AGENDA #9

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: The Condominiums (aka Village Apartments, McCorkle Place, University Condominiums) - Application for Special Use Permit

DATE: April 11, 2005

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from March 21, 2005 regarding a Special Use Permit to allow the conversion and expansion of the existing Village Apartments. The .44-acre site is located on the northwest corner of Robertson Lane at 213 East Franklin Street in the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District, an overlay zoning district, and in a National Register District. Approximately 1,077 square feet of new floor area is proposed in a new fourth floor. The application proposes to reduce the number of dwelling units in the building from 35 to eight. The property is located in the Office/Institutional-1 (OI-1) zoning district and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 80, Block E, Lot 11 (PIN #9788474898).

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.

This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and follows:

· Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal, discusses key issues raised at the March 21, 2005 Public Hearing, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and offers recommendations for Council action and includes resolutions of approval and denial.

· Attachments: Includes a copy of a document from the applicant, an Overview of Affordable Housing Regulations and Policies, and the March 21 Public Hearing memorandum.

BACKGROUND

A Concept Plan Review of this application was conducted by the Historic District Commission on August 12, 2004 (part of Attachment 3).

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:

· floor area exceeds allowable maximum,

· building height exceeds allowable maximum,

· number of dwelling units exceeds maximum density,

· site exceeds allowable impervious surface,

· building does not meet setbacks,

· site does not provide landscape buffers, and

· site does not provide landscaped areas between the parking area and building.

This application also proposes to expand two of these nonconforming features:

· Further expand the floor area, and

· Further increase building height.

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 of the March 21 Memorandum) 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 minimum 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:

· Contributes to the Downtown Chapel Hill Small Area Plan by providing residential housing opportunity in the downtown area and maintaining the character of the historic district;

· Achieves the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by completing a portion of the Streetscape Plan and providing a contribution to affordable housing acceptable to the Town Council and encouraging pedestrian safety and mobility;

· Improves existing conditions by resulting in: less traffic impact, less impervious surface, more landscaped area and buffers, improvements to fire safety (installation of sprinklers in building and fire ceiling in garage, unobstructed fire apparatus access, new hydrant, and a dedicated fire lane), and new electrical, gas, and water quality improvements.

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 ISSUE

We have identified one key issue associated with this development. This affordable housing issue is discussed below. In addition, Council members asked questions at the Public Hearing about different affordable housing provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to Attachment 2 which provides an overview of affordable housing regulations and policies.

1) Applicant’s Proposal for Affordable Housing: Council members inquired about the affordable housing offer of the applicant. Prior to the opening of the Public Hearing, the applicant was offering provision of an affordable housing unit in the development or a $34,000 payment-in-lieu of including an on-site affordable housing component. At the Hearing, the applicant offered a $70,000 payment-in-lieu, and is now offering $78,000.

Comment: This application is for a Special Use Permit. The Council must make four findings when considering any Special Use Permit application. One of those findings is whether the development conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan is that 15% of dwelling units be affordable.

This application proposes eight dwelling units. Fifteen percent (15%) of eight dwelling units is 1.2 units. The applicant’s proposal to provide a single affordable rental dwelling unit in the building (one of eight dwelling units) would provide affordable housing equal to 12.5 % of the number of units. Therefore, that proposal does not fully 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 eight-unit development.

The Council has in the past approved applications that offered a payment to support affordable housing initiatives in lieu of actually providing affordable units as part of the development. The Comprehensive Plan affordable housing goal does not address the calculation method for the payment-in-lieu option. The method for achieving the Comprehensive Plan goal for affordable housing is addressed on a case-by-case basis, with the Council determining whether or not the proposed method conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that this is a reasonable approach to address the Comprehensive Plan goal.

We stated at the Public Hearing that we did not believe that the original $34,000 payment proposal was sufficient to subsidize the provision of an affordable dwelling unit. We have received correspondence from Mr. Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, indicating that $60,000 to $70,000 is the amount necessary to subsidize the provision of an affordable unit in the downtown area (the location of this proposed development). Using $65,000 as an average amount applied to 15% of eight dwelling units (1.2 units), the amount of a subsidy for affordable housing in this area would be $78,000 ($65,000 x 1.2 = $78,000). We recommend that the applicant’s latest offer to provide $78,000 to the Revolving Acquisition Fund as a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing be accepted. We have included a condition to this effect in the Manager’s Revised Resolution, Resolution A.

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.

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.

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 16 to the March 21, 2005 memorandum).

