in the Comprehensive Plan is sufficient to override the specific designation given to this particular property by the approved Land Use Plan.  Accordingly, we do not believe that the Council can make finding (d).  We note that this is a policy determination, and that the Town Council may reach a different conclusion. 

CONCLUSION

We believe that the proposal will meet the requirements of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual.  On balance, we do not believe that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and accordingly should be denied.  Resolution A would deny the application.

If the Council believes that the proposal does conform with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, then we believe that the proposal, with the conditions in Resolution B, will meet the requirements of the applicable sections of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual.  Resolution B would approve the application with said conditions.

History of Board Reviews, Version of Proposal Reviewed, Date of Review,

and Basic Recommendations

	Town Manager	Planning Board (10/02)	Planning Board (11/02)	Community Design Commission (10/02)	Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (10/02)	Parks and Recreation Commission (11/02)	Transportation Board (10/02)
Review of Plans Dated:	January 8, 2003	April, 2001	November 12, 2002	April, 2001	April,  2001	November 21, 2002	April, 2001
Description of Application Reviewed by each Board:
Hotel (sq ft)	72,120 sq ft	85,500 sq ft	42,312 sq ft	85,500 sq ft	85,500  sq ft	42,312 sq ft	85,500 sq ft
6,000 sq ft office/residential included?	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No
Number Parking Spaces	126	120	92	120	120	92	120
Recommendations
Recommendation	Res. A (Denial)	No Action (deferred)	Res. B (Denial)	Res. C (Approve w/conditions)	Res. D (Approve w/conditions)	Res. E (Approve w/conditions)	No Action (deferred)
Schedule for future review		Yes Feb. 04, 03		Not at this time	Not at this time	Yes Feb.19, 03	Yes Jan.21, 03