AGENDA #7b

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development – Application for Special Use Permit

DATE: August 26, 2002

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 17, 2002, regarding the Special Use Permit application to authorize construction of a 4-story mixed-use development, with 42 dwelling units and 6,204 square feet of retail space, on a 1.05-acre site, and an accompanying 0.18-acre auxiliary parking lot. Adoption of Resolution A, B, C, D, E, or F would approve a Special Use Permit application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution G would deny the request.

Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for a discussion of the accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment application. The Zoning Atlas Amendment application proposes to rezone the Residential-3 (R-3) portion of the site to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2-C).

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

¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background information on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, comments on issues raised during the June 17Public Hearing, and offers recommendations for Council action.

¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.

Background

On June 17, 2002, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit application to authorize construction of a 4-story mixed-use development, with 42 dwelling units and 6,204 square feet of retail space, on a 1.05 site. The site is located at the northwest corner of the West Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane intersection. The application also proposes a 7,800 square-foot off-site parking lot, located at 109 Merritt Mill Road, west of Franklin Street. We note that on June 17, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties that are within 1,000 feet this site.

This is an application for a Special Use Permit. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on June 17 we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

evaluation of the application

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

If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Development Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide attachments containing the lengthy evidence in support and opposition of the four findings of facts for this application that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.

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

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment #2) provides evidence in support of Finding #1. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The project location in the town center should promote the ideal of a live, work, and shop concept without the need for using an automobile. Residents will be limited to one vehicle on site per unit, thus limiting the number of trips per day which could conceivably be generated by the 47 residential units. We anticipate that many if not most of the residents who buy these homes will actually work within walking distance or a short bus ride from this facility, thus further reducing the need for automobiles. In essence the parking spaces and garages will become long term car storage areas.” [Applicant Statement]

· “This site is within walking distance of the major employment centers in Chapel Hill including the University, the Hospital, Town Hall, downtown businesses and Carr Mill Mall.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

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

Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment #2) provides evidence in support of Finding #2. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “There is no Resource Conservation District or flood plain on the site. The site is relatively flat and easily developed.” [Applicant Statement]

· “External circulation will not be adversely affected by the development.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Driveway connections to the units will be internal to the site so as not to require backing and turning movements onto the main streets.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The public sidewalks will be rebuilt into a pleasing streetscape. Ample interior sidewalks will be provided for safe and convenient pedestrian circulation.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Bike racks will be provided.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition of Finding #2 for this application would include the fact that that the proposed development does not meet the Development Ordinance requirements for (1) permitted use, if the accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment application is not approved, and (2) the minimum number of handicapped parking spaces. With the first item, the proposed parking lot would not be permitted the existing Residential-3 (R-3) zoning district and the second item, the applicant has not proposed an adequate number of handicapped parking spaces.

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

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

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment #2) provides evidence in support of Finding #3. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The proposed uses are in keeping with the existing uses on the site although at a higher density. The existing uses on the site consist of small commercial and multi-family residential, the same as the proposed development.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The adjacent neighborhood is comprised of small commercial and office spaces along Rosemary Street on either side of the property.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The property to the north along Mitchell Lane is single family residential. This is in keeping with the zoning district line which runs along the northern boundary of the subject property.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The proposed construction will be in keeping with the type of architecture which has been built along Rosemary and West Franklin Streets over the last three or four years, although taller than most of the existing structures in the immediate vicinity.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The pedestrian scale of the store fronts and the manner in which the building steps back from the street at the second floor will provide a strong two story element along Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane, therefore in keeping with some of the existing architecture on this street.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.

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

Finding #4: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.

We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment #2) provides evidence in support of Finding #4. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The proposed use is in harmony with the neighboring commercial districts and single-family residential neighborhood.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The proposed use will not add undo impacts on the existing public facilities.” [Applicant Statement]

· The project reinforces the Town’s stated goals of creating a more compact urban form of development by proposing an infill project on a site which currently has all existing infrastructure in place and is substantially covered with impervious surface.´ [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.

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

key issueS

In the review of this development application by Town Advisory Boards and the Town staff, we believe that several key issues have emerged:

Proposed Building Height: A Council member asked how the height of the proposed building measured up to comparable buildings in the West Rosemary Street area. A related question concerned the heights of comparable or familiar buildings in the West Rosemary Street/Downtown area.

