MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT:	Chapel Hill Country Club Development – Special Use Permit Application (File No. 9798-68-9751)
DATE:	April 11, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues consideration of a Special Use Permit application proposing to add 7,963 square feet of additional floor area to the reconstructed clubhouse and bathhouse at the Chapel Hill Country Club. Construction also includes an internal sidewalk from Lancaster Drive to the clubhouse. The 32.26-acre site is located at the northwest corner of Lancaster Drive and New Castle Drive.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the information in the record to date, with the conditions in Revised Resolution A and the requested modification to regulations, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit application. 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:

Cover Memorandum: Introduces application, discusses key issues, describes process for review, and offers recommendations for Council action.
Attachments: Includes additional information submitted by the applicant, copy of the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum, including advisory board comments and the applicant’s materials.

KEY ISSUES

We have identified two key issues related to this development. A brief discussion on each follows.

Modifications to the Regulations: During the Planning Board meeting, the applicant realized that portions of the existing landscape buffer, along the 32-acre Special Use Permit boundary, do not meet the minimum bufferyard requirements. In response to this issue, subsequent to the March 19 Public Hearing, the applicant has revised their application and is asking the Town Council to modify the Land Use Management Ordinance with respect to these buffer areas. Included with the applicant’s request to modify the regulations is an aerial photograph identifying the portions of the Special Use Permit boundary where the bufferyards do not meet the minimum requirements (Attachment 1).

Comment: Please refer to the discussion in the Proposed Modification of Regulation section in this memorandum.

Bicycle Parking: During the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing a Council member asked the staff to clarify the stipulation concerning the recommendation from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board as it relates to bicycle parking spaces.

Comment: On February 27 the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that “…a total of 42 bicycle parking spaces be provided on-site, including 22 spaces of an inverted “U” type rack…”

The applicant has stated that the existing site includes at least 20 bicycle parking spaces. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommendation requires that the applicant provide 22 new bicycle parking spaces in addition to retaining the existing 20 bicycle spaces. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that specifies the following “…that in addition to the existing 20 bicycle parking spaces, that the applicant shall provided 22 new bicycle parking spaces. We also recommend that the new bicycle parking spaces shall be provided by adding 11 inverted “U” type racks to the Country Club site.”

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

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 point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“The proposed renovation and modest addition to the existing structures onsite are not anticipated to have any negative impact. Construction activities during the renovation of and addition to existing structures will be so managed as to ensure that the continued health, safety, and general welfare are maintained.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

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:

“The site and use are deemed to be compliant with all applicable standards and regulations, with the exception of landscaped buffers and stormwater management requirements set by the current Ordinance. For relief of buffering and stormwater management requirements set by the current Ordinance, the applicant request that the Council find that existing conditions are adequate to serve the public interest and exempt the applicant from the required standards.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2. For discussion on the applicant’s proposed modification to regulations, please refer to the Modifications to Regulations section in this memorandum.

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.

“The existing development and use and the surrounding neighborhood are mutually supportive. This architectural renovation to the site’s visual appearance, as well as a modest addition allowing for improved functionality of the recreation use, is anticipated to enhance the value of contiguous property.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.

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.

“The proposed renovation/expansion poses no change in use and conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town, as well as complies with the 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 four findings.

MODIFICATIONS TO THE REGULATIONS

The applicant is requesting that the Council grant modifications to the regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance, as discussed below.

Landscape Bufferyards: The applicant’s original application identified several areas where the existing landscape bufferyards do not comply with the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements:

The tennis courts’ frontage on New Castle Drive and on the north side of the northernmost tennis court; and
An area at the corner of Lancaster Drive and New Castle Drive that includes a golf cart path.

Subsequent to the March 19 Public Hearing, the applicant submitted an amended application requesting modification to the bufferyard for additional areas along the proposed Special Use Permit boundary (Attachment 1)

The buffers at these locations do not meet the ordinance requirements for width or density. The applicant states that the Country Club and the surrounding residential neighborhood are compatible uses and views from the neighboring residential lots into and across the golf course constitute an amenity. The applicant also believes that the area of the proposed activity in generally buffered consistent with the current Land Use Management Ordinance standards.

Comment: We concur with the applicant regarding the existing buffering exception requests for these two locations. We recommend that Article 5.6 Landscaping, Screening, and Buffering of the Land Use Management Ordinance be modified for the areas described above.

Parking Lot Screening: The applicant states that most of the parking area is adequately screened except the site’s southwestern corner. The applicant has indicated that the lack of screening in this area is somewhat mitigated because the elevation of the parking surface is 4 to 6 feet above the street right-of-way and because of existing crepe myrtles.

Comment: We agree with the applicant that the elevation mitigates the lack of screening. We recommend that Article 5.9.6 Parking Landscaping Standard of the Land Use Management Ordinance be modified for the for portions of the existing landscape bufferyards along the boundary of the Special Use Permit as identified on the Landscape Buffers Exhibit (aerial photo) dated April 2, 2007 and accompanying description (Attachment 1).

The applicant has requested that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. Please refer to the attached Statement of Justification for additional justification as presented by the applicant.

In summary, the Town Council may modify one or more of the proposed modifications to regulations if it makes a finding in the particular case, that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. The Town Council may deny one or more of the proposed modifications from regulations at its discretion. If the Council chooses to deny a request for modification to regulations, the applicant’s alternative is to comply with regulations.

SUMMARY

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, along with the requested modifications to the regulations, 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

The Advisory Boards recommended that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution A with conditions. Summary Actions of the Advisory Board are attached to the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum.

Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A.

Revised Resolution A includes the following changes to the Staff’s Preliminary Resolution from the March 19, 2007 Public Hearing

Bicycle Parking Spaces - Clarification that in addition to the existing 20 bicycle parking spaces, that the applicant will also provide 22 new bicycle parking spaces with the installation of 11 inverted “U” type bicycle racks.
Modification to Regulations – That modification to the bufferyard regulations shall be granted for portions of the existing landscape bufferyards along the boundary of the Special Use Permit as identified on the Landscape Buffers Exhibit (aerial photo) dated April 2, 2007 and accompanying description.

We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Revised Resolution A and proposed modifications to regulations 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.

Chapel Hill Country Club
Special Use Permit

DIFFERENCES AMONG ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUE	Manager’s Revised Recommendation	Planning Board	Transportation Board	Community Design Commission	Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board
Speed Table proposed by Town on Lancaster Drive	$3,500 Payment-in-lieu to accommodate pedestrian crosswalk	*	$3,500 Payment-in-lieu to accommodate pedestrian crosswalk	*	*
Bicycle Racks	Install 11 inverted “U” racks to supplement the existing 20 bicycle parking spaces	*	*	*	Install 11 inverted “U” racks to supplement the existing 20 bicycle parking spaces
Non-conforming bufferyards adjacent to the Special Use Permit boundary	Permitted with modification of regulations	Alternative bufferyards or modification of regulations	*	*	*

* Issue was not discussed at this particular meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applicant’s amended application including aerial photo and description of modified bufferyards (p. 14).

2. March 19, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum with attachments (begin new page 1).