MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Church of the Holy Family– Application for Special Use Permit Modification

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 16, 2001 regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application, for demolition, expansion and renovation of the 3.26 acre Church of the Holy Family site at 200 and 212 Hayes Road. Adoption of Resolutions A and B would approve the Special Use Permit Modification application. Adoption of Resolution C would deny the request.

On January 16, 2001, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit Modification application to authorize demolition and construction for an expansion and renovation of the 3.26 acre Church of the Holy Family site. Questions regarding the application were raised during the Public Hearing, and the Hearing is being reopened tonight to receive applicant and staff responses to these questions. We note that, on January 16, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties adjacent to this site.

This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification 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 Town’s Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on January 16, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification.

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 Modification 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 Modification.

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

· “The daycare center, non-profit and non-denominational, provides learning and child care for 36 children, who are diverse in terms of race, culture and socio-economic status.”

· “Our Church meeting rooms are used free of charge, regularly by AA, NA, Rainbow Soccer, the Chapel Hill Stamp Club, several UNC-CH graduate study groups, the United Church Women, IFC/Community Kitchen Food Collection, Aids Caregiving Team, ALANON, Prison Ministry and the Augustine Project (learning and literary training for disadvantaged school aged children) and other similar non-profit groups.”

· “We serve over 300 youth with Christian education and youth groups for the junior high and senior high age groups.”

· “In the Glen Lennox area, we provide church services at Carolina House, we serve Thanksgiving and Holiday meals for all in the neighborhood who care to join us, we provide lighted basketball nets for our younger neighbors in Glen Lennox and a 24- hour safe haven for anyone who wishes to pray or contemplate in our worship area.”

· “On an annual basis the Parish donates $60,000 in funds to a variety of Community help organizations.”

Evidence in opposition: We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #1 for this application raised at the Public Hearing.

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

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

· “Church of the Holy Family is located on a 3.26 acre (GLA) R-3 zoning lot bounded by Hayes Road (15-501 Bypass Service Road), Brandon Road and Flemington Road in the Glen Lennox Area of Chapel Hill.”

· “The two buildings were built in 1952-53 and expanded to their present size (13,754 SF) in 1962-63. In 1979, a daycare aimed especially at providing care opportunities for economically disadvantaged children was established. The main church building was not expanded to accommodate the daycare, but an outdoor fenced playground was added to conform with State daycare regulations.”

· “Because of the Town’s existing development ordinance in 1979, a Special Use Permit was required for the day care and an SUP was issued in 1979 to permit the daycare to operate. The Town’s 1981 Development Ordinance subsequently allowed both day care and church as permitted uses in the R-3 zone, but the Special Use Permit was in existence and has remained in effect since 1979.”

· “Prompted by the widening of 15-501 bypass and the loss of the barrier of trees that had always protected the campus from bypass traffic, in 1992 the parish was granted a modification to the SUP. The 1992 SUP modified Subsection 13.11.2 of the ordinance to permit 17,288 square feet of floor area and modified subsection 14.6.7 to permit 53 off-street parking spaces instead of 65 spaces, the minimum required. The 1992 SUP also approved the church “streetscape” landscaping and brick wall, sidewalks, and related site changes for handicap access. No change in building size or configuration was requested or approved in 1992.”

· “We believe that adequate off-street parking will benefit the neighborhood, will benefit the parish and will bring this facility into better compliance with Town development ordinances, which encourage and require off-street parking.”

· “The parish notes that any storm runoff concerns will be satisfied by the proposed bio-retention/detention facility which will eliminate any new impacts to both water quality and water quantity.”

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 requirement:

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.

The Council established that, for this application, “contiguous property” means adjacent parcels at the January 16, 2001 Public Hearing.

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum) provides evidence in support of Finding #3. We note the following key points raised by the applicant:

· “The proposed improvements will reduce on-street parking and enhance traffic movement in the neighborhood during Church hours.”

· “The increased floor area of 7,017 square feet will provide new and renovated facilities, which will better serve the parish and the Glen Lennox neighborhood.”

· “The daycare, although not expanding, will have better facilities to serve its 36 children and will help the Center attain a higher rating under North Carolina’s Star rating system. The improvements will be buffered with existing vegetation, newly planted vegetation, a fence and a continuation of the “streetscape” wall and plantings along Hayes Road.”