Manager’s Comment: The maximum primary and secondary heights permitted by the Development Ordinance are 44 and 90 feet respectively in the Town Center-2 (TC-2) zoning district. The applicant is proposing primary and secondary heights of 40 and 44 feet respectively for the 4-story building. The applicant floated a balloon at the site on Friday, August 23, from 11 am to 2 pm for Council members to illustrate the proposed building height. Also, we understand that the applicant proposes to show a three dimensional model at the August 26 Public Hearing Continuation that will provide several pre-and post-development perspectives of the site.

A selection of building heights in the West Rosemary Street/Downtown area as compared to the Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development proposal is included in the following table:

Building Height Comparison in Town Center-2 Zoning District

Building Name	Status	Use	Location	Primary Height (ft.)	Secondary Height (ft.)
Rosemary St. Mixed Use Development	Proposed	Mixed Use	W. Rosemary St. and Mitchell Lane	40	44
The Fountains	Built	Mixed Use	308 W. Rosemary St.	44	50
Warehouse Apartments	Built	Residential	316 W. Rosemary St.	50	60
Franklin Hotel	Approved	Hotel	311 W. Franklin St.	44	65

We believe that the proposed building height for the Rosemary Mixed Use Development complies with the maximum height permitted by the Development Ordinance (44-foot primary height and 90-foot secondary height) and is consistent with other recent residential and commercial buildings in the Town Center-2 (TC-2) zoning district.

Inventory of Devices to Limit On-Street Parking: A Council member inquired about mechanisms that may be used to control on-street parking in the Northside Neighborhood, should parking become a problem.

Manager’s Comment: There are residential permit parking zones in various parts of Town but primarily in neighborhoods near the University. Permits are issued for residents and their guests. The penalty for parking in these zones without a permit is $40. The program is instituted street by street at the request of residents. Restricted hours vary from weekdays 8-5 pm to 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Several streets in the Northside Neighborhood currently have residential permit parking. If on-street parking was deemed problematic around the proposed development, residential permit parking could be requested by the neighborhood residents.

Off-site Parking: A Council member was concerned about the proposed satellite parking on Merritt Mill Road and inquired about other developments near the proposed development that have off-site parking.

Manager’s Comment: Michael Jordan’s Restaurant at the intersection of Church and Franklin Streets has all off-site parking, in a lot across from the Warehouse Apartments on West Rosemary Street and a shared parking agreement with the University Baptist Church at Franklin and Columbia Streets. These off-site parking lots used by Michael Jordan’s Restaurant are approximately 750 feet walking distance away, whereas the proposed off-site lot on Merritt Mill Road is approximately 1,650 feet from the proposed Rosemary Mixed Use development.

Transit Service Availability: A Council member inquired about which Chapel Hill Transit buses would serve the proposed development and at what frequency the site would be served.

Manager’s Comment: The proposed development would be served by four bus routes, including the ‘A’, ‘CW’, ‘FG’ and ‘JN’ routes. The ‘A’ and ‘CW’ bus routes would service the proposed development on weekdays whereas the ‘FG’ and ‘JN’ routes would provide service on weekends. The combined weekday routes would provide service between 7 am and 8 pm with frequency of stops ranging from 20 to 45 minutes. The combined weekend routes would provide hourly service between 8 am and 5:45 pm. There are also additional bus routes on Franklin Street, a short walk from the site. We note that there would be a bus stop located on the Rosemary Street frontage of the site, as stipulated in the Manager’s recommendation, Resolution A.

Transit Capture: A Council member expressed interest in the how the “transit capture” for this site may change due to the recent fare-free transit policy in Chapel Hill.

Manager’s Comment: We note that transit capture is the percentage or number of trips generated by a development that can be “captured” by transit rather than other modes of transportation. Transit capture has not been calculated for any development in Chapel Hill and therefore the data framework does not exist to evaluate the proposed development. Inputs for determining residential transit capture may include such parameters as dwelling unit type, family size, family income, proximity to jobs, and so forth. We note that system-wide ridership on Chapel Hill Transit has increased approximately 20% since the fare-free policy was instituted.

Section 8 Housing Program: A Council member asked for more information regarding Orange County’s Section 8 Housing Program.

Manager’s Comment: A Summary of the Orange County Section 8 Housing Program is provided in Attachment 1.

Recommendations

Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations. The Summary of the Planning Board Action is part of Attachment 2.

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on May 7, 2002, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution B. The Summary of the Planning Board Action is part of Attachment 2.

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

· That a new stipulation be added to require that the passageway between the new building fronting on Rosemary Street and the new building immediately north of it be a minimum of 14 feet wide.

