AGENDA #3

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: Public Hearing: Delta Upsilon Fraternity - Application for a Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 79.E.19, 20)

Date: June 17, 2002

INTRODUCTION

Attached for your consideration is an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit Modification which proposes to construct a 9,694 square foot fraternity with 23 parking spaces at 407 East Rosemary. Located in the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District, at the northeast corner of East Rosemary and Hillsborough Streets, the 30,571 square foot site also includes the Dey House. The applicant proposes to demolish the Delta Upsilon Fraternity building (aka The Bain House), and convert the Dey House (401 East Rosemary Street) to non-fraternity use.

The site is zoned Residential-6. A fraternity or sorority is allowed only with Town Council approval of a Special Use Permit.

Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive evidence in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, and further to receive evidence which the Council may consider as the Council determines any appropriate conditions to impose upon the proposed development.

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

¨ Cover Memorandum: Introduces application, describes process for review, summarizes staff and advisory board comments, and offers recommendations for Council action.

¨ Staff Report: Offers a detailed description of the site and proposed development, and presents an evaluation of the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance.

¨ Attachments: Includes a checklist of requirements for this development, resolutions of approval and denial, advisory board comments, a copy of the 1979 Special Use Permit and the applicant’s materials.

PROCESS

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 against Town standards; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows below). Evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the 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.

CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY

One of the findings that the Council must make when considering a Special Use Permit Modification application is:

That the use of 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 Development Ordinance defines contiguous property as follows:

Contiguous Property: Property adjoining, neighboring, and nearby the outer boundary of a proposed development. For development proposals that are small in scale and similar in proposed use to existing uses in the immediate vicinity, contiguous property shall be construed to be those properties immediately adjacent. For large development proposals and/or proposed uses that are significantly different from existing uses nearby, or proposals that have significant topographic features that could impact nearby properties, contiguous property shall be construed to include those properties in a larger area, and those likely to experience negative impacts resulting from the proposed development. But in every case, for a proposal over 10 acres but less than 100 acres, at a minimum all property within 500 feet shall be considered contiguous; for development proposals that are over 100 acres, at a minimum all properties within 1,000 feet shall be considered contiguous.

The Town Attorney has advised that the Council should specify what area it considers to be contiguous property for each Special Use Permit Modification application that comes before the Council for consideration. Therefore, based on the Town Attorney’s advice to the Council, we suggest that prior to recessing the hearing this evening the Council discuss and determine by vote what should be considered contiguous property for this application. The attached Resolution F provides a format for determining the definition of contiguous property for this application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

Existing Conditions: This .82 acre site is located at the intersection of East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street. Located on the northeast corner of the intersection, the 30,571 square foot site contains two structures on two separate parcels:

· Parcel 1: Dey House – 2,882 square foot structure located at 401 East Rosemary Street

· Parcel 2: Bain House – 7,099 square foot structure located at 407 East Rosemary Street

Until recently both structures were occupied and used by Delta Upsilon Fraternity. Following the end of the 2001 school year and the enactment of the Town sprinkler regulations, the structures were vacated and boarded up. We believe that the site is currently used as a parking lot by fraternity members attending school at the university.

There are two points of vehicular access to the site, one from Hillsborough Street and one from East Rosemary Street.

Proposed Development: The Special Use Permit Modification proposes:

1. To reduce the overall area encumbered by the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary by removing the 2,882 square foot Dey House from the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary; and

2. To replace the 7,099 square foot fraternity building (Bain House) with a two-story 9,694 square foot fraternity building. The replacement would include a sprinkler system.

Recognizing the historical significance of the Dey House and the expense to install a sprinkler system if the house were to continue to be used by the fraternity, the applicant believes that the use of the Dey House by the fraternity should be discontinued. The applicant is proposing that the Dey House and approximately 11,276 square feet of surrounding property be removed from the encumbering 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary.

We note that the applicant’s proposal to remove the Dey House from the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary and create a separate lot does not included any changes or improvements to the existing conditions on the proposed lot for the Dey House. We believe that the applicants’ intent, to restore and convert the Dey House to a single family residence or other non-fraternity use, is a preferred use for this structure.

Although removing the Dey House from the encumbrance of the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification does not guarantee its future restoration or its future use as single family residence (some other uses permitted in this zoning district include daycare center, place of worship, duplex, rooming house), we believe that removing this historic structure from the 1979 Special Use Permit enhances its restoration potential. We recommend approval of the reduction of the boundary for the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification. Resolution A includes this stipulation.

The second portion of this Special Use Permit Modification application involves replacing the existing 7,099 square foot Delta Upsilon Fraternity (aka Bain House) with a two-story 9,694 square foot building. Although this proposed building is 2,595 square feet larger than the Bain House, we note that the total floor area does not include the Dey House and therefore is less than the 9,981 square feet of floor area currently authorized by the 1979 Special Use Permit. We also note that 2,423 square feet of the proposed building is designed as basement floor area.

The new 9,981 square foot structure is proposed to include fourteen (14) bedrooms with two beds in each room and one (1) addition bedroom with a single bed. We understand that the proposed number of beds, 29, is equal to the number of beds existing in the Bain House before the fraternity was vacated.

We also note that this 9,694 square foot structure is proposed to replace the floor area that was previously associated with fraternity activities in the Dey House.

As an existing development, this site has a nonconforming feature with regard to the landscape bufferyards and the Town’s Development Ordinance. We also note that the proposed development includes additional nonconforming features. Consequently, as part of this development application, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance. We have prepared a Staff Report that discusses requests for modifications to the regulations, intensity standards, access and circulation, parking, bicycle parking, traffic impact, buffers and landscaping, building elevations, lighting plans, stormwater management, refuse management, recycling, utilities, and fire safety. A checklist describing compliance with regulations is also provided as Attachment 2 to this memorandum.

Based on our evaluation, our preliminary recommendation is that the application as submitted, except for the requested modifications to the regulations, complies with the regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual with the conditions in Resolution A. We believe the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.

The following modifications are requested by the applicant:

1. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 Use Group B, of the Development Ordinance to allow a total of 9,694 square feet of floor area on the fraternity portion of the site.

2. Modification of Subsection 14.12 to allow the existing landscape bufferyard on the east property line in lieu of the required landscape bufferyard.

3. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow impervious surface areas, instead of a five-foot landscape strip along the east, north and portion of the west exterior walls of the house.

4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow 23 off-street parking spaces instead of the required minimum 29 off-street parking spaces.

The applicant has asked for modification of regulations in the four sections of the Development Ordinance noted above. The Council has the authority, in the context of this request for a Special Use Permit Modification to modify some or all of the requested regulations if it determines that public purposes are satisfied.

Tonight the Council receives our attached evaluation, and also receives information by the applicant and others. The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum and the staff report. We have not received any other written information from any other citizens as yet. Staff, applicant, and others may provide information at the Public Hearing. All information that is submitted will be placed into the record of this Public Hearing.

Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification. The four findings are:

Special Use Permit Modification – Required Findings of Fact

Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Finding #2: That the use or development 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.

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;

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.

Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. If, after consideration of the evidence, 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.

REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS

We note that the applicant is requesting from the Council modifications to the regulations. Subsection 18.7.1 of the Development Ordinance states:

“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 Modification applications, or in approving a new Special Use Permit Modification for existing development that requires a Special Use Permit Modification.”

The requested modifications to the regulations for the proposed nonconforming features are further discussed as follows:

1. Modification to allow 9,694 square feet of floor area on the fraternity portion of the site: This Special Use Permit Modification application proposes to replace the existing 7,099 square foot Delta Upsilon Fraternity (aka Bain House) with a two-story 9,694 square foot building. We note that this proposed 9,694 square foot building exceeds the maximum permitted floor area for the specific parcel on which it is proposed by 2,515 square feet.