· “These improvements will have no adverse effect on surrounding property. We believe this project and attendant landscaping will improve the neighborhood.”

Evidence in opposition: We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #3 for this application raised at the Public Hearing.

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

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

· “The improvements bring the existing site into greater compliance with the Town of Chapel Hill development ordinance by providing safe, on-site parking for Church members, visitors and handicapped persons.”

· “The 2000 Comprehensive Plan designates both Lots 1 and 2 as Institutional. Therefore, this proposal is contemplated and embodied in the recently adopted Plan.”

Evidence in opposition: We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #4 for this application raised at the Public Hearing.

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

The applicant is requesting from the Council a modification to the regulations regarding:

Subsection 13.11.2 of the Development Ordinance permits a maximum of 19,577 square feet of floor area in the existing R-3 zoning for this Special Use Permit Modification application. The applicant has proposed 22,104 square feet of floor area (2,527 square feet over the maximum allowed).

Staff Comment: We believe that the Council could find that the proposed 13% increase in floor area is a desirable public safety improvement, as it provides better internal circulation for the facility. Furthermore, the facilities serve public purposes by providing additional space for daycare and community groups.

“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.”

If the Council believes it is appropriate to apply Section 18.7.1 in this situation, the Council may find that this modification of the regulations satisfies public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree. We note that the Council could find that said public purposes would be a public safety improvement as well as the expansion of a community facility.

Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that the proposed modification would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree and could therefore require that the floor area be limited to the combined floor area allowed by the 1992 Special Use Permit Modification and additional floor area associated with the expanded Permit boundary allowed by the Development Ordinance (i.e. 19,577 square feet) for this Special Use Permit Modification.

We believe that the key issues brought forth during the January 16 Public Hearing were related to Flemington Road improvements, landscaping around the Hayes Road parking lot entrance and exit, and stormwater management. We have provided a list of individual questions/issues raised during the Hearing, followed by responses from the applicant and the Town Manager, as an attachment to this memorandum.

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

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on January 2, 2001 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

Resolution B includes the following recommended condition of the Planning Board:

Ø That the applicant not be required to make sidewalk improvements in the Town right-of-way, along the Flemington Road frontage.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on January 2, 2001, and voted 4-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution C. Please see the Summary of Transportation Board Action, part of Attachment 7.

Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on December 20, 2000, and voted 9-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application without reference to a specific Resolution. Please see the Summary of Community Design Commission Action, part of Attachment 7.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on January 2, 2001, and voted 5-0 to approve the application with the adoption of Resolution C. Please see the Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action, part of Attachment 7.

Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our conclusion is that the application complies with standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance except for floor area limitations. The applicant requests modification of that requirement for this site and we continue to recommend that the Council make the public purpose findings for modification of the Development Ordinance regulations. Accordingly, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A, the Manager’s revised recommendation.

Based on discussion and evidence presented at the Public Hearing, we have revised our recommendation in the following ways:

· Require revisions to proposed Hayes Road parking lot drive and curbing configuration to retain vegetation, and;

· Require additional rooftop stormwater runoff to be directed to bio-retention, where possible.

Resolution B would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Planning Board.

Resolution C would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS

7. January 16, 2001 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1)

1. FLEMINGTON ROAD SIDEWALK ISSUE

The applicant objected to a recommended condition of approval, which would require a new five foot sidewalk along Flemington Road.

A Council member also expressed concern about requiring installation of a sidewalk on the west side of Flemington Road for the following reasons: 1) it would probably destroy existing vegetation along the frontage, 2) further extension of the sidewalk to the north would be improbable given that the properties to the north are already developed, and 3) there is an existing sidewalk on the east side of Flemington Road already.

Staff Comment: Upon further consideration, we believe that the case to be made for requiring this sidewalk segment is weak, and that the objections to the requirement are reasonable. Accordingly, we have revised Resolution A so that it no longer include a requirement to construct a sidewalk along Flemington Road.

A Council member asked that the applicant consider building one drive into the proposed parking lot at 212 Hayes Road, noting that the recommended drive configuration and proximity of two Magnolia trees could threaten the health of at least one of the trees. The applicant was asked to consider adjusting the drive configuration from two to one entrance(s) and to remove one tree to improve the long-range prospects for the other Magnolia tree.

