Untitled Document

SUBJECT: Tau Epsilon Phi (TEP) Fraternity House – Application for Special Use Permit

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from May 15, 2000, regarding the Special Use Permit application to authorize the existing use, a 989 square foot addition, and interior and exterior renovations for the Tau Epsilon Phi (TEP) Fraternity House. Adoption of Resolution A or B would approve a Special Use Permit application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution C would deny the request.

On May 15, 2000, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit application to authorize the existing use, a 989 square foot addition, and interior and exterior renovations for the Tau Epsilon Phi (TEP) Fraternity House. The TEP Fraternity House is located at 216 East Rosemary Street, on the south side of East Rosemary Street, between Friendly Lane and Cottage Lane. We note that on May 15, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties within 500 feet of this site.

This is an application for a Special Use Permit. The Development 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 regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on May 15 we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

No citizens spoke on this application at the Public Hearing on May 15, 2000. We believe that the key issue is concern noted by the Historic District Commission with regard to the proposed structural addition on the front of the building. We have provided additional information on this issue as an attachment to this memorandum.

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 or not it can make each of 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 Development 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 presently in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based around the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #1 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key points raised by the applicant:

· This proposed fraternity house addition has been designed and planned to effect specific health and life-safety provisions to an existing building.

· No additional parking spaces are planned under this Special Use Permit. Total spaces have, in fact, been reduced to provide for a front of car exit onto Rosemary Street. There should be no additional impact of this proposed project on the street system.

· Services and utilities are available at this site and exist in East Rosemary Street. With the exception of adding a sprinkler system for safety, no additional impact on any utilities is anticipated by this addition. This building is currently served by Duke Power, OWASA, BellSouth, Public Service Gas Company and Time-Warner cable. Refuse collection and recycling services will be provided by the Town of Chapel Hill. The structure will be sprinkled and will have standpipes to assist in fire protection.

Evidence in opposition: No one spoke at the Public Hearing or offered evidence in opposition.

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key points raised by the applicant:

1) This proposal will increase the level of nonconformity in the Floor Area Ratio. This is necessary in order to provide life safety features for occupants and surrounding neighbors (provision of two new exterior fire stairs and better emergency vehicle access).

2) This proposal will increase the level of nonconformity in the amount of Open Space required by 3%. This is necessary in order to install a central stair and improve life safety features of the house. This proposal will also improve the architectural harmony of the structure with that of the Historic District.

3) This proposal will intrude into the required front yard setback with the addition of a porch roof over the entrance patio. This is necessary in order to provide a more architecturally integrated structure with the character of the Historic District as a whole. This front yard setback nonconformity is still less than that of the Sorority to the immediate east at the corner of Pickard and Rosemary Streets and that of the commercial property at the corner of Church and Rosemary Streets.

4) Existing front, side and rear buffers are not in strict compliance with the ordinance but the applicant believes them to be reasonable alternatives. These buffers are requested to be accepted as Alternative Buffers and are shown on the proposed landscape site plan, Sheet L-1.

5) Parking does not meet the Development Ordinance requirement but is an improved arrangement for car accommodation in the area. The reduced number of cars proposed is possible due to the proximity of the Fraternity to the University and is seen as a positive move to encourage greater pedestrian and bicycle use. A revised parking arrangement also provides for a safer egress onto Rosemary Street.

· The principal uses of this structure will remain Fraternity, use group B, which is a use allowed in this R-6 zone with approval of a Special Use Permit.

· Compliance with Article 5 is evidenced through information contained on the Project Fact Sheet submitted in support of this request and information contained on the scale drawings.

Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition of Finding #2 for this application would be the fact that the development proposal does not meet the following Development Ordinance requirements:

6. Required landscape strips between parking facilities and the exterior walls of a building,

We note that the applicant is asking for modifications to the regulations for this site. (Please see “Requested Modification of Regulations” section below.)

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #3 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key point raised by the applicant:

· This request is for the purpose of enhancing the amenity and life-safety characteristics of this existing building and to enhance the aesthetic character of the Historic District. By doing this work the applicant will be taking actions that will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Please note that this proposal does not anticipate an increase in the number of beds or an increase in the resident population of this house. Many fraternities and sororities in the East Rosemary/East Franklin Street area have had recent modernization programs making this request consistent with development trends in its immediate neighborhood. The number of parking spaces on the property has been reduced as well as the amount of impervious surface. Vehicular movement exiting the site has also been improved.