As part of this development application, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations as it relates to floor area limitations on the fraternity portion of the site.

Staff Comment: Because the fraternity is losing floor area with the proposed conversion of the Dey House to non-fraternity use, and a portion of the proposed new floor area is located in the new building’s basement area, we believe that the requested modification of the floor area requirements is acceptable. We believe it is desirable to have higher intensity student housing near the University campus and the addition of floor area could be viewed as achieving this purpose. We also believe that the Council could find that the proposed increase in floor area is a desirable public safety improvement, as the proposed building is to include the installation of a sprinkler system.

Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council modify the floor area requirement for this particular development application on the fraternity portion of the site to allow the 9,694 square foot fraternity house as proposed.

2. Modification to retain the existing landscaping along the east property line in lieu of the required landscape bufferyard: Along its east property line the site is adjacent to the Alpha Delta Pi Sorority. The Development Ordinance requires a 10 foot-wide Type “B” bufferyard along this property line. Existing landscaping along this property line includes several trees. We note that the existing landscaping along this property line does not meet the Type “B” buffer requirements for buffer width or number/types of plant material.

The applicant’s original proposal included removing the trees and constructing a retaining wall along a portion of the east property line. Installation of a retaining wall would permit the applicant to construct an 18 foot-wide driveway. The installation of the retaining wall would not provide adequate room for planting new trees along the eastern property line. The original application also included a request for an alternate bufferyard along this property line. We are concerned about the proposed improvement to the driveway and the associated removal of some trees along the east property line. After discussing the issue with the applicant, the applicant has agreed, in order to preserve the existing trees, to reduce the driveway width from 18 feet to 15 feet.

Therefore, the applicant is seeking approval of a modification to Development Ordinance requirement for a 10 foot-wide Type “B” bufferyard along the east property line so that the existing trees could be retained.

Staff Comment: We recommend that the Town Council modify the landscape bufferyard requirement along the east property line (Alpha Delta Pi Sorority). We believe that because the east side of the property is adjacent to a similar use (sorority) and that the existing tree line dividing parallel driveways is acceptable given the nature of adjoining uses, the Council could modify the requirements to allow the existing plantings in lieu of the required bufferyard. We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied.

Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council modify the landscape bufferyard requirements along the east property line for this particular development application, so the applicant can preserve the trees between this site and the adjoining sorority.

3. Modification relating to the required five-foot landscape strip between the exterior wall of a building and parking areas: The Town’s Development Ordinance (Subsection 14.6.6(a)) requires that five-foot landscaped buffer strips be provided between parking facilities and the exterior walls of a building. The applicant’s plan includes this buffer strip along the east side of the new building and a portion of the west side.

As part of this development application, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations as it relates to landscape buffer strip along a portion of the west edge of the building and along the entire north edge. The applicant is also proposing to change the plan as originally submitted and is seeking a modification to allow removal of the landscape strip along the eastern edge of the building.

The applicant is seeking a modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow impervious surface areas, instead of a five-foot landscaped strip along, the east, north and portion of the west exterior walls of the house.

Staff Comment: With respect to the modification request along a portion of the west building edge and along the north edge of the building, 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 request below). In order to provide the five-foot landscaped buffer strip along the north building edge and the entire west edge of the building, as required by the Development Ordinance, the applicant would have to give up several additional parking spaces.

Given the space constraints on the site and the reduction of parking spaces, from the minimum requirement of 29 to 23, we believe that that the Council could find that it is appropriate to not require a five-foot landscaped area along the north wall of the building and along a portion of the west wall.

With respect to the request for a modification along the east edge of the building, the proposed plan in tonight packet includes a five-foot wide planting strip between the eastern exterior wall of the building and the proposed parallel parking spaces. We note that the recommended redesign for a 15 foot driveway, in order to preserve the existing trees along the east property line, could reduce or eliminate this planting strip.

Therefore, our preliminary recommendation is that the Council modify the regulations for a landscaped buffer strip along the north, east and a portion of the west side of the building and release the applicant from this requirement.

4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow 23 off-street parking spaces instead of the required minimum 29 parking spaces: The applicant has proposed that a total of 29 residents live in the new fraternity house. Based on that number, the Development Ordinance requires a minimum of 29 off-street parking spaces (one space per resident). The applicant is proposing a total of 23 off-street parking spaces.

The applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations relating to the minimum number of parking spaces.

Staff Comment: We believe that it is appropriate and acceptable for this site, which is close to the University and the downtown area, to have less than one parking space per resident.

We also note that the Town Manager’s preliminary recommendation and the recommendation from the Transportation Board both include a stipulation authorizing an additional reduction in parking spaces, if the applicant desires to provide less that 23 off-street spaces.

Our preliminary recommendation is that the Town Council modify the Development Ordinance requirement for this particular development application to allow a reduction in parking. We recommend that the Council modify Subsection 14.6.7 to allow 23 or less off-street parking spaces instead of the required minimum 29 parking spaces.

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 (1) provision of a renovated development site that complies with the Town’s fire safety codes, (2) the development of a structure that provides needed student housing close to campus, and (3) the provision of an architecturally integrated structure that better reflects the character of the Franklin/Rosemary Historic District as a whole, and provides an opportunity to preserve the Dey House.

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 or require compliance with the particular regulation.

KEY ISSUES

Based on the review of this development application by Town advisory boards and the Town staff, we believe two key issues have been identified: sidewalks along East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street; and extending the Special Use Permit boundary to Hillsborough Street to accommodate a new sewer line. These issues are discussed below.

1. Sidewalks along East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street: This site has frontage on Hillsborough Street (approximately 129 feet) and on East Rosemary Street (approximately 216 feet). Most of the frontage along Hillsborough Street includes a low stone wall which is located at or very near the curb line. The East Rosemary Street frontage includes a Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk. The applicant’s proposal does not include sidewalk improvements.

During the review of this application, some advisory board members expressed support for maintaining the Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the site. One member noted the historical significance of gravel sidewalks in Chapel Hill.

Other opinions expressed a desire for a brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage. Noting the brick sidewalk on nearby portions of Hillsborough Street and the adjacent sorority property, it was also pointed out that a brick sidewalk usually provides a better walking surface than gravel. In addition to recommending the provision of a brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage, one advisory board recommended construction of a half-width brick sidewalk adjacent to a large street tree on the East Rosemary Street frontage.

With respect to the site’s frontage along Hillsborough Street, some advisory board members noted that it would be desirable for the applicant to install a sidewalk along this street frontage in order to access the bus stop and accommodate high pedestrian volumes.

Staff Comment: We recommend that the applicant replace the East Rosemary Street Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk with a five-foot wide brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the two lots. We believe that the addition of a brick sidewalk, between Hillsborough Street and the adjacent sorority to the east (Alpha Delta Pi Sorority) is desirable.

It has been the experience of the Town that brick sidewalks require less maintenance than gravel sidewalks. Gravel sidewalks require routine replenishment and are prone to eroding and washing into the public streets during inclement weather which causes difficulty for bicyclist. We believe that over a period of time, a properly constructed brick sidewalk provides a safer and longer lasting walking surface.

We also note that this segment of East Rosemary Street is identified as a desired sidewalk improvement ranked in the top one-third on the Sidewalk Prioritization List for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. A copy of the Sidewalk Prioritization List is included as Attachment 18.