The applicant originally proposed double two-way entrance/exit drives to the Hayes Road parking lot and, at the recommendation of the Town staff, the applicant modified the design to include separate narrower one-way entrance and exit drives. This was done to reduce the impact of construction on the two Magnolia trees and to minimize impervious surfaces. The applicant has indicated a desire to continue this separate entrance and exit configuration (see Attachment 6).

In the attached letter, the applicant proposes retaining both Magnolia trees and the separate entrance and exit drives to the parking lot and proposes modifications to the curbing and drive configurations to reduce the impact of construction on these trees and improve their prospects for future growth. In addition, the applicant indicates that changing the parking lot design to a single entrance and exit would require reducing the bio-retention area by approximately 24%.

Staff Comment: In order to assess the likely affect of construction on an adjacent large tree, we typically consider the amount of the critical root zone that is proposed to be impacted and the type and condition of the tree in question. The critical root zone , defined as a circle with a diameter measured in feet equal to the diameter of a tree’s trunk in inches, is generally about equivalent to the drip zone around the canopy of a tree. The critical root zone does not include all of a tree’s roots but makes up the primary root system that is needed to permit a tree to overcome the stresses associated with adjacent construction. As a guideline, if more than 20% - 30% of the critical root zone will be impacted by construction, a tree will likely be notably damaged, and in these cases we generally recommend that proposed plans be revised or require that an applicant acknowledge that a specific specimen tree will likely need to be removed.

The proposed plan indicates that between 10% and 15% of the critical root zone of the south Magnolia will be impacted by construction while the critical root zone of the north Magnolia should remain intact. As a rule, Magnolias are somewhat more sensitive to disturbance than most other species but considering the moderate size of these trees (+/- 12” in diameter) and their current vigorous condition, we believe that both of these trees are likely to survive the proposed construction.

In ideal conditions Magnolias become very large and develop an expansive root system. In the proposed construction the root zones of these Magnolias, especially the south Magnolia, will be constrained and ideal long-range tree growth and vigor will eventually be compromised. This eventuality is often encountered with trees of various species on developing sites. Considering the aesthetic benefits the south Magnolia may provide for the nearer term future, however, we believe that it is reasonable to take protective measures and retain both trees rather than provide an expanded future root zone for the north Magnolia by requiring removal of the south Magnolia.

We recommend that two drives be constructed on Hayes Road with modifications to allow additional space around the Magnolias, as proposed in the attached applicant’s response letter. Resolution A, the Manager’s revised recommendation, includes a stipulation requiring that curbing and drive configurations be modified as specified in the applicant’s letter dated January 23, 2001.

3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

A Council member asked the applicant if all site runoff could be directed to bio-retention.

The applicant has proposed directing the following stormwater runoff to the bio-retention area:

A Council member asked if 100% of runoff from all site impervious surface could be directed to the proposed bio-retention area. The applicant responded at the January 16 Public Hearing that it may be possible to direct more runoff from the site’s roofs. The runoff from the existing parking lot cannot easily be sent to the bio-retention area however, because the existing parking lot is located on the lowest part of the site.

Since the January 16 Public Hearing the applicant has submitted a letter to the Mayor and Council expressing concern about sending additional roof runoff to the bio-retention area (see Attachment 6). The applicant’s recommendation is based on a conversation with a stormwater engineer from North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). It is the opinion of the NCDENR Stormwater Engineer that since the quality of roof runoff is typically much higher than parking lot runoff it is adequate to discharge it as sheet flow across vegetated areas, particularly if there is any question about the capacity of the bio-retention area(s).

Staff Comment: We believe that there is a benefit in treating all of impervious runoff with bio-retention, if adequate treatment capacity is available. If bio-retention capacity is limited however, parking lot runoff should be the priority for treatment since it would typically carry a higher concentration of pollutants than roof runoff.

We recommend that bio-retention capacity be used to the maximum extent possible. When adequate bio-retention capacity cannot be built to accommodate roof runoff as well as parking lot runoff, roof runoff should be discharged as sheet flow on those parts of the site where it can be conveyed to vegetated areas. Resolution A, the Manager’s revised recommendation, includes a stipulation requiring that bio-retention capacity be used to the maximum extent possible. Furthermore, hydraulic calculations that verify bio-retention treatment capacity will be required during the Final Plan Review process.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR CHURCH OF THE HOLY FAMILY (2001-02-12/R-10a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Philip Post and Associates on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 54, Block D, Lots 1 (PIN # 9798283093), 1A (PIN # 9798285114) and 2 (PIN # 9798283205); if developed according to the site plan prepared on June 23, 2000, and revised on December 19, 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 to 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 that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Church of the Holy Family in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

1. Modification of Subsection 13.1.11 Use Group B, of the Development Ordinance to allow a Floor Area Ratio of 0.156 for the Church of the Holy Family.

