TO: Mayor and Town Council
From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
Subject: Public Hearing: The Condominiums (aka Village Apartments, McCorkle Place Condominiums, University Condominiums) Application for Special Use Permit (File No. 7.80.E.11)
DATE: March 21, 2005
INTRODUCTION
We have received a request for approval of a Special Use Permit application which proposes to convert and enlarge an existing apartment building known as The Village Apartments at 213 East Franklin Street. The building is proposed to be converted from 35 dwelling units to eight dwelling units. Approximately 1,077 square feet of new floor area is proposed. The property is located on the northeast corner of Robertson Lane, and is in a National Register District. The site is located in the Office/Institutional-1 (OI-1) zoning district and also the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District, an overlay zoning district. The site is located in the Orange County and is identified as Tax Map 80, Block E, Lot 11.
Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and further to receive evidence which the Council may consider as the Council determines any appropriate requirements to include as conditions of approval.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
¨ Cover Memorandum: Introduces application, describes process for review, summarizes staff and advisory board comments, and offers recommendations for Council action.
¨ Staff Report: Offers a detailed description of the site and proposed development, and presents an evaluation of the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
¨ Attachments: Includes a checklist of requirements for this development, resolutions of approval and denial, advisory board comments, a letter from University Presbyterian Church, an email from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, a letter from the Downtown Economic Development Corporation, and the applicant’s materials. |
PROCESS
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it against Town standards; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows below). Evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, 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.
BACKGROUND
A Concept Plan review of this application was conducted by the Historic District Commission on August 12, 2004. A copy of the Commission’s Concept Plan review comments is attached. The proposal did not meet the minimum thresholds that would require Town Council review of the Concept Plan. The applicant did not request Concept Plan review by the Town Council.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
The applicant is proposing to convert the 35 dwelling unit building into eight dwelling units. Additional floor area is proposed to create a new dwelling unit on a new fourth floor. A new roof and shed dormers will allow an attic area to become habitable space. A balustrade is proposed along the edges of the roof facing both Robertson Lane and the rear parking area. Several HVAC units are proposed to be placed on the roof.
The interior of the building is proposed to be extensively modified including installation of an elevator and internal fire escape stairs and reconfiguration of the floor plan.
In addition the application proposes a new raised garage roof with a shed dormer, demolition of existing fence and construction of a new fence and lift gate, new HVAC compressors with a six foot wall, relocation of mail boxes, gas meters and transformer, and new landscaping area. A decrease in on-site parking spaces form 23 to 15 is also proposed. An alternative access is proposed which could provide a 20-foot vehicular access from The Condominiums parking area to the University Presbyterian Church parking lot on the north property line, conditional upon approval from the University Presbyterian Church and the Town Council.
The applicant is proposing to extend the Streetscape Plan on the East Franklin Street frontage of the property.
The applicant is requesting a waiver from the Town Council regarding requirements of Section 5.4.5(b) of the Land Use Management Ordinance to provide stormwater management facilities. In the case that the request for a waiver is not granted by the Council, the applicant is proposing to satisfy the regulations requiring managing stormwater runoff for quality by using a filtration system insert in the parking lot catch basin.
The applicant is asking that the Council modify certain Land Use Management regulations for this site, asserting that public purposes would be satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree by approval of this application as proposed. The requested modifications are discussed below.
We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Based on our evaluation, our preliminary recommendation is that the application as submitted, with the modification of regulations included in Resolution A, meets the requirements of the applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.
Tonight the Council receives our attached evaluation, and also receives information submitted by the applicant and citizens. The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum. All information that is submitted at the hearing will be placed into the record.
Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit.
The four findings are:
|
Special Use Permit – Required Findings of Fact
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 would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;
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; and
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.
|
Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.
MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS
The existing apartment building on this site was built in 1937. The building and associated development do not comply with many provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance. As a result, the building has several nonconforming features. Nonconforming features are physical characteristics that were lawfully established but no longer comply with today’s regulations. For this structure, existing nonconforming features include:
This application also proposes to expand two of these nonconforming features:
The application proposes to add 1,077 square feet of floor area and to increase the building height with a new roof and shed dormers that will allow an attic area to become habitable space. Floor area and height limits are already exceeded for the building and the application proposes to increase those nonconformities. Please refer to page 7 of the Staff Report (Attachment 1) for a table which identifies the details of the modifications requested.
Section 4.5.6, Permitted Modifications of Regulations, allows the Town Council to make specific modifications of regulations in the particular case if public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. The Town Council may adjust dimensional standards and may reduce the minimum parking, landscape buffers, and landscape planting strip requirements for an individual site in the context of a Special Use Permit.
Please refer to the applicant’s Statement of Justification for the applicant’s discussion of public purposes.
In this situation, we believe the proposed modifications of regulations can be justified, if the Council desires, based on the following public purposes:
Consequently, as part of this development application, the applicant is requesting permission to modify the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations, with regard to these existing nonconforming features, and the associated expansions.
KEY ISSUES
We have identified four key issues associated with this development, discussed below.
Affordable Housing: The applicant proposes to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan goal for 15 percent of the units to be affordable by providing either:
Comment: Fifteen percent (15%) of 8 dwelling units is 1.2 units. The proposal to provide a single rental dwelling unit in the building (1 of 8 dwelling units) as affordable is 12.5 % of the number of units. The proposal does not meet the Comprehensive Plan goal. In order to meet the 15% goal, two affordable units would need to be provided. This may not be feasible with an 8-unit development.
We do not believe that a $34,000 payment is sufficient to subsidize the provision of a single affordable unit in the area. We have received correspondence from Mr. Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, which indicates that $70,000 is the amount necessary to subsidize the provision of an affordable unit in the downtown area (Attachment 19).
In this situation, we believe that payment-in-lieu is a good approach. We recommend provision of a payment-in-lieu for 1.2 dwelling units (15%) at the per unit subsidy amount proposed by Orange Community Housing and Land which would result in a payment of $84,000 (1.2 x $70,000 = $84,000). We have included a stipulation in Resolution A, the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, to this effect.
Robertson Lane Fire Apparatus Access Road: A key issue during the review of this application by advisory boards has been a staff recommendation requiring Robertson Lane to have a 20-foot unobstructed width for fire apparatus access. Based on recent discussions, we have revised this previous recommendation.
We have incorporated the comments of the Historic District Commission and the Transportation Board and now recommend construction of a four-foot wide sidewalk within the existing 15 foot Robertson Lane. We believe an 11-foot wide travel lane to accommodate vehicular movement with construction of a separate sidewalk within the existing roadway is workable. We understand that the applicant does not object to these conditions of approval.