Staff Comment: We believe that the requirement to widen the passageway to 14 feet may narrow the adjacent drive aisles and turning radius of the aisles to a degree that may restrict service vehicle access and possibly not be in compliance with design standards. We therefore believe that the applicant should be encouraged to increase the width of the passageway to more than the proposed 10 feet, to the extent that is feasible. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

· That the signal retiming stipulation, for the traffic signals at the Columbia / Rosemary Street intersection, the Church / Rosemary Street intersection, and the Roberson / Rosemary Street intersection, be revised to require a payment for traffic signal retiming proportional to the projected impact generated by traffic from the proposed development at the specified intersection, but this payment shall not exceed $3,000.

Staff Comment: We do not recommend proportional payments-in-lieu for signal retiming. Development proposals either generate enough traffic volume to require signal retiming or not, which may be triggered by a large or small projected traffic impact. Accordingly, we recommend the full payment of $3,000 for the cost of signal retiming, as made necessary by this development proposal. We have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Resolution A includes the following recommended conditions of the Planning Board:

· That the land use intensity stipulation be revised to require a maximum of 39 dwelling units.

Staff Comment: We concur and have included a stipulation to the effect of the above condition in Resolution A.

· That the intersection improvements stipulation be revised to require a payment for traffic signal equipment improvements proportional to the projected impact generated by traffic from the proposed development at the Columbia St. / Rosemary St. intersection but this payment shall not exceed $ 15,000.

Staff Comment: We concur and have included a stipulation to the effect of the above condition in Resolution A. Please refer to the Key Issues and Affordable Housing sections for detailed discussion.

· That the provision of affordable housing stipulation be revised to require that the applicant provide 15% affordable dwelling units for sale and / or rent using appropriate mechanisms to set the price.

Staff Comment: We concur and have included a stipulation to the effect of the above condition in Resolution A. Please refer to the Affordable Housing section for a detailed discussion.

· That the affordable housing, maintenance of affordability, stipulation be revised to require that the applicant maintain affordability over time through appropriate mechanisms such as a Land Trust or Deed Restrictions.

Staff Comment: We concur and have included a stipulation to the effect of the above condition in Resolution A.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on May 21, 2002 and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution C. The Summary of the Transportation Board Action is part of Attachment 2.

Resolution C includes the following recommended condition of the Transportation Board:

· That the Council consider a stipulation to require deed restrictions on the residential units to ensure owners occupy the units.

Staff Comment: The North Carolina courts have ruled that municipal restrictions cannot be placed on the ownership arrangements of residential units. Therefore we cannot recommend such a recommendation.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on May 28, 2002, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution D. The Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action is part of Attachment 2.

Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on May 15, 2002, and voted 6-1 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution E. The Summary of the Community Design Commission Action is part of Attachment 2.

Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on March 27, 2002 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve Resolution F. The Summary of the Parks and Recreation Commission Action is part of Attachment 2.

Resolution A includes the following recommended condition of the Parks and Recreation Commission:

· That all payment-in-lieu monies for recreation space be used for Hargraves Park projects.

Staff Comment: We concur and have included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

Manager’s Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit, if the present Residential-3 (R-3) zoning district is rezoned to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2-C) zoning.

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.

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

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 approve the application as recommended by the Community Design Commission.

Resolution F would approve the application as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Resolution G would deny the application.

ROSEMARY STREET MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT
DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS
ISSUE	Resolution A Manager’s Rec.	Resolution B Planning Board Rec.	Resolution C Transportation Board Rec.	Resolution D Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Rec.	Resolution E Community Design Commission Rec.	Resolution F Parks and Recreation Commission Rec.
Widen passageway to 14 feet	No	Yes	*	*	*	*
Increase passageway width if feasible	Yes	*	*	*	*	*
Limit to 39 dwelling units	Yes	Yes	*	*	*	*

Proportional payment for signal re-timing.	No	Yes	*	*	*	*


Proportional payment for traffic signal improvements.	Yes	Yes	*	*	*	*


Affordable housing - applicant's proposal	Yes	*	*	*	*	*
Affordable housing - allow rentals and additional provisions	*	Yes	*	*	*	*
Owner occupied residential units only.	No	Yes	*	*	*	*

Recreation space payments-in-lieu for Hargraves projects.	Yes	*	*	*	*	Yes

Bus-stop improvements	Yes	*	*	*	*	*
*This issue was raised subsequent to review by this advisory board and therefore was not discussed by this board.