Said public purposes being a public safety improvement as well as the expansion of a community facility.

1. That construction begin by February 12, 2004 (three years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by February 12, 2015 (fourteen years from the date of Council approval).

2. Relationship to 1992 Special Use Permit Modification: This authorization is intended to be in addition to the terms of the Town Council, July 6, 1992 Special Use Permit Modification document recorded in deed book 1018, page 406 of the Orange County Register of Deeds.

· demolition and off-site relocation of 3,448 square feet and 1,333 square feet of floor area respectively (4,781 square feet total);

· the relocation of the existing Special Use Permit boundary at 200 Hayes Road (Church of the Holy Family) to include 212 Hayes Road (neighboring parcel to the north).

The total new floor area authorized is 22,104 square feet. The authorized land use intensities are as follows:

4. Recombination of Lots: That the existing lots at 200 Hayes Road, 212 Hayes Road, and 207 Flemington Road, identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 54, Blocks D, Lots 1 (PIN #9798283093), 1A (PIN #9798285114), and 2 (PIN #9798283205) respectively be recombined to form a single lot.

5. Alteration of Special Use Permit Boundary: That the existing Special Use Permit Boundary at 200 Hayes Road and 207 Flemington Road shall be altered to include the 0.49-acre lot at 212 Hayes Road, identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 54, Blocks D, Lots 1 (PIN #9798283093), 1A (PIN #9798285114), and 2 (PIN #9798283205) respectively. The gross land area of the new Special Use Permit Modification boundary is 3.26 acres.

6. Town Standards: That all new streets, parking lots, drive aisles and sidewalks associated with this development shall be constructed to Town standards. Catch basins and underground stormwater pipes (rather than drainage swales) shall be utilized to collect stormwater.

7. Hayes Road and Flemington Road Frontage Improvements: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant obtain all necessary encroachment agreements and permits from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Town of Chapel Hill for work occurring in the right-of-way.

8. Curb Section Improvements: That sections of curbing proposed for removal and replacement shall be clearly indicated on Final Plans.

9. Parking Spaces: That the 38 proposed parking spaces will increase the permitted parking spaces on the site to 89 spaces.

10. Handicapped Parking Spaces: That at least two handicapped parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lots (1 space in each lot).

11. 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.

12. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees will be removed and preserved and including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. Landscape Bufferyards: That the following landscape bufferyards shall be provided, and that if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirement, the vegetation shall be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:

Bufferyard Location	Buffer Required
Western Border (Hayes Rd.)	30 ft. Type ‘D’ Buffer¹
Southern Border (Brandon Rd.)	15 ft. Type ‘C’ Buffer¹
Eastern Border (Flemington Rd.)	15 ft. Type ‘C’ Buffer
Northern Border (interior property line)	20 ft. Type ‘C’ Buffer

1. The Community Design Commission approved a 6-foot high brick wall streetscape on May 20, 1992 as a landscape element of the western bufferyard and a small portion of the southern bufferyard.

14. Tree Protection Fencing: That the tree protection fencing shall be erected between the proposed sidewalk construction along Hayes road and adjacent vegetation that is to remain.

15. Catch Basins and Stormwater Pipes: That catch basins and stormwater pipes shall be utilized as part of street construction, in order to minimize land disturbance in buffer areas. Drainage swales shall not be established in the required landscape bufferyards on this site.

16. Slopes in Buffer Areas: That all newly graded landscape buffer areas shall not exceed a 3:1 slope.

17. Buffer Plantings: That all canopy trees installed in graded buffer areas shall be a minimum of 3” – 3½“ caliper when installed. Also, all small trees installed in graded buffer areas shall be a minimum of 8 feet in height.

18. Parking Lot Plantings: That all parking lot shade trees used to demonstrate compliance with the 35% parking lot shading requirement, shall be a minimum of 2” – 2½“ in caliper when installed.

19. Magnolia Tree Disturbance Limits at Hayes Road Parking Lot Entrance and Exit: That the drive aisle and curbing configuration be revised in accordance with the 1/23/2001 letter and site plan submitted by the applicant and intended to enlarge the disturbance limit around two magnolia trees, subject to Town Manager approval, as follows:

· Planting Strips: That five-foot wide planting strips shall be provided between parking areas and each building.

19. 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, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20. Utility Lines: That all new utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground.

21. 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.

22. Fire Hydrant Location: That all new structures be located within 500 feet of a fire hydrant, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23. Sprinkler System: That the new buildings shall have a sprinkler systems in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.

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

25. Heavy-Duty Paving: That all new drive aisles that provide access to future dumpsters or recycling facilities be constructed to Town standards with heavy-duty pavement. In lieu of providing heavy-duty pavement, the following note must appear on final plans; “applicant will provide a waiver stating neither the town of Chapel Hill nor Orange County will be held responsible for any damage to existing pavement in order to service this container.”

Miscellaneous Stipulations

26. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations, the lighting plan, and any new alternative buffers for the site, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

27. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Based on a 25-year storm, the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate.

28. Directing roof-top runoff to bio-retention: Runoff from the new parking lot shall be directed to a bio-retention area. Bio-retention capacity shall be used to the maximum extent possible, treating not only parking lot runoff but roof runoff as well. Where bio-retention capacity is insufficient to treat roof runoff too, this runoff can be discharged as sheet flow across vegetated areas, subject to Town Manager approval.

29. Bio-retention: That the design and list of plant species of the new bio-retention area shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Town standard detail (E-7) shall be used as a design and plant species guideline for bio-retention areas.

30. 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.

That if the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.

31. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), 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.

32. Erosion Control: That a performance guarantee shall be required in accordance with Section 5-97.1 Bonds of the Town Code of Ordinances, and that the guarantee shall be required prior to issuance of any permit to begin land-disturbing activity. That the approval shall require plans to be reviewed for approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

33. Open Burning: That no open burning shall be permitted during the construction of this development.

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

35. 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.

36. Plant Rescue: That the applicant is encouraged to conduct a “plant rescue” for this site, after the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and prior to the start of construction.

37. Bicycle Facilities: That the applicant shall provide bicycle-parking facilities, as described in the Town’s Design Manual. The applicant shall provide a covered, wave-type bicycle rack, in a highly visible, well-illuminated area for ten (10) bicycles. The bike rack covering may include roof eaves of suitable dimensions.

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

39. 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 Modification for Church of the Holy Family.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR CHURCH OF THE HOLY FAMILY (2001-02-12/R-10b)

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

1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.

2. Magnolia Tree Disturbance Limits at Hayes Road Parking Lot Entrance and Exit: Remove stipulation #19 from Resolution A.

3. Directing rooftop runoff to bio-retention: Remove stipulation #30 from Resolution A.

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 Modification for Church of the Holy Family.

(Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendations)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR CHURCH OF THE HOLY FAMILY (2001-02-12/R-10c)

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

1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.

2. Flemington Road Improvements: Add the following stipulation to Resolution A; “That a sidewalk, constructed of brick or concrete, shall be built approximately 287 linear feet along the Flemington Road frontage.”

3. Magnolia Tree Disturbance Limits at Hayes Road Parking Lot Entrance and Exit: Remove stipulation #19 from Resolution A.

4. Directing rooftop runoff to bio-retention: Remove stipulation #30 from Resolution A.

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 Modification for Church of the Holy Family.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR CHURCH OF THE HOLY FAMILY (2001-02-12/R-10d)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Philip Post and Associates on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 54, Block D, Lots 1 (PIN# 9798283093), 1A (PIN # 9798285114) and 2 (PIN# 9798283205); if developed according to the site plan prepared on June 23, 2000, and revised on December 19, 2000, and conditions listed below, would not:

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Church of the Holy Family.

ISSUE	Resolution A Manager’s Revised Recommendation	Resolution B Planning Board Recommendation	Resolution C Transportation Board, Community Design Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendations
Require Flemington Road frontage improvements (i.e. sidewalk).	No	No	Yes
Require parking lot drive and curbing configuration revision to retain vegetation	Yes	*	*
Require additional rooftop stormwater runoff to be directed to bio-retention, where possible	Yes	*	*