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The proposed development will result in a reduction in the volume of traffic in the area and an improvement in the existing traffic patterns. The actual volume of traffic in the area will be substantially reduced as a result of the reduction of the number of tenants in the building and parking spaces available.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “The proposed development will not produce any significant negative change to the existing hydrology of the property. In fact, the development plan calls for a reduction in impervious surfaces on the property.” [Applicant’s Statement]

· “The proposed development calls for the installation of a safety fence on the Franklin Street and Robertson Lane edges of the property to provide protection for pedestrians from the four foot drop at the edge of the sidewalk as well as appropriate handrails on steps leading to the property. A sprinkler system will be installed throughout the building. All of these improvements will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.” [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.

Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.

We believe the evidence in the record to date 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 points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “Given the location of the property and the extent of the existing non-conformities, it will not be possible to bring the property into full compliance with all required regulations and standards as set out in the LUMO (Land Use Management Ordinance). Whenever and wherever possible, a concerted effort will be made to meet the specific requirements of the LUMO. Note that the proposed development will lead to a reduction in traffic, stormwater, runoff, demands on existing recreational facilities, and demands on city infrastructure and utilities. Every modification proposed represents an improvement (vis a vis the LUMO) to the existing property and its current usage. It should be understood, however, that the nature of the site and the existing improvements will limit what can be realistically accomplished in some areas.”[Applicant’s Statement]

· “Where necessary, it is requested that the Town Council make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent degree and make specific modification of the regulation in each case for the following reasons. The proposed development will:

Ø Help achieve the Town’s goal of revitalizing the downtown area;

Ø Create permanent residential housing in the downtown area;

Ø Provide affordable housing in the town center;

Ø Improve stormwater management through a reduction in impervious surfaces on the property;

Ø Enhance resale values for neighboring prosperities;

Ø Increase the Town’s real estate tax base;

Ø Reduce traffic and improve traffic flow in the area;

Ø Enhance the beauty of the Historic District by rejuvenating a landmark building as per State Historic Preservation Standards;

Ø Enhance the beauty of Franklin Street by extending the Streetscape project.”[Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition of Finding #2 for this application would include the fact that, if the request for modifications of regulations are not approved, the proposed development will not meet the Land Use Management Ordinance provisions for maximum floor area and building height.

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.

Finding #3: That the use would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity.

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 proposed development of the property will entail substantial improvements to the interior and exterior of the building, parking areas and landscaping. The plan is designed to maintain the historic character of the building, modernize and refinish the interior of the building, and dramatically enhance the beauty of the property with extensive landscaping.

· To ensure that the improvements are consistent with the surrounding Historic District, all improvements will be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office.

· The proposed improvements should substantially increase the value of the property and the contiguous properties.” [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.

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.

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 proposed development conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Small Area Plan, and the general plans for the physical development of the Town by achieving the following objectives:

· Contribute to “guiding principal above all others in importance: the preservation and extension of the vital people/pedestrian character of the Downtown center” (Section 1) through the creation of permanent residential housing in the downtown area.

· Continue “redevelopment of properties in the downtown area” as encouraged in Section 2.

· Section 4 also state that “A key concept of the downtown plan is the preservation of buildings and areas that contribute to the historic and community character of Chapel Hill,” which this renovation will accomplish.

· “Keep and enhance the existing building appearances, historic charm, human scale and intimacy of the downtown” (Section 2) The building will be renovated under guidelines approved by the NC State Historic Preservation Office guidelines.

· “Protect fragile residential neighborhoods bordering on the downtown business districts.” (Section 2) The project will renovate and stabilize a declining property in an Historic District residential neighborhood.

· “The Concept Plan highlights areas of preservation or conservation. Future development in these areas should be undertaken only with the idea of protecting the existing buildings.” (Section 4) The property is located in a designated Preservation Area.

· “Conserve the heritage and character of the Historic Districts, including building architecture, outdoor spaces, and landscape qualities.” (Section 3B.1) The building will be renovated under guidelines approved by the NC State Historic Preservation Office guidelines.

· “Discourage demolition of existing housing stock.” (Section 3B.8) The projects will renovate, rather than replace, an historic building.” [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 findings necessary in order to approve the application. The Manager’s Revised Recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are summarized below. The Planning Board, Transportation Board, Historic District Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and the Parks and Recreation Commission each reviewed an initial recommended resolution of approval. The Planning Board reviewed a revised resolution, which incorporated additional comments. Accordingly, the recommendations of the first two boards do not reflect the revised resolution. Please see Summaries of Board actions and recommendations in the attachments as well as the table, Differences Among Resolutions at the end of this cover memorandum.