We note that if the Council requires that the applicant install a brick sidewalk, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for the brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the two lots. We understand the Historic District Commission, in some situations, prefers sidewalk materials other than brick (concrete, Chapel Hill gravel). We also understand that some Historic District Commission members believe that in some neighborhoods, brick is not in keeping with the historic character of the area. We note that the Historic District Commission’s recommendation and the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Council do not support a brick sidewalk along East Rosemary Street. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action and Summary of Historic District Commission Action.

Although maintenance issues support the installation of a brick sidewalk, we recognize, in response to the concerns noted by the Historic District Commission and the Planning Board that in some neighborhoods gravel may be preferred to maintain neighborhood character. However, in this circumstance, we believe that a brick sidewalk enhances and is in keeping with the immediate neighborhood character. We note that the adjoining sorority to the east includes a segment of brick sidewalk. We also note that brick sidewalk segments on nearby streets including Hillsborough, Franklin Street and Raleigh Road. Please refer to the Area Map of Existing Sidewalks (Attachment 19) for additional information.

We believe that it is desirable and appropriate to extend a brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of this site. We also recommend that, where necessary, sections of the existing Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk be retained in order to minimize disruption to the root systems of the three existing street trees. A stipulation to this effect is included in Resolutions A and C.

If an alternative sidewalk material other than brick is approved by the Historic District Commission, we recommend that the approved alternative be permitted in lieu of the stipulated brick sidewalk. The final sidewalk material and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. This condition has been stipulated in Resolutions A, B, C and D.

Concerning a sidewalk along Hillsborough Street, we believe that, due to the existing stone wall and topographic constrains, the installation of a sidewalk along the Hillsborough Street frontage is not practical and possibly dangerous. We note that a brick sidewalk currently exists on the opposite side of Hillsborough Street. Beginning at East Franklin Street and continuing south beyond North Street, the Hillsborough Street sidewalk accommodates pedestrian traffic. We do not believe a sidewalk segment on this Hillsborough Street frontage of this site is necessary or desirable. We note that although this issue was discussed by an advisory board, installation of a sidewalk along Hillsborough Street was not recommended by any advisory board and is not stipulated in any of the attached resolutions.

2. Extending the Special Use Permit Boundary to Hillsborough Street: During review of this application by the Planning Board and the Historic District Commission, the applicant stated that the Special Use Permit boundary may need to be extended behind the Dey House to accommodate the installation of a new sewer line between the proposed fraternity and Hillsborough Street. Please refer to the applicants letter (Attachment 16) and proposed Special Use Permit Boundary plan (Attachment 17) for a sewer line extension to Hillsborough Street.

The Historic District Commission noted that the area encumbered by the potential extension of the Special Use Permit boundary would likely require Historic District Commission approval of an alternate bufferyard. The Commission and the applicant also noted that the installation of a sewer line on this portion of the site may result in the removal of some existing tree along the route of the new sewer line. Neither the Planning Board nor the Historic District Commission expressed opposition to this possible change in the Special Use Permit boundary.

The extension of the Special Use Permit boundary to Hillsborough Street was not discussed by the Transportation Board or the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

Staff Comment: We believe, after discussing this issue with OWASA, that the installation of a sewer line to Hillsborough Street, as proposed by the applicant, is appropriate. We note that in order to install the private sewer line, the applicant is proposing to extend the Special Use Permit boundary to Hillsborough Street as a ten-foot wide strip along the north property line behind the Dey House. We agree with the applicant that the installation of a sewer line between Hillsborough Street and the proposed fraternity requires an adjustment to the Special Use Permit boundary as shown on Attachment 17.

We note that the installation of the sewer line could have impacts on the residential property to the north, possibly including damage to a fence and several trees along or adjacent to the north property line. We are also concerned about the post-construction landscaping of this area and the long term maintenance of the 10-foot wide strip.

We recommend adding conditions to help minimize the amount of damage to the existing fence along the north property line and that the impact on the adjacent trees be minimized during the installation of the sewer line between Hillsborough Street and the proposed fraternity. We recommend that any section of fence damaged during the sewer line construction be repaired or replaced. The installation of the sewer line must be located as far away as possible from the northern property line, to minimize impacts on the root systems of the existing trees. These recommendations have been included in Resolution A.

Because we believe that the future owner of the Dey House may be in a better position to maintain and use this 10 foot wide section of fraternity property, we recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the Town Manager, an ingress, egress and maintenance easement across that portion of the fraternity property located behind the Dey House. This easement would give the owner of the Dey House the right to use and maintain the fraternity’s property as shown on Attachment 17. This recommendation has been included in Resolution A.

Resolutions A and B also include a condition that the Special Use Permit Boundary shall be extended to Hillsborough Street, as shown on Attachment 17, in order to accommodate the installation of a new sewer line between the proposed fraternity and the sewer main in Hillsborough Street.

SUMMARY

We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. The key special conditions that we recommend are described in detail in the accompanying staff report. With these conditions, we believe that the Council could make the findings regarding health, safety and general welfare, property values, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

SUBSEQUENT REGULATORY STEPS

Following is a brief outline describing the next steps in the development review process, should the Council approve the Special Use Permit Modification:

1. Applicant accepts and records a Special Use Permit Modification, which incorporates the terms of the Council-adopted resolution.

2. Applicant submits detailed Final Plans and documentation, complying with Council stipulations. Information is reviewed by Town departments and the following agencies:

Orange Water and Sewer Authority,
Duke Power Company,
Public Service Company,
Time Warner, and
BellSouth.

3. Historic District Commission reviews and approves building elevations, site lighting and alternate landscape bufferyard plans and issues a Certificate of Appropriateness.

4. Upon demonstration of compliance with remaining Council stipulations, Town staff issues a Zoning Compliance Permit authorizing site work. Permit includes conditions specific to the development and requires pre-construction conferences with Town staff.

5. Engineering Department issues an Engineering Construction Permit, authorizing work within the public right-of-way; and

6. Inspections Department issues Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this proposal on May 5, 2002 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

Resolution B includes the following recommendation of the Planning Board:

· That in lieu of a new brick sidewalk, the Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage may be retained.

Staff Comment: Resolution A, the Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation, does not include this gravel sidewalk recommendation. For additional information on this issue please refer to the Key Issues discussion on sidewalks.

· During the Planning Board meeting, the applicant also informed the Board that the Special Use Permit Boundary must be extended behind the Dey House to accommodate a possible sewer line between the proposed new fraternity building and Hillsborough Street. The Board did not express opposition to this possible change in the Special Use Permit boundary.

Staff Comment: Resolutions A and B include a stipulation authorizing the extension of the Special Use Permit boundary to Hillsborough Street in order to accommodate the installation of a new sewer line between the proposed fraternity and the sewer main in Hillsborough Street. For additional information on this issue please refer to the Key Issues discussion under Special Use Permit Boundary.

Resolution B differs from the Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation in respect to the East Rosemary Street sidewalk. Resolution B also does not include the stipulations regarding repair of potential damage associated with the installation of the sewer line to Hillsborough Street and the use and maintenance agreement for the owner of the Dey House. These sewer line issues were not discussed at the Board’s meeting.

Historic District Commission’s Recommendation: The Historic District Commission reviewed this proposal on May 9, 2002 and voted 7 to 1 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Historic District Commission Action.

Resolution B includes the following recommendation of the Historic District Commission:

· That in lieu of a new brick sidewalk, the Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk along East Rosemary Street may be retained.

Staff Comment: Resolution A does not included this gravel sidewalk recommendation. For additional information on this issue please refer to the Key Issues discussion on sidewalks.

· The applicant also informed the Commission about extending the Special Use Permit Boundary for the sewer line, as discussed above.

Staff Comment: Resolutions A and B include a stipulation authorizing this boundary adjustment. For additional information on the sewer line boundary adjustment please refer to the Key Issues discussion under Special Use Permit Boundary.

Transportation Board’s Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this proposal on May 7, 2002 and voted 9 to 0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution C. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.

Resolutions A and C include the following recommended condition of the Transportation Board:

· That at the request of the applicant, the Town Manager may approve a reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces.

Staff Comment: This recommendation has been included in the Resolution A, the Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation.

Resolution C differs from the Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation in respect to the extension of the Special Use Permit Boundary behind the Dey House. This issued was not discussed at the Transportation Board meeting. Resolution C does not include a stipulation authorizing this proposed change to the Special Use Permit boundary. For additional information on the revised Special Use Permit boundary, please refer to the section above on Key Issues.

Resolution C also does not include the stipulations regarding repair of potential damage associated with the installation of the sewer line to Hillsborough Street and the use and maintenance agreement for the owner of the Dey House. These sewer line issues were not discussed at the Board’s meeting.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory reviewed this proposal on May 28, 2002 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Resolution D. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.

Resolution D includes the following recommended conditions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board:

· That the applicant shall install a five-foot brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the two lots, including a half width brick sidewalk around the large street tree on East Rosemary Street.

Staff Comment: In lieu of the half width brick sidewalk around the street tree, Resolution A, the Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation stipulates that the area around the tree remain Chapel Hill gravel. For additional information on this issues please refer to the Key Issues discussion under sidewalks.

Resolution D also differs from the Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation in respect to the adjustment to the Special Use Permit boundary behind the Dey House. This issue was not discussed at the Advisory Board meeting. Resolution D does not include a stipulation authorizing this proposed adjustment to the Special Use Permit boundary. For additional information on the revised Special Use Permit boundary, please refer to the section above on Key Issues under Special Use Permit boundary.

Resolution D also does not include the stipulations regarding repair of potential damage associated with the installation of the sewer line to Hillsborough Street and the use and maintenance agreement for the owner of the Dey House. These sewer line issues were not discussed at the Board’s meeting.

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our preliminary conclusion is that, with the stipulation in Resolution A and the modification to the regulation as requested by the applicant, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance.

Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. If the Council makes these findings for approval of a Special Use Permit Modification, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A.

Resolution B would approve the application as recommended by the Planning Board and the Historic District Commission.

Resolution C would approve the application as recommended by the Transportation Board.

Resolution D would approve the application as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

Resolution E would deny the application.

Resolution F would determine the definition of contiguous property for this application.

Delta Upsilon Fraternity

Special Use Permit Modification

Differences between Resolutions

Issues	Resolution A Manager's Preliminary Recommendation	Resolution B Planning Board and Historic District Commission Recommendation	Resolution C Transportation Board Recommendation	Resolution D Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation
East Rosemary Street Sidewalk	Brick (except around large oak tree)	Chapel Hill Gravel	Brick (except around large oak tree)	Brick (half-width sidewalk around large oak tree)
Number of Parking Spaces	23 (Or less if applicant desires to reduce parking)	23	23 (Or less if applicant desires to reduce parking)	23
Adjust Special Use Permit Boundary	Yes (To accommodate sewer extension to Hillsborough St.)	Yes (To accommodate sewer extension to Hillsborough St.)	*	*
Sewer Line Extension to Hillsborough	Installation shall minimize damage to fence on adjacent property and nearby trees	*	*	*
Use and Maintenance Easement behind Dey House	10 foot wide strip of land to Hillsborough available for use and enjoyment by owner of the Dey House	*	*	*

* This issue was raised subsequent to review by this Advisory Board and therefore was not discussed by this Board.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Report (p. 18).

2. Check List of Regulations and Standards (p. 31).

3. Resolution A (p. 32).

4. Resolution B (p. 38).

5. Resolution C (p. 40).

6. Resolution D (p. 42).

7. Resolution E (p. 44).

8. Resolution F (p. 45).

9. Summary of Planning Board Action (p. 46).

10. Summary of Transportation Board Action (p. 47).

11. Summary of Historic District Commission Action (p. 48).

12. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 49).

13. 1979 Special Use Permit (p. 50).

14. Statement of Justification (p. 52).

15. Project Fact Sheet (p. 61).

16. Request to modify Special Use Permit boundary in order to accommodate sewer line extension to Hillsborough Street (p. 63).

17. Revised Special Use Permit boundary map (p. 64).

18. Sidewalk Prioritization List (Fiscal Year 2002-2003) (p. 65).

19. Area Map with existing sidewalks (p. 67).

20. Area Map (p. 68).

21. Reduced Site Plans (p. 69).

ATTACHMENT 1

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Delta Upsilon Fraternity – Application for a Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 79.E.19, 20; PIN# 9788-58-2507, 9788-58-2695)

DATE: June 17, 2002

INTRODUCTION

We have received and reviewed an application for a Special Use Permit Modification from the Delta Upsilon Fraternity. The site is located on the northeast corner of East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street. The site contains two structures on two separate lots: a 2,595 square foot building located at 401 East Rosemary Street (aka the “Martin-Dey House”), and a two story 7,099 square foot structure located at 407 East Rosemary Street (aka the Bain House). Both lots are owned by Delta Upsilon Foundation Inc.

Until recently the structures were occupied and used by Delta Upsilon Fraternity. Following the end of the 2001 school year and the enactment of the Town sprinkler regulations, the structures were vacated and boarded up. Since then permits have been obtained from the Historic District Commission and the Planning Department for the demolition of the structure located at 407 East Rosemary Street, the Bain House.

The Special Use Permit Modification application proposes:

1. To reduce the overall area encumbered by the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary by removing the Dey House from the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary; and

2. To replace the fraternity building (Bain House) with a two-story 9,694 square foot fraternity building. The replacement is proposed to include a sprinkler system.

We note that as an existing development, this site has several nonconforming features with regard to the Town’s Development Ordinance. Consequently, as part of this development application, the applicant is requesting permission to modify the Development Ordinance regulations with regard to (1) permitted floor area on the site, (2) required landscape bufferyards, (3) required landscape strips between parking facilities and the exterior walls of a building, and (4) minimum number of required parking spaces. These modifications are being requested as the applicant is proposing to reduce the boundary of the existing fraternity site, and abandoned the fraternity use of the Dey House.

BACKGROUND

October 1793 Lot(s) sold at the original auction of Chapel Hill village lots.

Pre-Civil War Possible construction of structure at 401 E. Rosemary St.

1870’s Property at 401 E. Rosemary St. deeded to Reverend Martin. Some historical accounts credit Rev. Martin as building a portion of the existing structure (Dey House) during the 1870’s (“Martin House”).

1915-1920’s Construction at 407 E. Rosemary St. (aka Bain House).

1921 Property at 401 E. Rosemary St., sold to Reverend Martin (“Dey House”).

March 9, 1956 Bain House purchased by Delta Upsilon Fraternity from Mrs. Bain. Building converted from residential to fraternity use. Change in use did not require zoning permit from Town.

January 13, 1966 “Martin-Dey House” purchased by Delta Upsilon Fraternity from the estate of William Dey.

June 13, 1966 Special Use Permit granted extending fraternity use to the Dey House. Special Use Permit boundary included existing fraternity use of the Bain House. Fraternity use was extended to the Dey House sometime after permit was granted.

June 12, 1972 Special Use Permit granted to demolish the Bain House and construct a new fraternity building. Instead of demolishing the Bain House the fraternity decided to seek authorization for an addition to the Bain House (see October 15, 1975 entry).

October 15, 1975 Special Use Permit Modification granted to construct an addition to the back of the Bain House. Authorized building addition was constructed sometime after permit was granted.