Evidence in opposition: No one spoke at the Public Hearing or offered evidence in opposition.

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum). We note the following key point raised by the applicant:

· This structure pre-dates the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan. It is an existing use in an area zoned for this use. OI-1 zoning is applied in areas in which fraternities and sororities are either existing, anticipated or encouraged. This fraternity house use is consistent with the general zoning in this area. A Sorority is directly west and adjacent this property; another sorority is north and just across the street. Directly to the east and adjacent to this property is another sorority. Adjacent to the southeast is another fraternity. The proposed changes to this existing structure will not change its type of use designation or its intensity of use. The proposed changes will enhance the amenity and life safety attributes of this building and render it more compatible with the architecture of the Historic District. Therefore this proposed change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.

Evidence in opposition: No one spoke at the Public Hearing or offered evidence in opposition.

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

We note that the applicant is requesting from the Council modifications to the regulations regarding:

6. Required landscape strips between parking facilities and the exterior walls of a building,

These modifications for these nonconforming features are being requested as the existing Fraternity House was built prior to the adoption of the Town’s Development Ordinance. When the Town’s Development Ordinance was adopted in 1981, these pre-existing characteristics of the site became nonconforming features. These requested modifications to the regulations for these nonconforming features are further discussed as follows:

(1) Maximum Floor Area: The existing Fraternity House (7,892 square feet of floor area) has been built in three stages, with the third portion of the building being finished in the 1960s. In 1981, the Town’s Development Ordinance was approved with development intensity standards that permitted a maximum of 4,112 square feet of floor area on this site (Subsection 13.1.11). Consequently, the existing floor area on the site became a nonconforming feature for this development. The applicant is proposing to add 989 square feet of floor area, for a total of 8,971 square feet of floor area on the site.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could find that the proposed 12.5% increase in floor area is a desirable public safety improvement, as it provides better internal circulation for the structure in the event of a fire. Also, it is more desirable to have higher intensity student housing near the University campus and the addition of this floor area could be viewed as achieving this purpose.

(2) Minimum Outdoor Space: The existing Fraternity House, which pre-dates the adoption of the Town’s Development Ordinance, has 11,434 square feet of outdoor space. The Development Ordinance requires a minimum of 11,527 square feet of outdoor space. The applicant is proposing to reduce outdoor space by a total of 472 square feet, for a total of 10,962 square feet of outdoor space.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could find that the proposed 4.1% decrease in outdoor space is acceptable, as the applicant proposes to achieve a public purpose by installing safer exterior fire stairs and making improvements in the parking lot that will promote safer ingress/egress to the site.

(3) Minimum Front Street Setback: The existing Fraternity House has an 18-foot front street setback. The Development Ordinance requires a minimum of a 24-foot front street setback for this site. The applicant is proposing to reduce this front street setback to 14 feet, in an effort to provide an architecturally integrated structure. In particular, the applicant is proposing to add a new roof over the front entrance, and to construct a new gabled roof over the middle of the house.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could determine that the proposed four (4) foot reduction in the front street setback is achieving a public purpose, and is consistent with the setbacks of other existing structures in the neighborhood that pre-date the adoption of the Town’s Development Ordinance. The Council could determine that the proposed front setback reduction would provide necessary space to construct a new central stairwell that will provide better internal circulation, particularly in the event of a fire.

(4) Minimum Western Interior Setback: The existing Fraternity House has a conforming 9-foot western interior setback. The Development Ordinance requires a minimum of an 8-foot interior setback for this site. The applicant is proposing to add new exterior fire stairs that will reduce this setback to 2 feet, in an effort to provide better emergency egress from the building.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could find that the creation of a nonconforming western interior setback is a necessary public safety improvement, in order to provide fire stairs on the side of an existing building.

(5) Required Landscape Bufferyards: The existing Fraternity House has non-conforming landscape bufferyards along all four edges of the site. The Town’s Development Ordinance (Subsection 14.12) requires a minimum of a 15-foot Type ‘A’ buffer for the northern border of the site, along East Rosemary Street. The Development Ordinance requires a minimum of a 10-foot Type ‘B’ buffer for the eastern, southern and western edges of the site. Since all four landscape bufferyards are an existing non-conforming feature, the applicant is requesting that the Council approve all four existing buffers as permissible for this site.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied given this property is surrounded by other sorority, fraternity, rooming house, and University-related uses, and that the existing buffers are adequate and acceptable for this site, given the nature of neighboring uses.