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 as well as the table, Differences Among Resolutions, at the end of this cover memorandum.

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 as well as the table, Differences Among Resolutions, at the end of this cover memorandum.

Planning Board Recommendation: On January 4, 2005, and February 1, 2005, the Planning Board reviewed this application and on February 1, voted 6-2 to recommend that the Council deny the application with the adoption of Resolution F. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action as well as the table, Differences Among Resolutions, at the end of this cover memorandum.

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. Please see the attached Summary of Historic District Commission Action as well as the table, Differences Among Resolutions, at the end of this cover memorandum.

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 Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action as well as the table, Differences Among Resolutions, at the end of this cover memorandum.

Manager’s Revised 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 with conditions. Furthermore, we recommend stipulation #16 be amended in Resolution A so that it would require that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for $78,000 for an affordable dwelling to the Revolving Acquisition Fund prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.

The Manager’s Revised Recommendation includes the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation for elimination of the Robertson Lane sidewalk inside a dedicated 20-foot right-of-way adjacent to the east stone wall and to require a payment-in-lieu for the entire recreation space requirement.

Resolution A has been revised to include a change to the amount of the payment-in-lieu for the affordable housing component.

Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. The key difference between the Manager’s Revised Recommendations and Resolution B is that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that the sidewalk along Robertson Lane is not necessary. The Manager’s Revised Recommendation is for the existing Robertson Lane right-of-way to include a 4-foot wide sidewalk within Robertson Lane and that the sidewalk material be approved by the Historic District Commission.

Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board. The key differences between the Manager’s Revised Recommendation and Resolution C is that the Transportation Board recommended partial payment of the recreation area and the Manager’s Revised Recommendation recommends full payment-in-lieu for recreation space.

Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Historic District Commission. The key differences between the Manager’s Revised Recommendations and Resolution D is that the Historic District Commission recommendation doe not require sidewalk construction or right-of-way dedication. The Historic District Commission recommended protecting the building’s historic appearance.

Resolution E would approve the application as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The key differences between the Manager’s Revised Recommendations and Resolution E is that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that no sidewalk be provided along Robertson Lane and that the right-of-way not be widened to include the existing stone wall or a new sidewalk.

Resolution F would deny the application as recommended by the Planning Board.

The Condominiums - Special Use Permit

Differences Among Resolutions


ISSUE	Resolution A (Approval) Town Manager’s Revised Recomm.	Resolution B (Approval) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recomm.	Resolution C (Approval) Transportation Board Recomm.	Resolution D (Approval) Historic District CommissionRecomm.	Resolution E (Approval) Parks and Recreation Commission Recomm.	Resolution F (Denial) Planning Board Recomm.
Sidewalk on Robertson Lane	Yes	No	Yes with 11 ft. travelway and adjacent 4-sidewalk in existing road row	No	No	N/A recomm. of denial of application
Outdoor bicycle rack for 10% of req. spaces	Yes	Yes	*	*	*	N/A
Robertson Lane ROW Dedication	Yes	Yes	No, if sidewalk in existing 15 foot road	No	No	N/A
Payment-in-lieu for entire Rec Space	Yes	No, partial payment	No, partial payment	No, partial payment	Yes	N/A
Payment-in-lieu for affordable housing at $78,000	Yes	*	*	*	*	*

* Issue not raised at Advisory Board meeting

ATTACHMENTS

1. Document from Applicant (p. 30).

2. Overview: Affordable Housing Regulations and Policies (p. 31).

3. March 21, 2005 Public Hearing Memorandum (p. 33).

RESOLUTION A

(Recommendation of Approval)

(Manager’s Revised Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONDOMINIUMS (AKA UNIVERSITY CONDOMINIUMS, MCCORKLE PLACE, VILLAGE APARTMENTS) (2005-04-11/R-8a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by 213 E. Franklin Street LLC, by: DSM Asset Management, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 80, Block E, Lot 11 (PIN# 9788474898), if developed according to the site plan dated September 10, 2004 (revised November 28, 2004) and conditions listed below:

1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;

3. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and

4. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:

1. Modification of the Dimension Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum of 23,935 square feet of floor area.

2. Modification of the Dimension Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum density of 18 units per acre (eight units per .44 acres).

3. Modification of the Dimensional Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum of 12,908 square feet of impervious surface.

4. Modification of the Dimension Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow minimum setbacks: South (East Franklin Street) 19 feet; West (Robertson Lane) 9 feet; and East (property line with Kappa Delta) varies from 1 ½ to 11 feet.