We believe construction of a sidewalk in the existing roadway would help to separate pedestrian movements from the one-way vehicular traffic. The 20-foot fire apparatus access road provision of the North Carolina Fire Code would be satisfied as long as no fencing is placed on top of or immediately adjacent to the existing low stone wall located on the east side of Robertson Lane (within the 20 foot apparatus width). A fire truck could drive up on the newly constructed sidewalk and the stabilizers from the fire truck could extend into the lawn adjacent to the low stone wall. Resolution A, our preliminary staff recommendation includes this language.
Recreation Space: The applicant has an obligation to provide 965 square feet of recreation space for the multi-family development. The applicant has offered to satisfy the recreation area requirement with a payment-in-lieu ($11,580) to satisfy the requirement in response to the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation (see Board Recommendations).
Comment: We believe the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for a payment-in-lieu of providing on-site recreation facilities is reasonable. The payment amount, per square foot, is a standard determined by the Town Council. The amount currently is established at $12 per square foot of required recreation space. The Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, Resolution A, includes a requirement for an $11,580 payment-in-lieu for recreation space ($12 x 965 square feet).
Development Name: The applicant has chosen the name, “The Condominiums” for the development, following discussion with Town staff. The applicant’s original choice, McCorkle Place Condominiums, was not acceptable under Town guidelines. Town public safety staff and Orange County Emergency Management found this name unacceptable because of possible confusion with the UNC quadrangle space of the same name and potential for delayed emergency response.
Comment: The Town and Orange County Emergency Management have determined that the name, The Condominiums, is acceptable.
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, our preliminary recommendation is that the Council could make the four findings necessary in order to approve the application with the modifications proposed. The Manager’s preliminary recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
Following is a brief outline describing the next steps in the development review process, should the Council approve the Special Use Permit application for this site:
1. Applicant accepts and records a Special Use Permit, which incorporates the terms of the Council-adopted resolution.
2. Applicant submits detailed Final Plans and documentation, complying with Council stipulations. Information is reviewed by Town departments and the following agencies:
3. Historic District Commission reviews and approves building elevations and site lighting and issues a Certificate of Appropriateness.
4. Upon demonstration of compliance with remaining Council stipulations, Town staff issues a Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing site work. Permit includes conditions specific to the development and requires pre-construction conferences with Town staff.
5. Inspections Department issues Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see summaries of board actions and recommendations in the attachments.
Planning Board Recommendation: On January 4, 2005, and on February 1, 2005, the Planning Board considered the Special Use Permit application. On February 1, the Planning Board voted 6-2 to recommend denial of the application. The Board indicated that having affordable housing downtown was important and did not support reducing the amount of permanent housing downtown. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action for additional discussion.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: On January 25, 2005, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted 8-2 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended removal of the stipulation requiring the sidewalk on Robertson Lane along the entire frontage and the addition of a new stipulation for outdoor bicycle parking. The Board considered Robertson Lane a narrow low trafficked, one-way street in which vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists can safely co-exist and that a separate sidewalk parallel to the street was not necessary.
The stipulation for outdoor bicycle parking was proposed as a beneficial addition to the indoor bicycle parking proposed in the basement with at least two bicycle parking spaces be provided as outdoor stationary racks.
Comment: We recommend that the applicant construct a 4 foot wide sidewalk within the existing Robertson Lane roadway which would separate pedestrian and vehicular movement and that a new stipulation be added to Resolution A to provide outdoor bicycle parking for at least two bicycles in addition to the interior spaces.
Transportation Board Recommendation: On February 1, 2005, the Transportation Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution C. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.
The Transportation Board recommended modifications to Stipulations 5 and 9 requiring construction of a four-foot wide brick, or comparable material, sidewalk along the eastern portion of the existing 15-foot wide road. This would result in an 11-foot vehicle travel lane and a four-foot sidewalk for pedestrians.
Comment: We recommend that the applicant construct a four foot wide sidewalk within the existing Robertson Lane roadway which would separate pedestrian and vehicular movement. We recommend that the material of the new sidewalk within Robertson Lane be approved by the Historic District Commission.
Historic District Commission Recommendation: On February 10, 2005, the Historic District Commission voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution D. Resolution D does not require sidewalk construction or right-of-way dedication. Please see the attached Summary of Historic District Commission Action. The Historic District Commission recommended protecting the building’s historic appearance.
Comment: We recommend that the applicant construct a four foot wide sidewalk within the existing Robertson Lane roadway which would separate pedestrian and vehicular movement. We recommend that the material of the new sidewalk within Robertson Lane be approved by the Historic District Commission.
Parks and Recreation Commission: On February 17, 2005, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution E. Please see the attached Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action.
Resolution E does not require sidewalk construction or right-of-way dedication. Resolution E would require a payment-in-lieu for the entire recreation space requirement for $11,580. The Commission supported the payment-in-lieu for the entire recreation space requirement preferable to the gym/exercise room proposed when considering the cost and upkeep of the proposed exercise space for 8 units.
Comment: We recommend that the applicant construct a 4 foot wide sidewalk within the existing Robertson Lane roadway which would separate pedestrian and vehicular movement. We recommend the new stipulation for payment-in-lieu of required recreation space of $11,580. We have included this stipulation in Resolution A.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our preliminary conclusion is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. If the Council makes the required findings for approval of a Special Use Permit, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.
Resolution B is the recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Resolution C is the recommendation of the Transportation Board.
Resolution D is the recommendation of the Historic District Commission.
Resolution E is the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Resolution F would deny the application as recommended by the Planning Board.
The Condominiums - Special Use Permit
Differences Between Resolutions
|
|
|
||||||
|
ISSUE |
Resolution A Town Manager’s Preliminary Recomm. |
Resolution B Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recomm. |
Resolution C Transportation Board Recomm. |
Resolution D Historic District Comm. Recomm. |
Resolution E Parks and Recreation Commission Recomm. |
Resolution F (Denial) Planning Board Recomm. |
|
|
Sidewalk on Robertson Lane
|
Yes with 11 ft. travelway and adjacent 4-sidewalk in existing road r-o-w (sidewalk material to be determined by the Historic District Commission) |
No, vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists co-exist in existing road |
Yes with 11 ft. travelway and adjacent 4-brick sidewalk in existing road r-o-w |
No |
No |
N/A, recomm. denial of application |
|
|
Outdoor bicycle rack for 10% of req. spaces |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
N/A, recomm. denial of application |
|
|
Robertson Lane ROW Dedi- cation |
No, sidewalk in existing 15 foot road |
Yes |
No, sidewalk in existing 15 foot road |
No |
No |
N/A, recomm. denial of application |
|
|
Payment-in-lieu for entire Rec. Space |
Yes |
No, partial payment |
No, partial payment |
No, partial payment |
Yes |
N/A, recomm. denial of application |
|
|
Payment- In-Lieu for Afford. Housing |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
N/A, recomm. denial of application |
|
* Issue not raised at advisory board meeting
ATTACHMENTS
1.Planning Staff Report from January 4, 2005 (with adjustments noted) (p. 12).