(6) Landscape Buffer Strip: The existing parking facilities on the site are adjacent to the exterior walls of the house. The Town’s Development Ordinance (Subsection 14.6.6(a)) requires that five (5) foot landscaped buffer strips be provided between parking facilities and the exterior walls of a building.

Staff Comment: We note that the applicant already has fewer than the minimum number of parking spaces required by the Development Ordinance for this site (see modification #8 below). In order to provide the five (5) foot landscaped buffer strip as required by the Development Ordinance, the applicant would have to give up several additional parking spaces. Given the space constraints on this existing site, and the applicants proposal to make public safety improvements on the site, we believe that the Council could find that it is appropriate to not require a five foot landscaped strip between the wall of the building and the parking facilities.

(7) Required Parking Lot Shading: The existing parking lot shading is an existing nonconforming feature. The Development Ordinance requires that the applicant achieve shading of at least 35% of the parking area surface on noon on August 21^st, when the vegetation matures. The applicant is proposing to achieve shading for 34.2% of the parking area.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could find that the proposed shading for 34.2% of the parking area is acceptable given the proposed public safety improvements on the site.

Alternatively, the Council could require the applicant to plant additional landscaping sufficient to provide shading for at least 35.% of the parking area.

(8) Minimum Number of Parking Spaces: The existing parking lot contains 16 parking spaces. The Development Ordinance requires that a minimum of 20 parking spaces (one space per resident) be provided on the site. The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces to 13 spaces, and provide a back-in bay in order that vehicles may have the opportunity to leave the site without having to back out onto East Rosemary Street.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied by the provision of fewer parking spaces on the site, given the close proximity of this site to downtown and the University, and the proposed safer ingress/egress to the parking lot. We note that the staff is recommending the elimination of a parking space (for a total of 12 parking spaces, as stipulated in Resolution A). Resolution B, which reflects the Planning Board’s recommendation, would approve the applicant’s proposal to provide 13 parking spaces.

(9) Underground Utility Lines: The Development Ordinance (Subsection 14.10) requires that utility lines be placed underground. The existing development includes a non-conforming overhead electrical line that runs above the center of the parking lot from the street to the rear property line, then continue along the rear property line a short distance, and then proceed underground to the building. The applicant is proposing to leave this overhead electrical line in place as a non-conforming feature because underground lines would disturb the roots of the trees now serving as part of the site’s southern buffer.

Staff Comment: We believe that given the current alignment of the electrical line, underground installation would damage the tree roots on the southern edge of the site. We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied and that underground utility lines are acceptable on this site in an effort to protect existing buffer vegetation on the site.

“Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Ordinance, but the Council makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, the Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case for Modification of Special Use Permit applications, or in approving a new Special Use Permit for existing development that requires a Special Use Permit.”

We believe that in this case the Tau Epsilon Phi (TEP) Fraternity House application may be considered under the provisions of Subsection 18.7.1 as a Special Use Permit for an existing development that requires a Special Use Permit.

If the Council believes it is appropriate to apply Section 18.7.1 in this situation, the Council may find that the modifications to some or all of the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree. We note that the Council could find that said public purposes would be the provision of a renovated development that complies with the Town’s fire safety codes (including the provision of two new exterior fire stairs, and better emergency vehicle access within the site), improvements that promote public safety on the site, and/or improvements to an aging structure that provides needed student housing close to campus.

Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that some or all of the proposed modifications would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree and could therefore deny the application.

Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on May 2, 2000 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution A, with the condition that the applicant be permitted to have 13 parking spaces. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on May 16, 2000, and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution A, with the condition that the applicant be permitted to have 13 parking spaces. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.

Historic District Commission Recommendation: The Historic District Commission reviewed this application on May 11, 2000, and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Historic District Commission Action.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on May 9, 2000, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution A, with the additional stipulation that the applicant “secure, cover and illuminate the bicycle rack designed to accommodate six bicycles.”

Staff Comment: We have revised Resolution A to include a stipulation requiring that the proposed bicycle rack designed to accommodate six bicycles be “secure, covered and illuminated.”

Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.

Manager’s Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council (1) could make the finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree, and thus approve the requested modifications of the regulations as proposed by the applicant, and (2) could make the four findings required to approve the Special Use Permit. However, we note that the purpose of tonight’s hearing is to receive additional information.

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the requested modifications of regulations and approving the application with conditions.

Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board and the Transportation Board.

X. May 15, 2000 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1)

1. The Historic District Commission noted concern with the proposed structural addition to the front entrance of the building. Specifically, the Commission noted concern regarding:

· The proximity of the proposed addition along the edge of East Rosemary Street.

Staff Comment: We note that, in addition to noting concern regarding the proposed building elevations, the Historic District Commission did recommend (5-0) that the Council approve Resolution A. We note that Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring the applicant to get final approval of the building elevations from the Historic District Commission, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Consequently, if this application is approved by the Council, the Historic District Commission would review and grant formal approval of the building elevations, during Final Plan review. Thus, the Historic District Commission would have the opportunity to require the applicant to address the above-noted issues prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TAU EPSILON PHI (TEP) FRATERNITY HOUSE (2000-06-12/R-14a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by GGA Architects on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 80, Block E, Lot 6, and PIN # 9788-48-6120, if developed according to the site plan dated April 3, 2000, and conditions listed below, would:

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

2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;

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

4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

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

1. Modification of Subsection 13.1.11 Use Group B, of the Development Ordinance to allow a total of 8,971 square feet of floor area on the site (a Floor Area Ratio of .576).

2. Modification of Subsection 13.1.11 Use Group B, of the Development Ordinance to allow a total of 10,962 square feet of outdoor space on the site (an Outdoor Space Ratio of .70).

3. Modification of Subsection 13.1.11 Use Group B, of the Development Ordinance to allow a Front Street Setback of 14 feet.

4. Modification of Subsection 13.1.11 Use Group B, of the Development Ordinance to allow a Western Interior Setback of 2 feet.

5. Modification of Subsection 14.12 to allow the existing alternative buffers on all four edges of the site, in lieu of the required landscape bufferyards.

6. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow the existing parking facilities to be adjacent to the exterior wall of the house (rather than providing a five-foot landscaped strip).

7. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (d) to allow 1,448 (34.2%) of the parking areas on the site to be shaded with vegetation.

8. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow a total of 12 parking spaces on the site.

9. Modification of Subsection 14.10 to allow an existing overhead utility line on the site to remain aboveground.

Said public purposes being the (1) provision of a renovated development that complies with the Town’s fire safety codes (including the addition of a sprinkler system, improvements to exterior fire stairwells, and better internal circulation and access to 2^nd and 3^rd floor exterior stairwells), (2) the provision of safer ingress and egress to the site, (3) the improvement to an aging structure that provides needed student housing close to campus, and (4) the provision of an architecturally integrated structure that better reflects the character of the Franklin/Rosemary Historic District as a whole.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Tau Epsilon Phi (TEP) Fraternity House in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

1. That construction begin by ________________ (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by ____________ (three years from the date of Council approval).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes a 989 square foot addition to the existing Tau Epsilon Phi (TEP) Fraternity House, including interior and exterior renovations; a maximum of 20 on-site residents; the reduction from 16 to 12 parking spaces; and the installation of a back-in bay that will provide the opportunity for vehicles to drive forward when exiting the site.

3. Parking: That only 12 parking spaces shall be permitted on this site. Parking space C13 as denoted on the plans dated April 3, 2000, shall be removed and replaced with appropriate landscaping.

4. Bicycle Racks: That the bicycle parking for 6 bicycles be secure, covered and illuminated.

5. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed Landscape Plan and Landscape Maintenance Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

6. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

7. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

9. Sprinkler System: That the building shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.

10. Sprinkler System Connections: That a Fire Department sprinkler system connection shall be provided on the East Rosemary Street side of the building, and approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

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

12. Approval of Shared-Container and Joint Access Agreements: That a shared-container and joint access agreement be provided between this site and the adjacent Kappa Delta Sorority site, and shall be approved by the Town and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office; and, that copies of these agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. Heavy-Duty Paving: That the recycling collection vehicle access routes shall be paved with all-weather, heavy-duty pavement; or alternatively, that a Waiver of Liability be provided as part of the Shared-Container and Joint Access Agreement, stating that the County shall not have responsibility or liability for any damages to the existing pavement as a result of servicing recycling facilities on the site.

14. Historic District Commission Approval: That the Historic District Commission shall approve the building elevations and the lighting plan for the site, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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

16. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, and landscape plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans shall conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and design standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual.

17. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.

18. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 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.

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

20. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity House.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE TAU EPSILON PHI (TEP) FRATERNITY HOUSE (2000-06-12/R-14b)