5. Modification of the Dimensional Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum Primary Height of 48 feet.

6. Modification of Section 5.9.7 to allow a minimum of 15 parking spaces on the site.

7. Modification of Section 5.6.6-1 Schedule of Required Buffers to allow minimum landscape buffers on the following property lines: minimum of nine feet on the West; minimum 1.5 feet on the North; and minimum 1 foot on the East.

8. Modification of Section 5.9.6 Parking Landscaping Standards for no five-foot landscaped strip between portions of the buildings and adjacent parking areas.

Said public purposes being (1) the provision of residential units in the downtown area, (2) the provision of less traffic impacts, (3) a provision for less stormwater runoff, (4) the provision of less impervious surface area, (5) installation of a new hydrant, sprinkler system, and new electrical and gas systems, (6) the promotion of safer pedestrian mobility, (7) the provision of increased landscaping in the parking lot and around the property, (8) preservation and enhancement of historic properties, (9) installation of Downtown Streetscape improvements, and (10) the provision of improved water quality with Best Management Practices.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Condominiums (aka the Village Apartments, University Condominiums, McCorkle Place Condominiums) in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begin by April 11, 2007 (two years from approval date) and be completed by April 11, 2008 (three years from approval date).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes multi-family use and the construction of 1,077 additional square feet of floor for eight dwelling units and land use intensity requirements as specified below:

Net Land Area	19,040 sq ft
Total # of Buildings	2 (existing)
Maximum Floor Area	23,929 sq ft
Maximum Impervious surface	12,908 sq ft
Maximum Primary Height	48 ft.
Minimum Setbacks	South-19 ft.; West-9 ft.; East-1.5 ft.
Minimum # of Parking Spaces	15
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces	10
Parking Aisle Width	23 feet
Landscape Buffers	West-10 ft; North-1.5 ft (wall/vines); East-1 ft.

*Parking spaces may be decreased by one (14) in order to accommodate a 5-foot planting strip in lieu of parking space.

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

3. Robertson Lane Driveway Turning Radius: That the south side of the Robertson Lane driveway be “flattened” to create a wider turning radius and that the stone wall at the Robertson Lane at the driveway entrance be reconstructed. The driveway turning radius and stone wall relocation plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and shall include access to the new sidewalk.

4. Turning Radius at the Robertson Lane and East Franklin Street Intersection: That both sides of Robertson Lane be modestly improved with an increased diameter of the turning radius within the “amenity strip” on East Franklin Street. The plans with these improvements shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit.

5. Robertson Lane Sidewalk: That the sidewalk on Robertson Lane shall be continuous along the entire property frontage and within the existing Robertson Lane right-of-way. The sidewalk shall be four feet wide and raised above the Robertson Lane pavement. The sidewalk material shall be approved by the Historic District Commission and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

6. Truncated Sidewalk Domes: That the applicant provide truncated domes on both sides of the East Franklin Street sidewalk to comply with ADA requirements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

7. 20-Foot Unobstructed Fire Apparatus Access: That the applicant provide a 20-foot unobstructed fire apparatus access along the entire Robertson Lane frontage to include 11-foot paved Robertson Lane, 4-foot sidewalk (within the right-of-way adjacent to the east stone wall), the stone wall, and an additional 4 feet of landscaped area.

8. Robertson Lane Fence: All fencing along Robertson Lane must be outside the 20-foot fire apparatus access. Any gates must open into the property. The fence proposed along the east edge of the property must include a gate to access the front yard.

9. Fire Lane/No Parking Signage: That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy access to the garage must be signed with “Fire Lane/No Parking” signs. Additional Fire Lane/No Parking signs must be placed along the south side of the driveway and along the west wall of the building. A signage plan must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10. Alternative Vehicular Access: If an alternative northern access from the parking lot to the University Presbyterian Church parking lot is proposed, the applicant must provide a Shared Access Agreement, signed by both property owners and notarized, to be approved by the Town Manager and recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of Zoning Compliance Permits for the changes to this property and the Church property.

11. Security Lift Gate: The driveway security gate shall be located at least one car length from Robertson Lane.

12. Compact Spaces Designation: That three parking spaces (the first one on the driveway, #1; the space next to the south side of the garage, #14; and the parallel space adjacent to the building, #15 be designated as compact spaces and labeled on the plans along with the standard spaces being identified.

13. Alternative to Parking Space #15: If 14 parking spaces are proposed, space #15 will be replaced with a 5-foot wide planting strip.