2.Project Fact Sheet Requirements (p. 32).
3.Resolution A (Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation) (p. 33).
4.Resolution B (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation) (p. 41).
5.Resolution C (Transportation Board) (p. 43).
6.Resolution D (Historic District Commission Recommendation) (p. 45).
7.Resolution E (Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation) (p. 47).
8.Resolution F (Planning Board Recommendation for Denial) (p. 49).
9.Historic District Commission Concept Plan Summary (p. 51).
10. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 52).
11. Summary of Transportation Board Action (p. 53).
12. Summary of Planning Board Action (p. 54).
13. Summary of Historic District Commission Action (p. 55).
14. Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action (p. 56).
15. Letter from Downtown Economic Development Corporation (p.57).
16. Statement of Justification (p. 58).
17. Project Fact Sheet (p. 63).
18. Traffic Impact Analysis Exemption (p. 65).
19. Correspondence from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (p. 66).
20. Correspondence from the Applicant (p. 67).
21. Other Correspondence (p. 68).
22. Area Map (p. 69).
23. Reduced Plans (p. 70).
STAFF REPORT
|
Updated for the March 21, 2005 Public Hearing
|
Subject: The Village Apartments (aka University Condominiums, McCorkle Place) - Application for Special Use Permit (File No. 7.80.E.11)
Date: January 4, 2005 (Updated for the March 21, 2005 Public Hearing)
INTRODUCTION
|
Note: This report provides the January 4, 2005 Staff Report that was presented to advisory boards. We have indicated with a dialogue box, such as this one, whether changes have occurred with each section since the original report was prepared for January 4th. Text in these dialogue boxes is current as of March 21, 2005. |
We have received a request for approval of a Special Use Permit to renovate and enlarge an existing residential building. The application proposes conversion of 35 apartment rental units to eight condominium units at 213 East Franklin Street. Of the eight proposed units, one is proposed to be rental. Currently, a 3-story brick apartment building with a basement and a one story garage and parking area exist on the site. An additional 1,077 square feet of floor area is proposed. The footprint of the building is proposed to remain unchanged. Additional floor area is proposed on a new fourth floor where existing attic space is proposed to be converted to a new dwelling unit. A decrease in on-site parking spaces from 23 to 15 is also proposed.
In addition to the new roof to accommodate a fourth floor, the application proposes a new sidewalk, new raised garage roof, demolition of existing fence and construction of a new fence and lift gate, new HVAC compressors with a six foot wall, relocation of mail boxes, gas meters and transformer, and new landscaping area. An alternative access is proposed which could provide a 20-foot vehicular access from the Village Apartments parking area to the University Presbyterian Church parking lot on the north property line, conditional upon approval from the University Presbyterian Church and the Town Council.
The site comprises .44 acres (19,040 square feet) and is located on the northeast corner of Robertson Lane and East Franklin Street within the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District and a National Register District. Adjacent to the property on the east is the Kappa Delta Sorority, on the west and north is the University Presbyterian Church, and across the street to the south is McCorkle Place, part of the UNC campus.
The site is located in the Office/Institutional-1 (OI-1) zoning district. The site is located in Orange County and is identified as Tax Map 80, Block E, Lot 11 (PIN #9788-47-4898).
This is an existing development that has several nonconforming features with regard to the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. The proposed development would create additional conditions that do not comply with regulations. The applicant is requesting modifications of regulations for this site as a part of this application. In this set of circumstances, the Town Council has the ability to modify the regulations if it finds a justification related to public purposes.
EVALUATION
The Town staff has reviewed this application for compliance with the standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual and offers the following evaluation.
Existing Conditions
Location: The Village Apartments are located in the downtown area of Chapel Hill on the north side of East Franklin Street across from the University of North Carolina. The property is located in the designated Preservation and Conservation Area of the Downtown Chapel Hill Small Area Plan, the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District, and a National Register District. The Small Area Plan recommends that future development in these Preservation and Conservation Areas should be undertaken with the idea of protecting the existing buildings and should be harmonious with and integrated into the existing fabric.
The Village Apartments are bordered on the west by Robertson Lane, a one-way street with stone walls on both sides. The adjacent property sharing Robertson Lane frontage is the University Presbyterian Church. Preschool drop off occurs on Robertson Lane during the week in the morning and afternoon drop-off and pick-up times. Directly behind the property is a parking lot for the University Presbyterian Church. Adjacent on the east is the Kappa Delta Sorority house. The back wall of the existing garage borders the Kappa Delta property line. Located across East Franklin Street to the south is the campus of the University of North Carolina that contains McCorkle Place, the open quadrangle with sidewalks linking the University’s buildings.
Existing Structures: The site includes an uncovered parking area for 15 cars, an 8-car garage structure, and a 22,852 square foot 3-story apartment building with a basement containing 35 rental apartment units. A building entrance sidewalk to East Franklin Street contains mailboxes and steps leading to the gravel sidewalk along East Franklin Street. A second entrance facing Robertson Lane contains mailboxes, a short sidewalk to Robertson Lane, and the gas meters associated with the dwelling units.
The apartment building has an outdoor metal fire escape stairs attached to the north end of the building and outdoor covered wooden stairs leading to all 3 floors. A door from the parking lot provides entrance into the building. Two basement apartments on the north end of the building are accessed with stairs from the driveway.
Utilities are overhead and individual air conditioning units are used for cooling.
Vehicular Access: Vehicular access is by a one-way paved road, Robertson Lane, connecting East Franklin Street with East Rosemary Street. Robertson Lane lies within a 15-foot right-of-way that extends from the front face of two rock walls bordering the lane.
Parking: Existing parking areas are located back of the apartment building and along the driveway coming off Robertson Lane. A total of 23 parking spaces are currently provided. Asphalt pavement goes all the way to the building and cars park at the building wall. Surface parking is provided for 15 cars and a detached, single story garage provides parking for eight additional cars. There is no on-street parking on East Franklin Street and no on-street parking on Robertson Lane.
Pedestrian Circulation: A Chapel Hill public sidewalk spans the frontage on East Franklin Street and connects to the apartment building entrance sidewalk. A side entrance from the apartment building leads directly onto Robertson Lane. There is no sidewalk along Robertson Lane.
Bus Stops, Routes: Many bus stops are easily within walking distance of the apartment building and 10 routes travel past the apartments on East Franklin Street. By walking to Columbia and Franklin Streets almost all bus routes are available.