May 14, 1979 Special Use Permit Modification granted to modify screening and parking requirements. Screening and parking area were modified as authorized.

February 28, 2000 The Town Council approved expedited review for Fraternity and Sorority House Special Use Permit applications, which involve the installation of sprinkler systems

October 18, 2001 Special Use Permit Modification application to reduce the 1979 boundary, and replace the fraternity building (Bain House) with a two-story 9,694 square foot fraternity submitted.

November 8, 2001 Historic District Commission approves demolition permit for the Bain House.

March 6, 2002 The Bain House had fallen into disrepair and it was determined to be a health risk. Zoning Compliance Permit granted for demolition.

EVALUATION

The Town staff has reviewed this application for compliance with the standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual and offers the following evaluation:

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Location: This .82 acre site is located at the intersection of East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street. Located on the northeast corner of the intersection, the .82 acre site contains two structures on two separate parcels. The first parcel is 14,353 square feet in area and includes the Dey House. Located on the intersection of E. Rosemary St. and Hillsborough St. the Dey House parcel has 129 feet of street frontage on Hillsborough Street and 116 feet of street frontage on East Rosemary Street. The second parcel is larger in area, 21,170 square feet, and contains the Bain House. The second parcel has approximately 100 feet of frontage on East Rosemary Street.

A low stone wall runs along most of the street frontage on Hillsborough Street and East Rosemary Street. A short section of stone wall is located adjacent to the East Rosemary Street driveway.

Adjacent to the east is the Alpha Delta Pi Sorority. Across East Rosemary Street to the south is a parking lot owned by the Delta Delta Delta Sorority. Diagonally (southwest) across East Rosemary Street is the Phi Beta Phi Sorority. To the west, across Hillsborough Street is a residence (aka “Mangum-Smith House”) believed to be build between 1853 and 1858. Behind the property, to the north and north west are two wood frame residences. Also behind the property, near the northeast corner of the site, is a residential yard that extends from the back of the site to North Street.

Existing Structures: This site contains two structures, the Dey House and the Bain House. Recent inspections by the Town’s Police, Fire and Inspection Departments have determined that the Bain House is unsafe and should be demolished. On November 8, 2001 the Historic District Commission approves demolition permit for the Bain House. On March 6, 2002 the Planning Department granted a Zoning Compliance Permit for demolition. We believe that demolition is scheduled for sometime between now and the pending issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit for the Special Use Permit Modification.

We believe that the site is used as a parking lot by fraternity members attending school at the university. Except for the occasional parked vehicle and trespassing vagrant, we believe the property and the structures are vacant and unused.

Access: There are two points of vehicular access to the site, one from Hillsborough Street and one from East Rosemary Street.

Topography, Drainage, Vegetative Cover: The topography of the site is relatively flat, with a generalized 3% slope from the southwest corner to the northeast. There are no streams or ponds on or adjacent to the site. The site is not located in the Town’s Watershed Protection District.

Various type and size trees are scattered through out the site. Other portions of the site contain sparse, neglected landscape materials.

DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION

The Special Use Permit Modification proposes:

1. To reduce the overall area encumbered by the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary by removing the Dey House from the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary; and

2. To replace the remaining fraternity building (Bain House) with a two-story 9,694 square foot fraternity building. The replacement would include a sprinkler system.

Each proposal is discussed below.

1. To reduce the overall area encumbered by the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary by removing the Dey House from the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary.

Recognizing the historical significance of the Dey House and the expense to install a sprinkler system if the house continued to be used by the fraternity, the applicant believes that the use of the Dey House by the fraternity should be discontinued. The applicant also believes that restoration of the Dey House is preferred to the continued use by the fraternity or demolition of the house.

We understand that during the past several months the applicant has been engaged in conversations with a potential buyer who is interested in restoring the Dey House and possibly converting its use to a single family structure. The applicant and potential buyer believe that the Dey House, and a portion of the surrounding property, should be removed from the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary.

The applicant is proposing that the Dey House and approximately 11,276 square feet of surrounding property be removed from the encumbering 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary. The area proposed to be removed includes the entire frontage on Hillsborough Street and approximately 116 feet of frontage on East Rosemary Street. Access to the Dey House site is available from the existing curb cut on Hillsborough Street. The new proposed property line between the future lot for the Dey House and the new fraternity building is labeled on the submitted Existing Site Plan (Sheet SP 1.1) as “New Line.”

We believe that the proposed conversion and restoration of the Dey House to a single family residence or other non-fraternity use is a preferred use for this structure. We recommend approval of the reduction of the boundary for the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification. Although removing the Dey House from the encumbrance of the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification does not guarantee its future restoration or its future use as single family residence (some other uses permitted in this zoning district include daycare center, place of worship, duplex, rooming house), we believe that removing this historic structure from the 1979 Special Use Permit, enhances its restoration potential. Resolution A includes this stipulation.

We also recommend improvements to the proposed Dey House lot. We believe that the existing Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the proposed new lot for the Dey House should be improved. We believe that this improvement should be required as part of this approval. This recommendation is stipulated in Resolution A.

The second portion of this Special Use Permit Modification proposes:

2. To replace the current fraternity building with a two-story 9,694 square foot fraternity building. The replacement will include a sprinkler system.

The second portion of this Special Use Permit Modification application involves replacing the existing 7,099 square foot Delta Upsilon Fraternity (aka Bain House) with a two-story 9,694 square foot building. Unlike the existing building the proposed structure would include a 2,423 square foot basement area. The structure is proposed to include fourteen (14) bedrooms with two beds in each room and one (1) single bedroom. The proposed number of beds, 29, is equal to the number of beds existing in the Bain House before the fraternity was vacated.

Except for being located approximately 8 feet closer to East Rosemary Street, the new building is proposed to occupy the same general footprint as the existing structure. Most of the existing parking areas and landscaped front yard will be retained. The existing refuse collection area is proposed to be enlarged and relocated. The applicant is proposing to place a portion of the refuse facility on adjacent property owned by a sorority.

Access to the fraternity site would be from the existing East Rosemary Street curb cut. Because of the proposed residential lot for the Dey House, the existing Hillsborough Street access to the fraternity site would be eliminated. The East Rosemary Street frontage includes a Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk. The application does not include improvements to this sidewalk. Twenty-three off-street parking spaces are proposed. The proposal also includes bicycle storage in all residential rooms.

Alternate landscape bufferyards are proposed along most of the property lines. No changes to stormwater management are proposed. Water and sewer utility service is available along East Rosemary Street.

As an existing development, this site has a nonconforming feature with regard to the landscape bufferyards and the Town’s Development Ordinance. We also note that the proposed development includes several additional nonconforming features. Consequently, as part of this development application, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations.

For additional discussion on some of the above items, please refer to the remainder of the staff report.

ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS

Zoning: This site is zoned Residential-6. Some permitted uses in the Residential-6 zoning district include single and two-family dwellings, child daycare center, place of worship, public cultural and use facility, rooming house, school, and non-profit recreation facilities. Except for single and two-family dwellings, a proposed change to a permitted use in the Residential-6 district requires Site Plan approval by the Planning Board. A fraternity is allowed only with Town Council approval of a Special Use Permit.

The adjacent properties across East Rosemary Street are zoned Residential-6. The properties along the north property line are zoned Residential-2. The property across Hillsborough Street is zoned Residential-3. These sites, and all of the adjoining properties, are located in the Franklin- Rosemary Historic District.

Comprehensive Plan: The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this site and all adjacent properties as Low Density Residential (1-4 units per acre). The Land Use Category for properties to the southwest is Medium Density Residential (4-8 units per acre).

