AGENDA #8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: UNC Softball Field Complex: Application for Special Use Permit
DATE: June 14, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from May 17, 2004, regarding a Special Use Permit to allow construction of a team building and restroom facilities at the UNC Softball Fields near Raleigh Road. The site is located behind the UNC General Administration Building and near the St. Thomas More Church. The applicant is proposing to construct 4,500 square feet of floor area at the UNC Softball Field Complex. A total of 26 parking spaces are proposed as well as paving the existing gravel driveway from the UNC General Administration Building. The property is located in the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district and the Watershed Protection District. The site is located in Orange County and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 73, Lot 2A (PIN 9788941696).
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 application. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application.
|
BACKGROUND
A Concept Plan Review of this application was conducted by the Community Design Commission on February 25, 2004, and the Council on March 15, 2004. On March 22, 2004, the Town Council granted expedited processing for review of this Special Use Permit application.
KEY ISSUE
Based on the review of this development application by Town advisory boards and Town staff, we believe that the key issue that has been identified pertains to the proposed modification of regulations.
The applicant is requesting that the Council modify the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations for this site. Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance states:
“Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Chapter, but the Town Council makes a finding in particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Town Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case. Any modification of regulations shall be explicitly indicated in the Special Use Permit or Modification of Special Use Permit.”
The applicant is requesting modification of the following two sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
Permitted Uses within Resource Conservation District: Section 3.6.3-2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, as it pertains to uses within the Resource Conservation District, does not permit detention/retention basins and associated infrastructure within the Stream Side Zone. The applicant requests a modification of Section 3.6.3-2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to acknowledge the existing sediment basin on the site. The existing basin is proposed to remain, although it will be cleared of excess sediment, and will continue to provide stormwater management.
Use Regulations: Section 3.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, as it pertains to uses within each zoning district, does not permit College/University land uses in the low density residential zoning districts. The applicant is requesting a modification of Section 3.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance regarding permitted uses.
Staff Comment: We believe that the applicant’s request to modify Sections 3.6.3-2 and 3.7 of the Land Use Management Ordinance is reasonable because of the following existing conditions:
· The University is not subject to the Resource Conservation District overlay zoning districts; and
· The sediment basin is an existing use; and
· The UNC softball fields are an existing use, constructed without needing Town approval; and
· The University has assembled funding and as an educational institution, is improving this recreational facility to better serve the women’s softball program and advance the educational objectives of the University.
A Non-Profit Recreation Facility is a land use permitted in the Residential-1 zoning district. A Non-Profit Recreation Facility is a non-profit facility that provides recreational activities such as a private country club, golf course, tennis club or athletic field. When land disturbance exceeds 40,000 square feet, a Non-Profit Recreation Facility would require approval of a Special Use Permit. The UNC Softball Complex, however, is not a Non-Profit Recreation Facility. Because the facility is owned and operated by UNC, we consider the use to be a College or University land use. A College/University land use is not allowed in the Residential-1 zoning district. If this softball complex was a private non-profit recreational facility, the use would be allowed with the approval of a Special Use Permit.
Regarding the existing sediment basin, the applicant was asked by a Council member if the basin was at the best location. The applicant responded that the new impervious run-off and some area beyond would be captured by the proposed stormwater facility. With the proposed site improvements, less water will be directed to the existing facility. The applicant indicated that with a reduced demand, the existing facility location seemed reasonable.
We recommend that the Council modify those sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance requested by the applicant as discussed above. We believe that the Council may find that the proposed development, with each of the modifications requested above, would satisfy public purposes to a degree equivalent to that which would be achieved with full compliance with all the regulations. Stipulations representing our recommended modifications are contained in Resolution A.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Council modify the regulations as follows:
Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that some or all of the proposed modifications would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree and could therefore deny the application or require compliance with the particular regulation.
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:
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as Attachment 9 to the May 17, 2004 memorandum).
We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “This project will not cause an increase in traffic.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Utilities have already been extended to the site during previous construction. All utility services are underground.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “All new work will be performed outside of the Resource Conservation District.” [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.
|
We believe the evidence in the record 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.
We note the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.
· “This project generally complies with the Development Ordinance regulations as required in the latest Land Use Management Ordinance. Landscaping shading, buffers, and other items are addressed.” [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.
|
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.
We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The new brick buildings will be appropriately constructed, permanent in nature, and consistent with the surrounding land uses and buildings.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “This facility is a public necessity in that it provides both institutional and community recreational activities. Summer camps and other community activities held at this site are beneficial to the public” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The value of the contiguous property should be enhanced by the construction of permanent brick buildings and added landscape.” [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.
|
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.
We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
· “The building site is designed to promote environmental sensitivity in that buildings are being placed on a site which is already cleared and developed.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The stormwater runoff from the building will be treated by the latest standards as required by the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Other existing areas will also be treated to improve stormwater quality.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “The project will enhance community goals by promoting recreation and public involvement in summer camp programs and field day events for the St. Thomas More School.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “These public events will enhance the economic base of the community by the traveling participants and spectators at the tournaments who require hotel and restaurant accommodations.” [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.
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 four findings necessary in order to approve the application. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see summaries of the Planning Board and Transportation Board actions and recommendations in the May 17, 2004 Public Hearing memorandum attachments. Summaries for the Community Design Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board are attached to this memorandum.
Planning Board Recommendation: On May 4, 2004, the Planning Board voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application, with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Transportation Board Recommendation: On May 4, 2004, the Transportation Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application, with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: On May 19, 2004, the Community Design Commission voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: On May 25, 2004, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on the information to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit application. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.
Resolution B would deny the application.
ATTACHMENTS
PROJECT FACT SHEET REQUIREMENTS
Check List of Regulations and Standards
Special Use Permit Application
UNC Softball Field Complex |
Compliance |
Non-Compliance |
|
Use Permitted |
If granted requested modification of Section 3.7 |
|
|
Min. Gross Land Area |
Ö |
|
|
Min. Lot Size |
N/A |
|
|
Min. Lot Width |
N/A |
|
|
Max. Floor Area |
Ö |
|
|
Impervious Surface Limits |
Ö |
|
|
Resource Conservation District uses |
If granted requested modification of Section 3.6.3-2 |
|
|
Treatment of Stormwater Quality, Volume, and Rate |
Ö |
|
|
Min. Outdoor Space |
Ö |
|
|
Min. # Parking Spaces |
N/A |
|
|
Max. # Dwelling Units |
N/A |
|
|
Min. Street Setback |
Ö |
|
|
Min. Interior Setback |
Ö |
|
|
Min. Solar Setback |
Ö |
|
|
Max. Height Limit |
Ö |
|
|
Min. Landscape Buffers |
Ö |
|
N/A = Not Applicable Prepared: June 9, 2004
RESOLUTION A
(Manager’s Revised, Planning Board,
Transportation Board, Community Design
Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR UNC SOFTBALL FIELD COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS (2004-06-14/R-22a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Corley Redfoot Zack, Inc. for UNC-Chapel Hill on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 73, Lot 2A (PIN 9788941696) if developed according to the site plan dated April 13, 2004, the attached Exhibit A, and the conditions listed below, would:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:
Said public purposes being (1) The use of public funding and associated public purpose.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for UNC Softball Field Complex Improvements in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin June 14, 2006 (two years from approval date) and be completed June 14, 2014 (ten years from approval date).
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes the softball field use and land use intensity requirements and dimensional standards as specified below:
|
Land Use Intensity |
|
|
Net Land Area |
210,395 sq ft |
|
Total # of Buildings |
5 |
|
Maximum Floor Area |
4,500 sq ft |
|
Maximum Impervious Surface |
38,724 sq ft |
|
Maximum # of Parking Spaces |
26 spaces (4 handicapped) |
|
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces |
7 spaces |
Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues
3. Parking Area: That the proposed parking area shall be constructed as shown on the attached site plan labeled Exhibit A, dated April 13, 2004.
4. Parking Lot Standards: That all parking lots, drive aisles, and parking spaces shall be constructed to Town standards.
5. Multi-Use Path: That the applicant is authorized to construct a ten foot multi-use path to the facility from Christopher Road in order to provide a travel route for bicyclist and pedestrians between Raleigh Road and Christopher Road.
6. Bicycle Parking: That the development shall comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards providing a minimum of seven (7) spaces.
7. Bicycle Parking: That the applicant is authorized to increase the number of bicycle parking spaces above the number required for this improvement.
Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues
8. Required Buffers: That the following landscape buffers be provided; and if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, the vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:
|
Location of Buffer |
Required Buffer |
|
UNC General Administration Building (east property line) |
Min 30’ Type ‘B’ Buffer |
|
St. Thomas More Church (south property line) |
Min 30’ Type ‘B’ Buffer |
|
Residential property (north/west property line) |
Min 30’ Type ‘C’ Buffer |
9. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, including Town standard landscape protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
10. Landscaping Plan: That a detailed landscape plan (including buffers) including a landscape maintenance plan, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.
11. Tree Protection Fencing: That the limits of land disturbance with tree protection fencing, shall be shown of the Landscape Protection Plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
12. Parking Lot Shading: That the plans demonstrate compliance with the parking lot shading requirements of Article 5.9.6(d) of the Land Use Management Ordinance. It will be necessary to demonstrate that at least 35% of the parking area surface, at noon on August 21, is shaded when vegetation matures.
13. Parking Lot Design: That all parking areas are constructed in accordance with Article 5 of the Land Use Management Ordinance including a 5-foot planting strip to be incorporated between the building and the parking areas and including screening the parking lot from view.
14. Building Elevations: That the Community Design Commission approve building elevations prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the buildings in that phase.
15. Lighting Plan: That the Community Design Commission approve a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues
16. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager.
17. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. We recommend that the plan include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and shall be approved by Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
18. State or Federal Approvals: That any required State or federal permits or encroachment agreements must be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
19. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, or the State if applicable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That a performance guarantee be provided in accordance with Section 5-97.1 of the Town Code of Ordinances prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity.
Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues
20. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final Utility/Lighting Plan be approved by Duke Power Company, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, BellSouth, Public Service Company, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
21. Utility Line Placement: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground. The applicant shall indicated proposed off-site utility line routing and upgrades required to service the site on Final Plans, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
22. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report shall be prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Town Design Manual, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
23. Fire Hydrant: That the final proposed location for fire department connections and location and number of new hydrants shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues
24. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
25. Open Burning: That the open burning of trees, limbs, stumps, and construction debris associated with this development is prohibited unless it is demonstrated to the Town Manager that no reasonable alternative means are available for removal of the materials from the subject property. The Fire Marshall may establish safety standards, which must be met in order to receive a permit.
26. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), and landscape plans and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual.
27. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surface prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
28. Construction Signs: That the applicant shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 16 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
29. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
30. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit application for UNC Softball Field Complex Improvements in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 14th day of June, 2004.
RESOLUTION B
(Denying the Special Use Permit Application)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR UNC SOFTBALL FIELD COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS (2004-06-14/R-22b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Corley Redfoot Zack, Inc. for the UNC Softball Field Complex Improvements on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 73, Lot 2A (PIN 9788941696) if developed according to the site plans dated April 13, 2004, attached Exhibit A, and conditions listed below, would not:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit for UNC Softball Field Complex Improvements in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
(INSERT ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR DENIAL)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for UNC Softball Field Complex Improvements as proposed by Corley Redfoot Zack, Inc.
This the 14th day of June, 2004.