Topography, Drainage, Vegetative Cover: Sixty-six percent of the land area of the site currently is covered with impervious surface. Overland flow is directed to two catch basins, one in the southwest portion of the site connected to roof drains. A second one is located in the northwest corner of the site in the parking area which also collects water from the garage roof. Both catch basins are connected to the storm drain on Robertson Lane.
Existing vegetation consists of plantings around the building and several large deciduous trees (two walnut trees, one mulberry tree, and two ash trees).
The site is mostly flat. A perimeter stone wall borders the edge of the site on the south, west, and a portion of the east property line. The wall acts as a retaining wall in several locations and defines the border of the property in others. A four foot drop from the East Franklin Street sidewalk to the property is defined with the stone retaining wall and steps from Franklin Street. Along the Robertson Lane frontage the wall varies in height from six inches at the side entrance on Robertson Lane to four feet where it connects with the East Franklin Street portion of the wall. The apartment building sits below the East Franklin Street elevation.
Development Description
The applicant is proposing to convert the 35 dwelling unit building into eight dwelling units. Multi-family developments are a use permitted in the OI-1 zoning district. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires a Special Use Permit if modifications to the regulations are requested or for any nonconforming property proposing enlargement, extension, or structural alteration. This application is proposing both. Whenever changes are proposed to a property and the changes do not meet today’s regulations, the modifications proposed must occur within the context of a Special Use Permit with a special request that Town Council modify the regulations.
The Village Apartments building was built in 1937. The buildings and associated development do not comply with many provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance. As a result, the building has several nonconforming features such as: excessive floor area, excessive density, excessive impervious surface, does not meet setbacks, does not provide landscape buffers, excessive building height, and the development does not provide landscaped areas between the parking area and building.
Additional floor area is proposed to create a new dwelling unit on a new fourth floor. A new roof and shed dormers will allow an attic area to become habitable space. A balustrade is proposed along the edges of the roof of the roof facing both Robertson Lane and the rear parking area. Several HVAC units are proposed to be placed on the roof.
The interior of the building is proposed to be extensively modified including a complete replacement of all electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems, installation of a sprinkler system, the installation of an elevator and internal fire escape stairs, reconfiguration of the floor plan and new storage space in the existing attic paralleling East Franklin Street.
Further exterior changes to the building include replacing existing vinyl double hung windows with wooden double hung windows, installation of two shed dormers (one on the roof facing Robertson Lane and the other facing the parking lot), removal of the metal fire escape at the north end of the building, raising the existing garage roof by approximately two feet, installation of window openings for ventilation and light, installation of a perimeter fence, and a lift gate on the driveway into the parking area and several HVAC units are proposed along the eastern property line shared with Kappa Delta. A 6-foot brick wall is proposed behind the proposed compressors next to the sorority to shield the view.
Exterior changes to the garage include: new shed dormers, new wood columns, new roof, new windows, and raising the existing roof by two feet.
The applicant is proposing to extend the Streetscape Plan on the East Franklin Street frontage of the property.
Name of Proposed Development:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
The applicant has chosen the name, “The Condominiums,” for the development, following discussion with the Town and Orange County Emergency Management. The Town and Orange County have determined that the name is acceptable. |
The applicant has proposed that the new name for the Village Apartments building be: McCorkle Place. This is already the name of a well-known landmark across the street on the UNC campus. Because of the possibility of confusion during an emergency situation, we believe that the proposed name change is not acceptable. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that any new name for the Village Apartments be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
The Town is also responsible for assigning new addresses. We do not agree with the applicant’s statement in the Statement of Justification “that the USPS (United States Postal Service) regulations allow the Developer to use any system he wishes.” Address assignments for assigning addresses are the role of a local planning authority. A letter from Dean Fields, Officer in Charge, United States Postal Service is attached (see Attachment 4). The United States Postal Service has established guidelines avoiding the use of alphanumeric primary or secondary address numbers (e.g., E101 Main Street or 234 Center St. Apt. 101C) as well as hyphenated primary or secondary address numbers, A-1 or 1-A (see Attachment 4).
The current addresses at the Village Apartments require readdressing. Currently the addresses at the Village Apartments are 1-A, 1-B and so on. Current machinery used by the Post Office to read addresses rejects addresses with dashes, then this rejected mail is
hand-sorted by a clerk, and given to a mail carrier who then places it in the machine-sorted mail in the proper delivery order. This process can delay mail by a day or more. We have included a stipulation that the new dwelling units be readdressed, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Ordinance Requirements
Zoning: This property is zoned Office/Institutional-1 (OI-1). Multi-Family dwelling units with over seven dwelling units are a permitted use in the OI-1 zoning district. Some of the uses permitted in the OI-1 zoning district include: offices, banks, clinics, universities or colleges, places of worship, recreation facilities, rooming houses, schools, and tourist homes. The site is within Orange County, the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District, a National Register District, and the Chapel Hill Downtown Small Area Plan boundary.
Land Use Plan: The Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Council on May 8, 2000, identifies this area as High Residential with 8 to 15 units. A density of approximately 18 units an acre is proposed.
Dimensional Standards: The proposed project does not meet all of the dimensional standards outlined in the Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1) of the Land Use Management Ordinance for the Office/Institutional-1 zoning district. Dimensional regulations not met with the proposed changes include: (1) floor area; (2) density; (3) impervious surface;
(4) minimum setbacks; and (5) building height.
Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance allows the Town Council to make specific modifications of the regulations in a particular case if they find that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree and that the modifications are explicitly indicated in the Special Use Permit.
The Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1) establishes a floor area ratio for the OI-1 zoning district at .264. The maximum amount of floor area permitted on the site is 5,529 square feet. Currently, the apartment building contains 22,858 square feet of floor area. This application proposes an additional 1,077 square feet of floor area for a total of 23,935 square feet of new floor area. The applicant is requesting a modification of the regulations to allow 23,935 square feet of floor area with this application.
The applicant is proposing a density equal to 18 units per acre. The Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1) lists a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre for this zoning district. Existing density on the site is 80 units per acre. The applicant is proposing to reduce exiting density with this application and requests a modification to the regulations to allow eight dwelling units with this application.
The Dimensional Matrix, (Table 3.8-1) indicates that for this property, the maximum impervious surface of 10,472 square feet is allowed. The site currently has 13,784 square feet of impervious surface. The applicant proposes to reduce the existing impervious surface on the site to 12,908 with this application. A modification of the regulations is requested to allow 2,436 square feet of impervious surface over the amount allowed by the Ordinance. A reduction in the current amount of impervious surface is proposed by eliminating some parking lot pavement and replacing it with landscaped areas. The proposal calls for a reduction in impervious surface of 876 square feet and to ask Town Council to modify the regulations for impervious surface limits.
The Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1) indicates a 24 foot street setback from the edge of right-of-way. This development is a corner lot with street setbacks on both the south (East Franklin Street) and west (Robertson Lane) boundaries. The applicant is proposing a 19 foot setback from East Franklin Street and a nine foot setback from Robertson Lane.
For interior setbacks, the Land Use Management Ordinance provides for an eight foot setback along the eastern property line. The existing garage was constructed one and a half feet from the eastern property line. The applicant is proposing to place new HVAC units with associated six foot brick screen wall one foot from the eastern property line and relocation of a transformer one foot from the eastern property line. The applicant is requesting a modification of the regulations for the eastern setback to allow these new HVAC/transformer structures and reconstruction of the upper portion of the garage structure.
On the northern University Presbyterian Church property line, buildings must be set back at least eleven feet from the property line. The applicant complies with this regulation for the existing structure. The applicant is requesting modification to the regulations for the south, east, and west setbacks.
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires that the primary height of a structure in the OI-1 zoning district not exceed 29 feet. The secondary height limit is 60 feet. The existing primary building height is currently nonconforming at 33 feet. The Land Use Management Ordinance states that no structure or part thereof, shall project beyond the building envelope defined by the minimum street, interior, and solar setbacks and the maximum heights established in the Dimensional Matrix for the zoning district in which such structure is located. The applicant proposes to add an additional fifteen feet for a primary height of 48 feet. The applicant is requesting a modification of the regulations to allow an additional fifteen feet of building height of the primary height, outside the building envelope.
Dimensional standards for the proposed Special Use Permit in an OI-1 zoning district are shown in the following table:
|
MODIFICATION REQUESTED |
REGULATION |
PROPOSED |
EXISTING |
|
Floor Area |
5,529sq. ft maximum |
23,929 sq. ft. |
22,858 sq. ft. |
|
Density |
10 units per acre maximum |
8 units per .44 acre (18 units per acre) |
35 units per .44 acre (80 units per acre) |
|
Impervious Surface |
10,472 sq. ft maximum |
12,908 sq. ft |
13,784 sq. ft. |
|
Required Setbacks: |
|
|
|
|
· E. Franklin St (south) |
24 ft. |
19 ft. |
19 ft. |
|
· Robertson Ln.(west) |
24 ft. |
9 ft. |
9 ft. |
|
· East Prop. Line |
8 ft. |
1.5 ft. – 11 ft |
1.5 ft. – 11 ft. |
|
Maximum Height - Primary |
29 ft. |
48 ft. |
33 ft. |
|
Parking Spaces |
16 minimum |
15 |
23 |
|
Landscape Buffers: |
Minimums: |
|
|
|
· Robertson Ln. (west) |
20 ft. Type C |
10 ft. Type C |
9 ft. – 10 ft. |
|
· Univ. Pres. Ch. (north) |
20 ft. Type C |
1.5 ft.(wall w/vines) |
0 |
|
· Kappa Delta (east) |
20 ft. Type C |
1 ft.–11 ft. Type C |
1 ft. to 11 ft. |
|
Landscape Planting Strip |
5 ft. minimum |
0 – 5 ft. |
0 ft. |
As indicated in the table, the Village Apartment proposal exceeds maximum permitted floor area, maximum permitted density, maximum permitted impervious surface, and maximum permitted building height, and does not meet minimum setbacks, minimum number of parking spaces, required landscape buffer strips between parking facilities and the exterior wall of a building, and landscape buffers with this proposal. In addition, the minimum width of the parking lot aisle would be less than Town Standards specify.
In this case, the University Condominium application may be considered under the provision of Section 4.5.6 Permitted Modifications of Regulations as a Special Use Permit for an existing development and that the Council may find that the modifications to some of all or the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree.
Modification of Regulations: Section 4.5.6 Permitted Modifications of Regulations allows the Town Council to make specific modifications of the regulations in the particular case if public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. The Town Council may adjust dimensional standards and may reduce the minimum parking, landscape buffers, and landscape planting strip requirements for an individual site in the context of a Special Use Permit.
Please refer to the applicant’s Statement of Justification for the applicant’s discussion of public purposes. In this situation, we believe the proposed modifications of regulations can be justified, if the Council desires, for the following purposes:
Consequently, as part of this development application, the applicant is requesting permission to modify the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations, with regard to these existing nonconforming features and the expansion of the expansion of floor area and height.
Transportation Issues
Vehicular Access:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
We have incorporated the comments of the Historic District Commission and the Transportation Board and now recommend construction of a 4 foot wide sidewalk within the existing 15 foot Robertson Lane. We believe an 11 foot wide travel lane to accommodate vehicular movement with construction of a separate sidewalk within the existing roadway is workable and will satisfy the NC Fire Code provisions for apparatus access if no obstructions such as a fence are placed within a 20 width. We understand that the applicant does not object to these conditions of approval.
In addition, we no longer recommend pavement striping for the fire lane. Fire lane designation would be with signage. |
Robertson Lane does not comply with the NC Fire Code for apparatus access. Improvements must be made to Robertson Lane to provide a 20 foot unobstructed access for emergency vehicle response for compliance with Fire Code. We have discussed a solution with the applicant: 20-foot access which would include a sidewalk on the inside of the stone wall, the stone wall width, and the paved portion of Robertson Lane. Robertson Lane currently has a 15-foot right-of-way from the face of the western wall to the face of the eastern wall that borders the pavement. No fencing may be installed within this 20 foot unobstructed access anywhere along the entire Robertson Lane frontage. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that Robertson Lane have a 20-foot unobstructed fire apparatus access as a stipulation in Resolution A.
We recommend that the applicant dedicate right-of-way along the Robertson Lane frontage to ensure that the right-of-way is located along the western face of the existing stone wall. We recommend that the new sidewalk be located in a public access easement. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
A security lift gate is proposed across the driveway on Roberson Lane. We recommend that a least one car length be provided in front of the gate from Robertson Lane in order to prevent traffic tie-ups on Robertson Lane as a car enters the parking lot, as shown on the plans. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
Wider turning radii are proposed for the driveway entrance off Robertson Lane that will “flatten” the radius of the turn. This adjustment will involve removal and reconstruction of a stone wall. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to widen the turning radius of the driveway.
Resolution A also includes a stipulation that the applicant improve the intersection of Robertson Lane and East Franklin Street with a modest improvement to the turning radius on both sides of Robertson Lane to be increased within the amenity strip.
The access to the garage must be labeled as “Fire Lane/No Parking” with signage on the garage as well as painted and striped on the pavement. Additional Fire Lane/No Parking signs must be placed along the southern driveway and along the west wall of the building. The Fire Lane designation extends the entire length of the driveway and across the width of the parking lot to the rear door entrance. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A for Fire Lane/No Parking signage pavement markings and signage.
Proposed Alternate Vehicular Access: The application includes a proposal for alternative access from the parking lot to the University Presbyterian Church parking lot on the north side of the property contingent upon church agreement for a shared access through their parking lot onto East Rosemary Street. If this access should be approved, no additional proposed parking spaces would be lost. If approved, a Shared Access Agreement must be reviewed, approved, and recorded at Orange County Land Records prior to issuance of Zoning Compliance Permits for the two developments.
Pedestrian Circulation:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
We have incorporated the comments of the Historic District Commission and the Transportation Board and now recommend construction of a 4 foot wide sidewalk within the existing 15 foot Robertson Lane. We believe construction of a sidewalk in the existing roadway would help to separate pedestrian movements from the one-way vehicular traffic.
We also have adjusted the recommendation for compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements for truncated domes at the East Franklin Street sidewalk (rather than a Robertson Lane sidewalk). |
Pedestrian circulation currently consists of a sidewalk from the entrance facing the East Franklin Street sidewalk and a second sidewalk from the west entrance leading directly onto Robertson Lane. No Robertson Lane sidewalks currently are provided. Pedestrians access East Franklin Street or East Rosemary Street by walking in Robertson Lane.
The applicant is proposing to add a sidewalk along Robertson Lane on the inside of the site and adjacent to the existing stone wall for 43 feet extending southward from the Robertson Lane entrance and connecting to back onto Robertson Lane with steps. Pedestrians must then continue walking in Robertson Lane for another 40 feet to reach East Franklin Street or East Rosemary Street. We recommend that the proposed sidewalk be continuous along the entire Robertson Lane frontage. This sidewalk is part of the unobstructed 20-foot fire apparatus access (a Fire code requirement) for Robertson Lane. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that the Robertson Lane sidewalk be continuous for the entire length and located within the 20-foot fire apparatus access.
We have included this stipulation in Resolution A that the applicant provide truncated domes on both sides of the proposed Robertson Lane sidewalk to comply with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements.
Robertson Lane Fence:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
The applicant no longer proposes an ornamental fence adjacent to Robertson Lane. |
The applicant is proposing an ornamental fence adjacent to Robertson Lane along the stone wall for 40 feet from East Franklin Street. This fence is proposed to be a minimum of four feet high and is proposed within the 20-foot unobstructed fire apparatus access. We recommend that if a fence is to be constructed, that it be on the east side of the recommended sidewalk outside of the 20-foot unobstructed fire apparatus access. Any proposed fence gates must open into the site rather than into the right-of-way. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that the fence be outside the 20-foot unobstructed fire apparatus access and any gates open into the site.
Bicycle Parking:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
We have revised our recommendation to also include a new stipulation in Resolution A to provide outdoor bicycle parking for at least 2 bicycles in addition to the interior spaces. |
The Design Manual requires that for all redevelopment projects, at least 10% of the total number of parking spaces must be provided. For this application at least one space must be provided. Ten new bicycle storage spaces are proposed to be provided in the basement of the building and accessed by an elevator. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that at least 10 bicycle parking spaces be located in the basement of the building.
Vehicular Parking: The Land Use Management Ordinance requires a minimum of 16 spaces for this proposed development. The applicant is proposing to provide 15 spaces. The applicant is requesting a modification to the parking regulations with this application.
Eight parking spaces are proposed in the existing garage and seven spaces in the parking lot. Parking space #14 is the only space shown as a compact space. We recommend that spaces #1 and #15 also be labeled as compact. Access into the driveway is constrained. A car in parking space #1 is vulnerable to being hit by incoming cars. For fire safety, this parking space must be shortened to allow unimpeded emergency access to the site. A shorter parking space would move a car in #1 further to the east a few feet lessening the likelihood of turning interference.
Parking space #15 is a parallel parking space directly adjacent to the building. It is bordered on the ends by the stairs and the rear entrance to the building. The rear entrance door shows a roof covering and brick pavement flush with the parking pavement. No roof support is shown. If support posts are proposed we do not believe that a car can safely maneuver into the space without sticking out into the Fire Lane. Any protrusion into the Fire Lane could result in towing of the vehicle. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that parking spaces #1, #14, and #15 be compact spaces.
Alternative to Parking Space #15: As an alternative to a compact parking space at #15 (adjacent to the building, stairs, and entrance), we recommend consideration of a continuation of the 5-foot planting strip. In this case, the Council would need to modify the parking regulations for 14 cars instead of the 16 required.
Parking Lot Drive Aisle: The parking area aisle between the garage and the entrance door and garage and parking space #15 does not meet the Design Standards. The standard width minimum for a parking aisle is 25 feet. Currently there is no entrance overhang or patio associated with the rear door entrance or parallel parking space adjacent to the building. The applicant proposes to install a 5-foot planting strip, parallel parking space, and entrance overhang and brick patio flush with the pavement adjacent to the building. The drive aisle at these locations varies from 25 feet to 23 feet. The applicant is requesting a modification of this standard for a minimum drive aisle of 23 feet. We support this request.
Bus Stop, Routes: No improvements to the existing bus stop network are proposed or recommended with this application.
Traffic Impact: A Traffic Impact Analysis was not required for this development proposal. The requirement to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis may be waived by the Town Manager if all of the following conditions are met:
a) Daily trip generation is less than 500 (or, for a change to an existing property that does not requiring rezoning, difference in daily trip generation is less than 500);
b) No more than 250 vehicles per day (or, for a change to an existing property that does not requiring rezoning, no more than 250 vehicles per day) access an existing collector or local road;
c) The total traffic, including background traffic and additional traffic from proposed new site or redeveloped property does not exceed an average of 150 vehicles per day on any unpaved road;
d) The applicant submits a written request for a Traffic Impact Analysis waiver with appropriate supporting documentation including pedestrian/bicycle analysis, if applicable; and
e) The Town Manager concurs with the request.
The total number of trips for the proposed development is expected to be reduced and no increased impact on the surrounding street network is expected.
Landscaping and Architectural Issues
Buffers and Landscaping: Landscape buffers are nonconforming on three sides of the site. The South landscape buffer on East Franklin Street meets the requirement for a 10-foot Type B buffer. The applicant is requesting a modification to the regulations for the landscape buffers on the east, west, and north property lines.
On the east side of the property bordering the Kappa Delta Sorority house, a Type C, 20-foot buffer is required. Currently, the back wall of a detached, 1-story, 8-car garage is located one and a half feet from the property line. The garage is proposed to remain. The applicant is proposing to build a 6-foot masonry screen wall 21 feet long one foot off the eastern property line to screen five new HVAC compressors. A relocated transformer is also proposed for the eastern landscape buffer area. The eastern bufferyard varies from one to 11 feet.
On the northern property boundary bordering the University Presbyterian Church parking lot a 20 foot Type C buffer is required. A proposed one and a half foot buffer is proposed along the majority of the property line. Currently, pavement for the parking area is a foot and a half off the property line. This distance is proposed to remain unchanged. The applicant is proposing to construct a fence with vines to provide a buffer between the two adjacent parking areas. A small area of existing trees and shrubs at the northeastern end of the parking area adjacent to the garage are proposed to remain.
On the western property line bordering Robertson Lane, a 20-foot Class C landscape buffer is required. The applicant is proposing a nine foot buffer.
The applicant is proposing three alternative buffers. Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance allows the Town Council to make specific modifications of the regulations in a particular case if they find that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree and that the modifications explicitly indicated in the Special Use Permit.
The table below outlines the minimum landscape buffer requirements for the site and the buffers proposed by the applicant
|
Landscape Buffers |
||
|
Location |
Ordinance Requirement |
Applicant’s Proposal |
|
E. Franklin St. frontage |
Min. 10 ’ Type ‘B’ Buffer |
Min.10’ Compliant Buffer |
|
Eastern buffer |
Min. 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer |
Min 1’-11’ Non-Compliant Buffer |
|
Western buffer |
Min 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer |
Min 9’ Non-Compliant Buffer |
|
Northern buffer |
Min.20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer |
Min. 1.5’ Non-Compliant Buffer (wall w/vines) |
We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that detailed landscape plans and landscape and maintenance plans 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 and all trees and vegetation on the plans.
Landscape Protection Plan: A landscape protection plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan must include a detail of protective fencing as well as construction parking and materials staging/storage areas. This plan must also indicate which labeled trees are proposed to be removed and where tree protection fencing will be installed. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
Parking Lot Shading: We believe the applicant complies with the parking lot shading regulations of 35% shading of the parking area surface. The proposed 60 foot building will cast substantial shade. Eight of the 15 cars are proposed to be parked in a garage. Existing vegetation in the northeast corner will contribute to the parking lot shade.
We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that a Shading Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Landscape Buffer Strip: Section 5.9.6 Parking Landscaping Standards requires that parking facilities shall be separated from the exterior wall of a structure, exclusive of paved pedestrian and bicycle entrance ways or loading areas, by a buffer strip at least five feet in width, which shall be landscaped in accordance with Town landscaping standards. The applicant is proposing to include a new 53-foot landscape strip along the rear of the existing building between the rear entrance door and the north end of the building. On the south side of the parking lot entrance no planting strip is proposed. There is no proposal for a planting strip for the north end of the building along the driveway. The applicant is asking for a modification to the parking landscaping regulations. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A for a 5-foot planting strip between the parking lot and building north of the building entrance.
An alternative proposal to the parallel parking space adjacent to the building (#15) is to delete that space and add additional 5-foot planting area (see discussion under Transportation Issues). Parking maneuvers into space #15 are potentially problematic. If the applicant chooses this option for added planting area a modification to the parking regulations for 14 vehicles instead of 15 would be needed. We encourage consideration of this idea.
Building Elevations/Site Lighting:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
Any change to a structure, including a sidewalk or roadway adjustment, in a local historic district, must be approved by the Historic District Commission. We have adjusted the recommended resolution to include the Historic District Commission approval of the Robertson Lane sidewalk material. |
The regulations require that detailed building elevations and a lighting plan be approved by the Historic District Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
Recreation Space:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
We believe the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for a payment-in-lieu of providing on-site recreation facilities is reasonable. The payment amount, per square foot, is a standard determined by the Town Council. The amount currently is established at $12 per square foot of required recreation space. The Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, Resolution A, includes a requirement for an $11,580 payment-in-lieu for recreation space ($12 x 965 square feet). |
Section 5.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance requires that a minimum amount of recreation space be provided with applications including multi-family dwelling units. For this site, in the OI-1 zoning district, 965 square feet of recreation space is required. The applicant is proposing to satisfy this requirement in two ways: (1) with a proposed gym in the basement of the building and (2) with a payment-in-lieu to the Town’s recreation fund. The amount of the payment is established annually by the Town Council, and is currently $12 per square foot. In this case, a gym area is proposed with 625 square feet of floor area. Of that area 178 square feet is dedicated to bicycle storage, leaving 447 square feet of recreation space. The difference between this and the required amount of space is 518 square feet, resulting in a payment calculation of $6,216.
We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit that the Town Manager must approve recreation space plans and receive the payment-in-lieu for recreation space.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Watershed Protection District: The site is not located in the Watershed Protection District. There is no Resource Conservation District on the site.
Stormwater Management: A Stormwater Impact Analysis was submitted for this application. The applicant is requesting a waiver from requirements of Section 5.4.5(b) of the Land Use Management Ordinance from the Town Council to provide stormwater management facilities. Impervious surface is being decreased and no change to the building foot print is proposed.
The regulations require the applicant to control the quality of stormwater runoff. The applicant has proposed a Best Management Practice (BMP) for controlling quality with a filtration system catch basin insert (“Aqua-Guard”) in the case that the request for a waiver is denied by the Council. This catch basin is proposed to tie in with the existing catch basin already located in the parking lot. We do not believe a modification of the stormwater regulations is appropriate in this situation. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring a filtration insert in a new catch basin as a way of controlling stormwater quality.
There are exiting stormwater drains on the site that the applicant is proposing to use. Information on the condition of the existing storm drains on the site has been submitted for review. One 8-inch clay line is labeled “crushed.” We recommend that any damaged storm drain lines proposed to be used with this application, be replaced or rerouted. We have included a as stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
All stormwater treatment and conveyance facilities are to be located with an easement entitled: “Reserved Storm Drainageway.” A storm drainage way shall be reserved from any stormwater management feature that would obstruct or constrict the effective conveyance and control of stormwater from or across the property, for all engineered stormwater structures above and below ground, and for all conveyance systems such as pipes, streams, or ditches if such systems convey divert, or otherwise manage surface water flowing onto the property/site from off-site areas. The Reserved Storm Drainageway must be provided and shown on the plans. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be provided for the proposed stormwater management facilities and submitted to the Town Manager for approval. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Erosion Control: Erosion control inlet protection must be provided for all existing and proposed storm drain inlets on the site. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
Utilities and Service Issues
Refuse Management: The applicant has indicated that a Shared Dumpster Agreement with the University Presbyterian Church is proposed. The existing on-site dumpster is proposed to be removed. We support this intent to utilize an off-site dumpster and note that it will be necessary to record a shared dumpster agreement with the University Presbyterian Church if this refuse collection strategy is to meet the Town’s Code requirement that all multi-family housing utilize bulk refuse collection services. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that the necessary shared dumpster agreement must be recorded prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit or if the Church does not agree to a shared dumpster arrangement, the applicant will need to arrange for private dumpster service for the development.
The Ordinance requires that a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for the management and minimizing of construction debris, and demolition waste, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The applicant has suggested that all recycling will be delivered to an authorized recycling center by a private contractor. We recommend that the applicant consider reserving space at the waste collection area for seven to nine roll-carts to assist in collection and storage of recyclables such as glass, metal cans, plastic, and papers. The carts may be arranged in any manner to allow the front of all carts to be accessible at all times for deposit and collection of materials. Collection access to the cart should be on the same grade level as cart storage or a handicapped-style curb-cut ramp provided. We note that clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard and construction waste must be recycled. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that a Solid Waste Management Plan be approved prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Utilities:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
The proposed Fire Department Connection (FDC) is shown on the East Franklin Street side of the building on the southeastern side of the entrance sidewalk on a revised plan. We support this location and have not included a stipulation requiring relocation of the FDC. |
The Ordinance requires 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. Except for three phase power lines, the Ordinance requires that all new or relocated utility lines be located underground. We have included these standard stipulations in Resolution A.
The existing building is already connected to OWASA utilities. A new water line for sprinkler service is proposed to be tapped from the existing water line in East Franklin Street. A new hydrant is proposed within the East Franklin Street right-of-way. Resolution A contains a stipulation requiring the applicant to obtain all Town permits necessary for work proposed within the East Franklin Street right-of-way.
The proposed Fire Department Connection (FDC) is shown on the East Franklin Street side of the building on the southwestern side of the entrance sidewalk. We recommend that the FDC be relocated to the southeastern side of the sidewalk on the East Franklin Street frontage in order not to block Robertson Lane in case of an emergency. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to locate the FDC on the eastern side of the building along East Franklin Street.
A proposed water line from East Franklin Street is shown passing through a newly planted tree. We recommend that either the water line be rerouted or the tree be replaced. We have included this stipulation in Resolution A.
New gas meters are proposed along the southeast wall of the building. No gas line is shown to these meters. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A that the gas line be shown on the plan.
Fire Safety:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
We no longer recommend that the applicant petition the Town to designate Robertson Lane as a Fire Lane. The designation could occur by the Town at any time, if desired.
In addition, we no longer recommend pavement striping for the fire lane designation of the driveway and parking lot area. Fire lane designation in these areas would be with signage. |
Robertson Lane is not currently a designated Fire Lane. We recommend that the applicant petition the Town Council to designate Robertson Lane as a designated Fire Lane. In addition, the driveway and parking lot area up to the entrance door to the building must be designated as a Fire Lane as well. Fire Lane/No Parking signs must be posted along the driveway, on the garage, and along the east side of the building and the fire lane location be painted on the pavement as well as No Parking. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.
A 1-hour fire rated ceiling must be constructed in the parking garage during garage renovation. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that a 1-hour rated ceiling be constructed in the garage.
As discussed above, an unobstructed 20-foot fire apparatus access must be provided along the entire length of Robertson Lane. This unobstructed access includes the existing 15-foot lane pavement, the existing eastern stonewall abutting Robertson Lane, and proposed sidewalk. No fence obstruction can be erected in the unobstructed access area. We have included a stipulation for an unobstructed 20-foot fire apparatus access in Resolution A.
A 5-foot unobstructed path to the rear of the building from East Franklin Street is proposed using stepping stones. We are concerned that proposed landscaping at the northeastern corner of the building site may interfere with fire fighting activities, i.e. dragging hoses around landscaping and getting snagged. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that no landscaping, other than ground cover, be provided at the northeastern corner of the building within an area that could hamper emergency fire operations and that landscape plans be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
We note that the applicant is proposing to provide fire sprinklers throughout the building. This system must comply with all Town Codes. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
We have included our standard stipulation 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. We have included this stipulation in Resolution A.
Miscellaneous Issues
Affordable Housing:
|
Changes have occurred to the Staff Recommendation for this section.
The applicant proposes to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan goal for 15 percent of the units to be affordable by providing either:
Comment: Fifteen percent (15%) of 8 dwelling units is 1.2 units. The proposal to provide a single rental dwelling unit in the building (1 of 8 dwelling units) as affordable is 12.5 % of the number of units. The proposal does not meet the Comprehensive Plan goal. In order to meet the 15% goal, two affordable units would need to be provided. This may not be feasible with an 8-unit development.
We do not believe that a $34,000 payment is sufficient to subsidize the provision of a single affordable unit in the area. We have received correspondence from Mr. Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, which indicates that $70,000 is the amount necessary to subsidize the provision of an affordable unit in the downtown area .
In this situation, we believe that payment-in-lieu is a good approach. We recommend provision of a payment-in-lieu for 1.2 dwelling units (15%) at the per unit subsidy amount proposed by Orange County Community Housing and Land which would result in a payment of $84,000 (1.2 x $70,000 = $84,000). We have included a stipulation in Resolution A, the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, to this effect. |
The applicant proposes to address the Council goal of providing 15% of units as affordable housing by either (1) providing one rental unit with 1,059 square feet (unit 1C) that is a 2-bedroom unit in the basement, or (2) by providing a payment in lieu of $34,000 to the Orange Community Housing Land Trust. We recommend provision of an affordable unit. Fifteen percent of 8 units is 1.2 units.
The unit would be permanently affordable to a 3-person family earning less than 80% of median household income, and/or to Section 8 voucher holders (the Section 8 program provides rental assistance payments for qualified renters). The applicant is proposing to record deed restrictions to ensure that the unit remains affordable in perpetuity, to be approved by the Town Manager and Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
This proposed approach is based on affordable housing stipulations from the Chapel Ridge and Rosemary Village developments, approved by the Council November 13, 2000 and August 26, 2002 respectively.
If the Council approves the payment in lieu option, the Town Manager would need to receive the payment prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: The proposed development is not subject to the provisions of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance as the number of dwelling units is being reduced.
Construction Management: We recommend that a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
Miscellaneous: We have also included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring that no open burning associated with this development be permitted.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant will need to provide as-builts for building footprints, storm drainage systems, and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces. The as-builts should be in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates.
Special Use Permit Findings
For approval of a Special Use Permit, the Council must make the following findings, as set forth in Article 4.5.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance:
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;
2. That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3, and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations;
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; and
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.
Upon review of the application and information that has been submitted to date, our preliminary recommendation is that these findings can be made with a public purpose finding regarding the proposed modification of regulations.
CONCLUSION
Based on information available at this stage of the application review process, we believe that the proposal, with the modification of regulations requested and with the conditions in Resolution A, meets the requirements of the applicable sections of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.
Resolutions A would approve the application with conditions.