14. Bicycle Parking: That 10 bicycle parking spaces be provided inside the main building and an outdoor stationary rack be located in a convenient location for at least two bicycles.

15. Repaving of Robertson Lane: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Town Engineering Inspector to determine if Robertson Lane requires repaving, as a result of damage caused by the applicant or its contractors.

Stipulation Related to Affordable Housing

16. Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu for $78,000 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues

17. Landscape and Maintenance Plans: That a detailed Landscape Plan, including size, type, and location of all proposed plantings, trees, and vegetation and buffer modifications, and a Maintenance Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

18. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which trees are proposed to be removed, a detail of the construction fencing, construction parking and materials staging/storage areas and location of tree protection fencing including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

19. Parking Lot Shading Plan: That a Shading Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20. 5-Foot Landscape Buffer Strip: That a 5-foot planting strip be provided between the parking lot and the building north of the entrance to the building.

21. Streetscape Improvements: Streetscape improvements shall be provided along the East Franklin Street frontage to include brick paved cross paths and groundcover plantings similar to the adjacent University Presbyterian Church property. If any site furnishings are proposed in this area, they must be consistent with the Town’s Downtown Streetscape Master Plan. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

22. Building Elevations: That detailed building elevations shall be approved by the Historic District Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23. Lighting Plan: That the Historic District Commission approve a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

24. State Historic Preservation Office Approvals: That any required State permits for building or site alterations be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Recreational Issues

25. Recreation Payment-in-Lieu: That a payment-in-lieu for recreation space of $11,580 be received by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

26. Stormwater BMP Facility: That a stormwater filtration insert (such as an“Aqua-Guard”) be included with the installation of a new catch basin for stormwater quality control within the northern portion of the parking lot, subject to Town Manager approval.

27. Replacement of Existing Storm Drains: That any existing damaged storm drains proposed to be used for this development be replaced or new lines rerouted and the damaged lines closed off to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit

28. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, shall be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

29. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. The plan shall include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

30. Erosion Control: That erosion control inlet protection must be provided on all existing and proposed storm drain inlets on the site.

Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues

31. Solid Waste Refuse Collection: A Shared Dumpster Agreement with the University Presbyterian Church must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

If a shared Dumpster Agreement is not obtained, it will be necessary for the applicant to arrange private refuse collection for the development. Prior to issuance of a Zoning

Compliance Permit, an agreement with a private refuse collection company must be submitted.

32. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling, and for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

33. Recycled Materials: It will be necessary to recycle all clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard during building renovations.

34. Orange County Solid Waste Pre-Demolition and Pre-Construction Conference: It will be necessary to hold a pre-demolition and pre-construction conference with the Orange County Solid Waste staff.

35. 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, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

36. Utility Line Placement: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground. The applicant shall indicate 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.

37. Work in the East Franklin Street Right-of-Way: It will be necessary to obtain all Town permits necessary for installation of the new fire hydrant, Fire Department connection, and water lines in the East Franklin Street right-of-way.

38. New East Franklin Street Water Line: The water line indicated passing through a newly planted tree must be relocated or a new tree must be planted and plans approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

39. Gas Line: That the existing and proposed gas line be shown on the plans and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

40. Garage Fire Rated Ceiling: A 1-hour fire rated ceiling shall be constructed in the parking garage during renovations.

41. Eastern 5-foot Fire Access: A 5-foot unobstructed fire access path shall be provided from East Franklin Street to the rear of the building. No landscaping, other than ground cover, may be located within this 5-foot access. Landscape Plans for this area must be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

42. Sprinkler System: The new sprinkler system must comply with the Town Code requirements.

43. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report, shall be prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, and 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.

Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues

44. Project Name/Address: That the name of the development and the addresses of the units shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

45. Signage Plan: That the applicant submit a signage plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The signs shall be installed by the applicant prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

46. 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 the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

47. Open Burning: That the open burning of construction debris association with this development is prohibited.

48. 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 the Design Manual.

49. 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 surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.

50. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are completed; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat and final plans.

51. Construction Sign: 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.

52. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Condominiums.

This the 11^th day of April, 2005.

RESOLUTION B

(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONDOMINIUMS (AKA UNIVERSITY CONDOMINIUMS, MCCORKLE PLACE, VILLAGE APARTMENTS) (2005-04-11/R-8b)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by 213 E. Franklin Street LLC, by: DSM Asset Management, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 80, Block E, Lot 11 (PIN# 9788474898), if developed according to the site plan dated September 10, 2004 (revised November 28, 2004) and conditions listed below: