AGENDA #7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Wilshire Place– Application for Special Use Permit Modification
DATE: May 7, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from April 18, 2001, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application, which proposes construction of a 12-unit residential building on the 1.4-acre Wilshire Place site located at the 100 block of South Estes Drive. Adoption of Resolutions A, B, C, and D would approve the Special Use Permit Modification application. Adoption of Resolution E would deny the request.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows: ¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, and offers recommendations for Council action. ¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, comments on issues raised during the April 18 Public Hearing, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments. |
Background
On April 18, 2001, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit Modification application to authorize construction of a residential building on the 1.4-acre Wilshire Place 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 April 18, 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 April 18, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.
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.
|
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: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum) provides evidence in supportof Finding #1. We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “This project will have all services and utilities. Sewer and water will be by OWASA through lines now available at the site. Duke Power Company will provide electric service, Bell Telephone communication, and cable T.V. by Time Warner. Garbage collection will be provided by the Town.” [Applicant Statement]
· “There will be special provisions for recycling. Ten bins and a dumpster will be provided and leases will require their use, and cardboard recycling will be the responsibility of the project manager.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The Town of Chapel Hill provides fire protection, the nearest fire station being only a block away while hydrants are close by, 180 feet to the north and 250 feet to the east.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Storm water runoff will be managed by a system that limits the post development run off to that of pre-development.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Because the developers have elected residential use for this property, traffic impact will be negligible as compared to that possible if the property were developed with offices that are now permitted.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The total traffic disbursed over these five points is estimated to be between four to five vehicles during peak hours.” [Applicant Statement]
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.
|
Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations. |
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum) provides evidence in supportof Finding #2. We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “As seen from the project fact sheets and plans submitted with this application, the proposed project meets all of the dimensional requirements of the Development Ordinance.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Setbacks exceed minimums and intensity regulations have been met. The height of the building is below that which is permitted.” [Applicant Statement]
· “It is believed that because of the availability of public transportation and a location within walking distance to work, shopping and restaurants, that the need for automobiles will be reduced.” [Applicant Statement]
· The parking under the building will be assigned to each unit. Three handicapped spaces will be designated as well as three guest spaces.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition:We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #2 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.
|
Finding #3: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity. |
The Council established that, for this application, “contiguous property” means adjacent parcels at the April 18, 2001 Public Hearing.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum) provides evidence in supportof Finding #3. We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “Existing peripheral vegetation will be preserved, thus providing a good buffer between the building and adjacent uses.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The use proposed for this development will be lower intensity than the adjacent uses and therefore will be a good neighbor.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Being a residential use, it will provide a nearby place to live for professionals working at nearby offices or service establishments. Since this development will be residential, it will not compete with nearby office and commercial uses, but will complement them and therefore will maintain or enhance values of contiguous property.” [Applicant Statement]
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.
|
Finding #4: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan. |
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum) provides evidence in supportof Finding #4. We note the following key points raised by the applicant.
· “The proposed project supports the concept of land use diversity envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. This residential project will be nestled into an area with a variety of non-residential uses such as offices, restaurants, convenience stores, professional services and the Sienna Hotel.” [Applicant Statement]
· “It is consistent with the Land use regulations and supports the comprehensive plan objective of alternative transportation and the reduction of the use of the automobiles by being within walking distance to work, professional services and shopping and dining facilities. As such, it will not negatively impact the thoroughfare system.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Concerning affordable housing, this project is small having only twelve residential units and, as such, it cannot significantly contribute to the supply of affordable housing. Because of the nature of this building, and the fact that it is a twelve-unit four-story elevator structure with a very high cost, low cost housing is not feasible. However, it is believed that this unique project will carry out many other objectives of the comprehensive plan while other projects in chapel Hill do not and cannot.” [Applicant Statement]
· “This project carries out mixed use principles which encourage development within which mutually supporting residential, commercial and office uses are scaled, balanced and located to reduce general traffic congestion by providing housing close to principal destinations, and convenient pedestrian circulation systems and mass transit to further reduce the need for private automobile usage.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition:The following evidence in opposition to Finding #4 for this application was raised at the April 18 Public Hearing:
Council members expressed concern that the application, as presented at the April 18 Public Hearing, did not adequately address the provision of affordable housing and recommended that the applicant return with a proposal on May 7. The Council members noted that the Town’s adopted Comprehensive Plan has a strategy to provide affordable housing. That strategy is as follows:
“As a general policy, the Town should encourage developers of residential developments of five or more units to 1) provide 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households, 2) contribute in-lieu fees, or 3) propose alternative methods so that the equivalent of 15 percent of the units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households.” (Strategy # 7A-2, p.53)
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
KEY ISSUES
We believe that the key issues brought forth during the April 18 Public Hearing were related to parking and provision of affordable housing. 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.
· Parking: An issue was raised at the Public Hearing about how to account for “stacked” parking spaces beneath the building. The applicant’s initial proposal showed spaces for parking 30 cars: 26 beneath the building in 14 “bays” and 4 surface spaces next to the building. We reported this number (30) at the Public Hearing. The applicant argued at the Public Hearing that because of a provision in the Development Ordinance, the 14 bays should be counted as 14 spaces, not 26. We have reviewed this language and the applicant’s argument and concur with the applicant’s position. Accordingly this memorandum provides a revised accounting method for parking spaces. We continue to believe that the application, as proposed, is providing the minimum parking required. (see Attachment 1 for additional discussion).
· Affordable Housing: Issues were raised at the Public Hearing regarding provision of affordable housing or a specific payment-in-lieu of affordable housing. The Council recommended that the applicant return to the May 7 Public Hearing with a specific proposal for affordable housing or a payment-in-lieu in accordance with the affordable housing strategy from the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has offered to make a $10,000 payment-in-lieu of affordable housing to the Orange Community Housing Corporation. This issue is discussed further in Attachments 1, 7, and 8.
Recommendations
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on April 3, 2001 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application without reference to a specific resolution. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action, part of Attachment 9.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on April 3, 2001, and voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution A. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action, part of Attachment 9.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on March 21, 2001, and voted 8-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application without reference to a specific resolution. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action to the Council, part of Attachment 9.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on April 10, 2001, and voted 4-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application without reference to a specific resolution. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action to the Council, part of Attachment 9.
Parks and Recreation Commission: The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the recreation requirements for this application be met with a payment-in-lieu. Please see the attached Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action to the Council, part of Attachment 9.
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. 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 way:
· Allow the total number of parking spaces proposed by applicant (18). We note that we have adjusted our method for counting parking spaces in accordance with Section 14.6.5(f) of the Development Ordinance and arguments presented by the applicant (see Attachment 1 for additional discussion). We further note that our revised parking space recommendation effectively agrees with recommendations of all advisory boards that commented on parking, even though the method of accounting for spaces differs. We have revised Stipulations 3 and 9 of Resolution A accordingly.
In addition, based on an offer made by the applicant subsequent to the Public Hearing, we have revised Resolutions A, B, C, and D to include the applicant’s offer:
· The applicant has offered to provide a $10,000 payment-in-lieu of affordable housing to the Orange Community Housing Corporation and donate the existing single-family home for affordable housing as well.
Stipulations 33 and 34 have been added to Resolutions A, B, C, and D accordingly. These issues are discussed in Attachments 1, 7 and 8.
Resolution A would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Transportation Board.
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 Community Design Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission.
Resolution D would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Resolution E would deny the application.
WILSHIRE PLACE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION
|
ISSUE |
Resolution ATransportation Board Recommendation and Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Resolution BPlanning Board Recommendation |
Resolution CCommunity Design Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation |
Resolution DBicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation |
|
Save the 2 large hardwoods near NW property line; replace if trees die. |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
* |
|
Require sidewalk to Estes Dr., if feasible. |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Accept $10,000 payment-in-lieu for Affordable Housing |
** |
** |
** |
** |
*This issue was not discussed at this particular advisory board’s meeting.
**This offer was made by the applicant after the Public Hearing and is therefore included in Resolutions A, B, C, and D.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Issues Raised during the April 18, 2001 Public Hearing (p. 11)
2. Resolution A – Approving the Application (p. 13)
3. Resolution B – Approving the Application (p. 19)
4. Resolution C – Approving the Application (p. 20)
5. Resolution D – Approving the Application (p. 21)
6. Resolution E – Denying the Application (p. 22)
7. April 23, 2001 letter from Wilshire Boulevard Associates Partnership (p. 23)
8. Examples of recent payments-in-lieu in Chapel Hill (p. 24)
9. April 29, 2001 Revised Parking Figures on Project Facts Sheets from Applicant (p. 25).
10. April 18, 2001 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1)
ATTACHMENT 1
WILSHIRE PLACE
Questions/Issues Raised at the April 18, 2001 Public Hearing
There were two key questions/issues raised at the April 18 Public Hearing.
Council members expressed concern about the lack of affordable housing or a specific payment-in lieu for the proposal.
There is a Comprehensive Plan (adopted May 8, 2000) strategy that states: “As a general policy, the Town should encourage developers of residential developments of five or more units to 1) provide 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households, 2) contribute in-lieu fees, or 3) propose alternative methods so that the equivalent of 15 percent of the units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households.”
A Council member suggested using a formula for determining a payment-in-lieu for affordable housing at the April 18 Public Hearing in the event that the applicant chose not to offer affordable units. Although there is not an existing payment-in-lieu formula, there is precedence from past payments-in-lieu from other development proposals. Examples of recent provision of affordable housing and payments-in-lieu are provided in Attachment 8.
The applicant has responded by offering a $10,000 payment-in-lieu to Orange Community Housing Corporation rather than providing affordable housing. The adopted Comprehensive Plan encourages providing 15% affordable units in developments greater than 5 units, which in this case would be 1.8 units of the 12-unit development. The applicant is also seeking to donate the existing single-family home on the site to Orange Community Housing Corporation or Habitat for Humanity to use as affordable housing.
Staff Comment: Based on the applicant’s offer, we have included a stipulation in Resolutions A, B, C, and D that the applicant provide a $10,000 payment-in-lieu to the Orange Community Housing Corporation, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
2. PARKING SPACES
The applicant objected to counting the parking bays (located beneath the proposed apartment building) as two spaces each, even though the bays can accommodate 2 cars. The applicant specifically noted that the Development Ordinance doesn’t allow “stacked” vehicle parking in a multi-family residential development. The applicant indicated that he is proposing 18 parking spaces rather than the 30 spaces that staff originally counted (see Attachment 9, revised project fact sheet parking figures).
Section 14.6.5(f) of the Development Ordinance states “all parking areas shall meet the following minimum design requirement:”
“Except for single- or two-family dwellings or for attendant parking, each parking space shall be arranged so that any vehicle may be parked and unparked without moving another vehicle.”
Staff Comment: We have revised our preliminary recommendation. The applicant’s initial proposal showed spaces for parking 30 cars: 26 beneath the building in 14 “bays” and 4 surface spaces next to the building. We reported this number (30) at the Public Hearing. The applicant argued at the Public Hearing that because of a provision in the Development Ordinance, the 14 bays should be counted as 14 spaces, not 26. We have reviewed this language and the applicant’s argument and concur with the applicant’s position.
Our revised recommendation is now in accordance with Section 14.6.5(f) of the Development Ordinance. We believe that the individual parking bays with capacity for two “stacked” cars (one behind the other) beneath the apartment building should be considered as individual parking spaces, rather than two spaces, given the requirements of Section 14.6.5(f) of the Development Ordinance. We therefore recommend that the project be allowed to have a total of 18 parking spaces, as proposed by the applicant. We note that our revised parking space recommendation effectively agrees with recommendations of all advisory boards that commented on parking, even though the method of accounting for spaces differs. The advisory board recommendations for 30 spaces and the Manager’s revised recommendation for 18 spaces are identical.
We have revised our recommendation, Resolution A, to allow a total of 18 parking spaces, including 14 bays (counted as single parking spaces) under the building and 4 spaces outside. Three of these 18 spaces are handicapped spaces.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION A
(Manager’s Revised Recommendation and
Transportation Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR WILSHIRE PLACE (2001–05–07/R–14a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Robert N. Anderson, Jr. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 47, Block A, Lots 7, 21, 22B, and 23 (PIN numbers 9799034313, 9799037226, 9799035187, and 9799023967); if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 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 Wilshire Place in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin by May 7, 2003 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by May 7, 2004 (three years from the date of Council approval).
2. Relationship to 1979 Special Use Permit Modification: This authorization is intended to be in addition to the terms of the Town Council, September 24, 1979 Special Use Permit Modification document recorded in deed book 280, page 176 of the Orange County Register of Deeds and is not intended to change the previously approved and developed phases 1-3.
3. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit Modification authorizes:
· construction of phase 4 as 14,500 square feet of new residential floor area to include;
· one 4-story building with 12 dwelling units; and
· construction of an 18-space parking lot, including 14 under-building bays (each counted as a single space) and 4 outside spaces.
The total floor area authorized for the 4-phase development is 46,480 square feet. The aggregate authorized land use intensities, for phases 1 through 4 (existing and proposed) are as follows:
· Total # of Buildings: 4
· Maximum # of Parking Spaces: 120
· Gross Land Area (acres): 4.14
· Minimum Outdoor Space (s.f.): 159,541
· Minimum Livability Space (s.f.): 106,689
4. Subdivision: That phase 4 may be subdivided from phases 1-3.
5. Cross-Access Easement: That the applicant shall provide a cross-access easement through the phase 4 residential site, to be delineated on the recorded Final Plat and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
6. South Estes Drive Access: That the following note be added to the Final Plans and subsequent plats: The driveway access along South Estes Drive is subject to limited right in and right out movements and/or removal without compensation to the owner, if, in the opinion of NCDOT or the Town of Chapel Hill, traffic safety and/or traffic operational problems develop at this location.
7. Pedestrian Access: That a sidewalk shall be provided, connecting the building to Estes Drive, via the Estes Drive frontage, if feasible.
Stipulations Related to Required Improvements
8. 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.
9. Parking Spaces: That a total of 18 parking spaces shall be provided, including: 14 bays beneath the building (each counted as a single parking space) and 4 outside parking spaces, and 3 handicapped spaces in phase 4. This will increase the aggregate total number of parking spaces in phases 1-4 to 120.
Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 |
|
The Center (west) |
30 ft. Type ‘D’1 |
|
Chapel Hill Professional Village (north) |
20 ft. Type ‘C’ |
|
Chapel Hill Professional Village (east) |
20 ft. Type ‘C’ |
|
South Estes Drive (south) |
30 ft. Type ‘D’ |
1. Approximately 230 feet of the buffer on the western property boundary is shared with The Center.
13. Protection of Significant Trees: That the applicant shall attempt to save the two large hardwoods (15” oak and 18” maple) between the drive aisle and northwest property line and replace them with like species if they die.
14. Tree Protection Fencing: That the tree protection fencing shall be erected around all existing vegetation that is to remain on site.
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 or other detention facilities shall not be established in the required landscape bufferyards.
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. Planting Strips: That five-foot wide planting strips shall be provided between drive aisles and each building, where possible.
19. Parking Lot Screening: That parking areas shall be screened in accordance with Section 14.6.6 of the Development Ordinance.
20. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan shall 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.
21. Utility Lines: That all new utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground.
Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety
22. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report shall be 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.
23. Fire Hydrant Location: That fire department connection(s) on all new structures shall be located within 50 feet of a fire hydrant, subject to the approval of the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
24. Sprinkler System: That new buildings shall have sprinkler systems in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.
Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection
25. 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.
26. Heavy-Duty Paving: That all new drive aisles that provide access to dumpsters or recycling facilities shall be constructed to Town standards with heavy-duty pavement.
27. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations, the lighting plan, and any proposed alternative buffers for the site, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
28. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan shall 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.
29. Stormwater and Water Quality Best Management Practices: That stormwater detention and water quality management shall be accomplished with an alternative system such as an underground system with a slow release into a level spreader to facilitate sheet flow into the western buffer area, to be approved by the Town Manager.
30. Drainage Easements: That stormwater infrastructure shall be located within a recorded drainage easement and an approved operations and maintenance plan shall be approved prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
31. Recreation Requirements: That applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu for on site recreation space according to requirements in Section 13.7.10 of the Development Ordinance.
32. 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.
33. Affordable Housing Payment-In-Lieu: That the applicant shall provide a $10,000 payment-in-lieu to the Orange Community Housing Corporation, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, as a payment-in-lieu for the provision of affordable housing.
34. Donation of Exiting Residential Structure: That the applicant shall donate the existing single family home on site to Orange Community Housing Corporation, Habitat for Humanity, or a comparable provider of low income housing, if possible.
35. 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.
36. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for maintenance of facilities and modifications of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. A performance guarantee shall be required, in accordance with the Town Code of Ordinances, and the guarantee shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of any permit authorizing land-disturbing activity.
37. Open Burning: That no open burning shall be permitted during the construction of this development.
38. Silt Control: That the applicant shall take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
39. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant shall post a construction site identification sign following the issuance of a building permit, prior to the start of any construction activity on the site. The sign’s message shall include the following:
A. Project Name;
B. Identification of Property Owner’s representative (including phone number);
C. Identification of architects, engineers, contractors, and other individuals or firms involved with the construction (including phone numbers); and
D. Identification of the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department (including phone number) as the contact for regulatory information.
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.
40. 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.
41. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
42. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Wilshire Place.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION B
(Planning Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR WILSHIRE PLACE (2001–05–07/R-14b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Robert N. Anderson, Jr. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 47, Block A, Lots 7, 21, 22B, and 23 (PIN numbers 9799034313, 9799037226, 9799035187, and 9799023967); if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 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 Wilshire Place in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
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. Pedestrian Access:Remove Stipulation #7 from Resolution A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Wilshire Place.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION C
(Community Design Commission and
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendations)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR WILSHIRE PLACE (2001–05–07/R–14c)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Robert N. Anderson, Jr. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 47, Block A, Lots 7, 21, 22B, and 23 (PIN numbers 9799034313, 9799037226, 9799035187, and 9799023967); if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 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 Wilshire Place in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
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. Pedestrian Access:Remove Stipulation #7 from Resolution A.
3. Protection of Significant Trees: Remove Stipulation #13 from Resolution A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Wilshire Place.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION D
(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR WILSHIRE PLACE (2001–05–07/R-14d)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Robert N. Anderson, Jr. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 47, Block A, Lots 7, 21, 22B, and 23 (PIN numbers 9799034313, 9799037226, 9799035187, and 9799023967); if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 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 Wilshire Place in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
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. Protection of Significant Trees: Remove Stipulation #13 from Resolution A.
BE IT FURHTER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Wilshire Place.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION E
(Denying the Application)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR WILSHIRE PLACE (2001–05–07/R–14e)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by Robert N. Anderson, Jr. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 47, Block A, Lots 7, 21, 22B, and 23 (PIN numbers 9799034313, 9799037226, 9799035187, and 9799023967); if developed according to the site plan prepared on October 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds:
(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Wilshire Place.
This the 7th day of May, 2001.