Intensity Standards: If the Special Use Permit Modification application is approved as submitted, land use intensity standards would not apply to the proposed 11,276 square foot residential lot for the Dey House.

The land use intensity standards for the proposed 24,722 square foot Delta Upsilon Fraternity site, in a Residential-6 zoning district, are shown in the table below.

Land Use Intensity Standards	R-6 District Requirements	Proposed
Maximum Floor Area	7,179 sq ft	9,694 sq ft
Minimum Outdoor Space	20,124 sq ft	23,400 sq ft
Minimum Livability Space	10,878 sq ft	11,122 sq ft
Minimum Recreation Space	N/A	N/A

Although this proposed building is 2,595 square feet larger than the Bain House, we note that the proposed 9,694 square feet of floor area does note included the Dey House and therefore is less than the 9,981 square feet of floor area currently authorized by the 1979 Special Use Permit. We also note that 2,423 square feet of the proposed building is designed as basement floor area.

As indicated in the table, the Delta Upsilon proposal exceeds the maximum permitted floor area for the specific parcel on which it is proposed to be located by 2,515 square feet. As part of this development application, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations as it relates to floor area limitations.

Because the fraternity is losing floor area with the proposed conversion of the Dey House to non-fraternity use, and a portion of the proposed new floor area is located in the building’s new basement area, we believe that the requested modification of the floor area requirements is acceptable. We also believe that the Council could find that the proposed increase in floor area is a desirable public safety improvement, as the proposed building would include the installation of a sprinkler system. Also, we believe it is desirable to have higher intensity student housing near the University campus and the addition of floor area could be viewed as achieving this purpose.

We recommend that the Town Council modify the floor area requirement for this particular development application to allow the new fraternity house as proposed.

We note that Subsection 18.7.1 of the Development Ordinance states:

“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 Delta Upsilon Fraternity application may be considered under the provisions of Subsection 18.7.1 as a Special Use Permit Modification and that the Council may find that the modifications to some or all of the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree

Setbacks and building height requirements are met with this proposal. In addition, the Special requirement of 250 square feet of floor area for each residence is being met.

TRANSPORTATION: ACCESS AND CIRCULATION

Access and Circulation: Vehicular access to the proposed lot for the Dey House would be from an existing curb cut on Hillsborough Street. Vehicular and service vehicular access to the proposed fraternity site would be from an existing curb cut on East Rosemary Street. The existing vehicular connection between these driveways is proposed to be eliminated with the creation of the residential lot for the Dey House.

The propose plan includes improvement to the East Rosemary Street curb cut and driveway. The proposed improvement would widen the curb cut and driveway to a width of eighteen (18) feet. A portion of this proposed improvement would remove several existing trees along the east property line. Construction of the wider driveway would also require the installation of a small retaining wall along a portion of the eastern property line. We note that the installation of the retaining wall would not provide adequate room for planting new trees along the eastern property line.

We are concerned about the proposed improvement to the driveway and the associated removal of some trees along the east property line, between the front of the existing building and the street. We note that these trees provide a buffer between the fraternity and sorority and we believe preservation of these trees is desirable. We recommend that these trees be retained. We recommend that the driveway width be decreased from 18 feet to 15 feet. We believe this reduced width would eliminate the need to remove the trees and construct a retaining wall. Neither width is wide enough for two-way travel. We recommend that the East Rosemary Street driveway entrance be constructed to Town Standard, including concrete flare-type driveway entrance with a minimum width of 18 feet. The recommendation has been included in Resolution A.

We also note that regardless of whether the improvements are 18 or 15 feet wide a section of a stone wall, adjacent to the existing driveway, must be removed. The applicant is proposing to replace a portion of the removed stone wall.

Traffic Impact: We note that the applicant was granted an exemption from the Traffic Impact Statement required with submittal of a Special Use Permit Modification. The number of occupants will remain the same. We do not anticipate an increase in the number of vehicles or traffic related to the site.

Parking: The applicant has proposed that a total of 29 residents live in the new fraternity house. Based on the number of residents that are proposed, the Development Ordinance requires that a minimum of 29 parking spaces (one space per resident) be provided on the site. The applicant is proposing a total of 23 parking spaces.

We note that the Delta Upsilon proposal does not meet the minimum off-street parking requirement. As noted earlier, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations. We believe that it is appropriate and acceptable for this site, which is close to the University and the downtown area, to have less than one parking space per resident. We recommend that the Town Council modify the Development Ordinance requirement for this particular development application to allow a reduction in parking.

We also recommend that all parking lots, drive aisles and parking spaces associated with the proposed development be constructed and dimensioned to Town standards.

Bicycle Parking: The Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards suggests that the Delta Upsilon applicant provide a minimum of 32 bicycles parking spaces for the proposed fraternity. The Manual suggests that at least 29 bicycle parking spaces have accessibility to a locker, an individually locked enclosure or supervised area within a building providing protection for bicycles therein from theft, vandalism and weather.

The applicant is proposing bicycle hooks in all residential spaces for security reasons. In addition the applicant is proposing that bicycle hooks be installed in a lockable basement storage room. A bike rack, to accommodate a minimum of three (3) bicycles, is also proposed at the rear of the building. We believe that this proposal will satisfy the Town’s Design Manual standards for bicycle parking. We recommend that the applicant comply with the Town’s standards for bicycle parking.

Resolution A stipulates that the development comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:

Total Number or Required Spaces

Number of Class I Spaces

(Garage or secure indoor areas)

Number of Class II Spaces

(Stationary rack)

Sidewalks: The Fraternity has frontage on Hillsborough Street (approximately 129 feet) and on East Rosemary Street (approximately 216 feet). Most of the frontage along Hillsborough Street includes a two foot high stone wall which is located at or very near to the curb line. The East Rosemary Street frontage includes a Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk. The applicant proposal does not include sidewalk improvements.

Due to the existing stone wall and topographic constraints on the Hillsborough Street property immediately to the south, we believe that installation of a sidewalk along the Hillsborough Street frontage is not practical and possibly dangerous. We note that a brick sidewalk currently exists on the opposite side of Hillsborough Street. Beginning at the East Franklin Street and continuing south beyond North Street, this sidewalk accommodates pedestrian traffic. We do not believe a sidewalk segment on this Hillsborough Street frontage is necessary or desirable.

We do recommend that that applicant be required to install a five-foot wide brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the two lots. We believe that the addition of a brick sidewalk, between Hillsborough Street and an existing brick sidewalk along the front of the adjacent sorority to the east (Alpha Delta Pi Sorority) would be desirable. We recommend that the inside edge of the brick sidewalk is constructed adjacent to the low stone wall that runs parallel to East Rosemary Street. We also recommend that where necessary, sections of the existing Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk be retained in order to minimize disruption to the root systems of the three existing street trees. A stipulation to this affect is included in Resolution A.

We note that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for the brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the two lots as well as other site changes. We understand the Historic District Commission, in some situations, prefers sidewalk materials (concrete, Chapel Hill gravel) other that brick. If an alternative sidewalk material other than brick is approved by the Historic District Commission, we recommend that the approved alternative be permitted in lieu of the stipulated brick sidewalk. The final sidewalk material and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. These conditions have been stipulated in Resolution A.

LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE

Buffers and Landscaping: The Town’s Development Ordinance requires the following landscape buffers on the proposed Delta Upsilon Fraternity site:

Location of Bufferyard	Type of Buffer Required

East property line (Alpha Delta Pi Sorority) North, West property line (residential dwellings)	Minimum 10’ Type ‘B’ Buffer
South property line (E Rosemary St)	Minimum 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer

Existing nonconforming bufferyards (width and plant materials) exist along the north and east property lines. We also note that the East Rosemary Street bufferyard meets standards for width but is nonconforming for plant materials.

As part of this development application, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations as it relates to bufferyard requirements (width and plantings) for portions of each required bufferyard area (north, south, east and proposed west property lines).

We recommend that the Town Council modify the landscape bufferyard requirement along the east property line (Alpha Delta Pi Sorority) only. We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied. We believe that because the east side of the property is adjacent to a similar use (sorority) and that the existing tree line dividing parallel driveways is acceptable, given the nature of adjoining uses, the Council could modify the requirements to allow the existing plantings in lieu of the required bufferyard.

In respect to the existing nonconforming bufferyards (north and south) we recommend that the applicant either obtain approval for alternate bufferyards, from the Historic District Commission, or comply with the minimum bufferyard requirements. These other bufferyards are adjacent to East Rosemary Street or private residential properties and we believe it is desirable to require the applicant to improve the existing bufferyard conditions in these areas. We also note that, unlike the limitation and particular circumstances along the east property line, we believe that there is a greater opportunity to improve the current bufferyards.

In respect to the proposed west property line, the applicant is requesting modification of the Development Ordinance as it relate to a portion of this bufferyard area. We note that a portion of this bufferyard area is encumbered by a proposed asphalt turn-around for vehicles parked in the last two parking spaces. For this bufferyard area we recommend that the applicant either obtain approval for alternate bufferyards, from the Historic District Commission, or comply with the minimum bufferyard requirements. This area is adjacent to the future residential Dey House lot and again we note that unlike the limitation and particular circumstances along the east property line, we believe that there is an opportunity to provide a bufferyard in this area.

Resolution A stipulates that unless the Council authorizes and the Historic District Commission approves alternative bufferyards, the development must comply with minimum bufferyard requirements along the north, south and proposed west property lines.

Resolution A also requires that a detailed landscape protection, planting plan and a parking lot screen plan be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Landscape Buffer Strip: The Town’s Development Ordinance (Subsection 14.6.6(a)) requires that five-foot landscaped buffer strips be provided between parking facilities and the exterior walls of a building. The proposed plan includes this buffer strip along the east side of the new building and a portion of the west side. As part of this development application, the applicant is requesting modification of Development Ordinance regulations as it relates to landscape buffer strip along the remained of the west and north edge of the building.

We note that the applicant already has fewer than the minimum number of parking spaces required by the Development Ordinance for this site. We also note that in order to provide the five-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 the site and the reduced number of parking spaces, 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 in the above mentioned areas.

As mentioned above, the proposed landscape buffer strip plan includes a five-foot wide planting strip between the eastern exterior wall of the building and the proposed parallel parking spaces. We are concerned that the previously recommended redesign for a 15 foot driveway, in order to preserve the existing trees along the east property line, could reduce or eliminate this planting strip. We therefore recommend that the Town Council also modify the regulations for a landscape buffer strip plan along the east side of the building and release the applicant from this requirement in order to preserve the vegetation along the eastern property line.

Parking Lot Shading: We believe that the proposed parking lot shading meets the Development Ordinance requirement for 35% shading of the parking area surface. We recommend that compliance with this Development Ordinance requirement be demonstrated with the submission of the Landscape Planting Plan.

Building Elevations, Landscaping and Lighting Approval: We recommend that detailed building elevations, required alternate landscape bufferyards and lighting plans be approved by the Historic District Commission, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This condition is included in Resolution A.

ENVIRONMENT

Watershed Protection District: This site is not located in the Watershed Protection District.

Resource Conservation District: This site is not in the Resource Conservation District.

Stormwater Management: The topography of the site is relatively flat, with a generalized 3% slope from the southwest to the northeast corner. There are no streams or ponds on or adjacent to the site, however some stormwater runoff from the adjacent sorority flows onto the site. We note that existing stormwater runoff pattern on the site follows the natural topography as diffused surface sheet flow. Please refer to the submitted site plans sheets for additional information on the directional flow of stormwater runoff. The proposal development does not include modifications or changes to the current stormwater conditions.

We have included a stipulation in Resolution A, requiring Town Manager approval of a Stormwater Drainage Plan prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for this development.

Erosion Control: We recommend that an erosion control plan for the site be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, if necessary, and be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

UTILITY AND SERVICES

Refuse Management: The proposed plan includes the construction of a new refuse and recycling facility. This new facility will replace the existing “side-loading container” facility with a new design that would accommodate front loading refuse collection vehicles.

In order to accommodate the turning radius necessary for front loading collection vehicles, the applicant is proposing to locate a portion of the new refuse area on the adjoining property (Alpha Delta Pi Sorority). We note that the fraternity and sorority have agreed to this arrangement. We recommend that these arrangements be documented. We recommend that the applicant provide for Town Manager approval a shared-container agreement and a joint access agreement, including construction easement, to be recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

We recommend that all drive aisles necessary to access the refuse facility be constructed with a heavy-duty pavement section.

We have included these stipulations in Resolution A. We have also included the standard stipulation that a Solid Waste Management Plan be developed for review and approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Utilities: We recommend that detailed utility plans be reviewed and approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included this standard stipulation in Resolution A.

Fire Safety: We have included the following stipulations with regard to fire safety:

· That a Fire Department connection be located on the street side of the new building;

· That the Town Fire Marshal approve the Fire Department sprinkler system connections prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and that a Fire Department connection be located on the street side of the building; and

· That a fire hydrant be provided, preferably, within 50 feet of the Fire Department connection.

We have also included our standard stipulation in Resolution A requiring Town Manager approval of a fire flow report, sealed by a professional engineer, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Special Use Permit Modification Findings: For approval of a Special Use Permit Modification, the Council must make the following findings, as set forth in Section 18.2 of the Development Ordinance:

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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;

(d) That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.

Upon review of the application and information that has been submitted to date, our preliminary recommendation is that these findings can be made.

CONCLUSION

Based on information available at this stage of the application review process, and except for the particular requests for modification to the regulations, we believe that the proposal, with the conditions in Resolution A, meets the requirements of the applicable sections of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.

Resolutions A, B, C, and D would approve the application and the requested modifications to the regulations, with conditions.

Resolution E would deny the application.

Resolution F would define contiguous property.

ATTACHMENT 2

Project Fact Sheet Requirements

Check List of Regulations and Standards

Special Use Permit Modification Application

DELTA UPSILON FRATERNITY	STAFF EVALUATION
DELTA UPSILON FRATERNITY	Compliance	Non-Compliance
Use Permitted	Ö
Min. Gross Land Area	Ö
Min. Lot Width	Ö
Max. Floor Area	Ö (with modification of the regulations)	Ö (without modification of regulations)
Min. Outdoor Space	Ö
Min. Livability Space	Ö
Min. Recreation Space	N/A
Impervious Surface Limits	N/A
Min. # Parking Spaces	Ö (with modification of the regulations)	Ö (without modification of regulations )
Min. # Loading Spaces	N/A
Max. # Dwelling Units	N/A
Min. Street Setback	Ö
Min. Interior Setback	Ö
Min. Solar Setback	Ö
Max. Height Limit	Ö
Min. Landscape Buffers	Ö (with modification of the regulations)	Ö (without modification of regulations)
5-Foot Planting Strip Requirement	Ö (with modification of the regulations)	Ö (without modification of regulations)
Parking Lot Screening	Ö
Parking Lot Shading Requirement	Ö
Public Water and Sewer	Ö
Underground Utility Lines	Ö

N/A = Not Applicable Prepared: June 12, 2002

ATTACHMENT 3

RESOLUTION A

(Town Manager’s

Preliminary Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE DELTA UPSILON FRATERNITY

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by John Ramsay on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 79, Block E, Lots 19 and 20 (PIN#’ 9788-58-2507 and 9788-58-2695), if developed according to the site plan dated May 1, 2002, and the revised Special Use Permit boundary as shown by the proposed property lines on the Recombination Plat of the Property of NC Delta Upsilon FD, dated May 21, 2002 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 13.11.1 Use Group B, of the Development Ordinance to allow a total of 9,694 square feet of floor area on the fraternity portion of the site.

2. Modification of Subsection 14.12 to allow the existing landscape bufferyard on the east property line in lieu of the required landscape bufferyard.

3. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow impervious surface areas, instead of a five-foot landscape strip along, the east, north and portion of the west exterior walls of the house.

4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow 23 or less off-street parking spaces instead of the required minimum 29 parking spaces.

Said public purposes being the (1) provision of a renovated development site that complies with the Town’s fire safety codes, (2) the development of a structure that provides needed student housing close to campus, and (3) the provision of an architecturally integrated structure that better reflects the character of the Franklin/Rosemary Historic District as a whole, and offers an opportunity for preservation of the Dey House.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Delta Upsilon Fraternity House in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begins by (2 years from the date of approval) and is completed by (3 years from the date of approval).

2. Alteration of the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification Boundary: That the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification boundary shall be altered to exclude the 11,276 square foot tract (shown as Lot 1 on the Recombination Plat of the Property of NC Delta Upsilon FD, dated May 21, 2002) located at the northeast corner of East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street. That the net land area of the new Special Use Permit Modification boundary for the Delta Upsilon Fraternity would be 24,722 square feet.

3. Extension of the Special Use Permit Boundary to Hillsborough Street: That the Special Use Permit Boundary shall be extended to Hillsborough Street in order to accommodate the installation of a new sewer line between the proposed fraternity and the sewer main in Hillsborough Street. The boundary shall be extended as shown on the Recombination Plat of the Property of NC Delta Upsilon FD, dated May 21, 2002.

4. Use and Maintenance Easement for Adjoining Property Owner (Dey House): The prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the Town Manager, an ingress, egress and maintenance easement across that portion of the fraternity property located behind the Dey House. That the easement shall permit the owner(s) of Lot 1, as shown on the Recombination Plat of the Property of NC Delta Upsilon FD, dated May 21, 2002, the right to use and maintain the 10 foot wide by 94.74 foot long portion of the property as shown on Attachment 17.

5. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit Modification authorizes the construction of a fraternity , the abandonment of the fraternity use of the Dey House and land use intensity requirements as specified below:

Land Use Intensity	Delta Upsilon

Net Land Area	24,722 sq ft
Total # of Buildings	1
Maximum # of Bedrooms	29
Maximum Floor Area	9,694 sq ft
Minimum Outdoor Space	23,400 sq ft
Minimum Livability Space	11,122 sq ft
Minimum Recreation Space	N/A
Maximum # of Parking Spaces	23*
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces	32

*At the request of the applicant, the Town Manager may approve a reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces.

6. East Rosemary Street Sidewalk: That the applicant shall install a five-foot wide brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the two lots. Where necessary, sections of the existing Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk shall be retained in order to minimize disruption to the root systems of the three existing street trees. The final location and design of the sidewalk shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.

7. Historic District Commission Approval of Sidewalk: That, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant must submit a Certificate of Appropriateness for the brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of the two lots. If an alternative sidewalk material or design is approved by the Historic District Commission, the alternative material shall be permitted in lieu of the stipulated brick sidewalk. The final sidewalk material and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager

Stipulations Related to Access and Circulation

8. East Rosemary Street Curb Cut: That the East Rosemary Street driveway entrance be constructed to Town Standard, including concrete flare-type driveway entrance with a minimum width of 18 feet.

9. East Rosemary Street Driveway: That, in order to preserve the existing trees along the east property line, the drive aisle along the eastern property line may be decreased to a minimum width of 15 feet in order to eliminate the need to remove the trees and construct a retaining wall.

10. Parking Lots: That all parking lots, drive aisles and parking spaces associated with the proposed development shall be constructed to Town standards.

11. Bicycle Parking: That the development comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:

Total Number or Required Spaces

Number of Class I Spaces

(Garage or secure indoor areas)

Number of Class II Spaces

(Stationary rack)

Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architectural Elements

12. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That, unless alternate bufferyards are proposed, and the Historic District Commission approves said alternate bufferyards, the following landscape buffers are required:

Location of Bufferyard	Type of Buffer Required

North and proposed West property lines	Minimum 10’ Type ‘B’ Buffer
South property line	Minimum 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer

13. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall include a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas. This plan shall also indicate which labeled trees are proposed to be removed and where tree protection fencing will be installed. This plan shall also included, when appropriate, tree protection fencing associated with the installation of the sewer line between Hillsborough Street and the proposed fraternity.

14. Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers), landscape maintenance plans, and parking lot shading requirements be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.

15. Parking Lot Screening: That all parking areas shall be screened from view. The screening plans shall be approval by the Town Manager.

16. Historic District Commission Approval: That the Historic District Commission shall approve alternative bufferyards, building elevations, hardscape, lighting plans and the East Rosemary Street sidewalk. That the applicant must submit a Certificate of Appropriate from the Historic District Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related To Stormwater Management

17. Stormwater Drainage Plan: That a Stormwater Drainage Plan be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance.

Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection

18. 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. That this plan and the final plan sheets must include a note stating: “The Town may suspend refuse collection services if traffic conflicts, parked cars or other obstructions limit or prohibit service vehicle access to the refuse collection facility.”

19. Approval of Shared-Container and Joint Access Agreements: That a shared-container and joint access and construction agreement shall be provided between this property owner and the adjacent Alpha Delta Pi Sorority property owner. The agreement shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office; and, that copies of the agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20. Heavy Duty Pavement: That all drive aisles needed to access refuse containers shall be constructed of heavy duty pavement. The final plans must include a detail of this pavement section. It will also be necessary to include the following note on the final plan: “The Town of Chapel Hill, its’ assigns or Orange County shall not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles.”

21. Overhead Utility Wires: That the final plan confirm that no overhead obstruction or utility wires will interfere with service vehicle access or operation.

Stipulations Related to Utilities

22. Sewer Line Installation to Hillsborough Street: That the amount of damage to the existing fence along the north property line and the impact to the adjacent trees shall be minimized during the installation of the sewer line between Hillsborough Street and the proposed fraternity. That any portion or section fence damaged during said construction shall be repaired or replaced. That were practical, the installation of the sewer line shall be located as far away as possible to minimize impact to the root systems of the existing trees.

23. 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. That the final plans demonstrate there is no conflict between utility lines, easements, and other site elements.

24. Utility Lines: That except for existing 3-phase electric utility lines, all existing and proposed utility lines shall be underground and shall be indicated on final plans.

Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety

25. 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.

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

27. 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.

28. Fire Hydrant: That a fire hydrant be provided within 50 feet of the Fire Department sprinkler system connection, subject to Town Manager approval. The final location to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

29. 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 plans and plat.

30. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater drainage plan, 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.

31. Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan (including provisions for maintenance of facilities and modification of the plan if necessary), be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, if necessary, and that a copy of the approval be provided to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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

33. Construction Sign Required: That the developer shall 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 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

35. 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 the Delta Upsilon Fraternity House.

This the day of , 2002.

ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION B

(Planning Board’s and

Historic District Commission’s

Recommendation)