Attachments

1. Summary of Orange County’s Section 8 Housing Program (p. 33).

2. June 17, 2002 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page 1).

RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-08-26/R-16a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Thomas Tucker, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 85, Block A, Lots 5-9 and Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 92, Block E, Lot 27 (PIN Nos. 9788163854, 9788163767, 9788163751, 9788163708, 9788163759, and 9788058608), if developed according to the site plan dated 3/1/02 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 that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Rosemary Street Mixed-Use Development in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. That construction begin by August 26, 2004 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by August 26, 2005 (three years from the date of Council approval).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of a mixed-use development consisting of a total of 53,856 square feet of floor area, specified as follows on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 85, Block A, Lots 5-9 (PIN Nos. 9788163854, 9788163767, 9788163751, 9788163708, and 9788163759):

Total # of Buildings: 4

Maximum Floor Area Total: 53,856 s.f.

Maximum # of Dwelling Units: 39

Maximum General Business or Convenience Business Use: 6,204 s.f. Maximum # of Off-Street Parking Spaces (Rosemary St. & Mitchell Lane): 45

Minimum # of Bicycle Parking Spaces: 72 (29 in racks outside)

Minimum Outdoor Space (s.f.): 40,575 s.f.

Minimum Livability Space (s.f.): 24,784 s.f.

This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of an off-site parking lot, consisting of no more than 16 parking spaces, on the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 92, Block E, Lot 27 (PIN #9788058608) at 109 Merritt Mill Road, specified as follows:

Maximum # of Off-Street Parking Spaces at 109 Merritt Mill Rd.: 16

Stipulations Related to Required Improvements

3. One-Way Internal Drive Aisle Exit: That the southern, one-way internal drive aisle, on the mixed-use portion of the development, shall be narrowed to a to 15 or 16 feet width, back of curb to back of curb, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

4. Stub-Out to Burnett Property: That a vehicular stub-out shall be provided to the adjacent Burnette property to the west, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

5. Cross-Access Easement: That a cross-access easement shall be recorded on a plat to facilitate future cross-access through the applicant’s mixed-use portion of the development to the adjacent Burnett Property, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

6. Rosemary Street Frontage Improvements: That the applicant shall provide a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk, 6-foot wide amenity strip and 30-inch wide curb and gutter built to Town standards on the property’s Rosemary Street frontage in dedicated public right-of-way. That the applicant shall expand the Rosemary Street setback for the westernmost three or four units by shifting the building footprints an additional 4 to 6 feet further north. The final design subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

7. Rosemary Street Right-Of-Way Dedication: That the applicant shall provide a recorded plat that dedicates public right-of-way for the 6-foot wide sidewalk, 6-foot wide planting strip and 30-inch wide curb and gutter, and additional street width, as specified in stipulation #6, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

8. Other Street Frontage Improvements: That the applicant shall provide planters and site furnishings where open space is available adjacent to the public sidewalk on Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

9. Amenity Strip Improvements: That the applicant shall provide Town standard benches, trash receptacles and bike racks in the amenity strip areas on Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

10. Bus-Stop Improvements Payment: That the applicant shall contribute $6,000 to the Town for potential bus-stop improvements, including a bench, trash can, information tube (for route maps), and a small shelter to be located on the Rosemary Street frontage of the site. Design subject to approval by the Town Manager. If the funds are not used within 3 years of the date of Special Use Permit approval for said improvements, the applicant can request the funds be returned.

11. Mitchell Lane Frontage Improvements: That the applicant shall provide a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk, 5-foot wide amenity strip and 30-inch wide curb and gutter built to Town standards on the property’s Mitchell Lane frontage. The applicant shall construct a 5-foot sidewalk only, without the amenity strip, north of the northernmost access on Mitchell Lane, to minimize the impact on the nearby large oak tree. The final design subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

12. Mitchell Lane Right-Of-Way Dedication: That the applicant shall provide a recorded plat that dedicates public right-of-way for the 5-foot wide sidewalk, 5-foot wide planting strip and 30-inch wide curb and gutter subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

13. Street Frontage Encroachment Agreement: That the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the Town for the balconies, lighting fixtures, or other above ground elements that are proposed to extend over the dedicated right-of-way. The encroachment agreement subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

14. Internal Sidewalks: That sidewalks internal to the site, built to Town standard, shall have a minimum width of 4 feet. The final design shall be subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

15. Passageway Width: That the width of the passageway between the building fronting on Rosemary Street and the building immediately north of it shall be increased to greater than 10 feet, to the extent feasible, subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

16. Western Sidewalk Connection to Rosemary Street: That the applicant shall provide a 4-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk connection to Rosemary Street, built to Town standard with additional landscaping, between the western property line and the westernmost units. The final design shall be subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

17. Merritt Mill Road Right-Of-Way: That the applicant shall provide a recorded plat that dedicates one half of a 50-foot public right-of-way subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

18. Merritt Mill Road Off-site Parking Lot Completion: That the off-site parking lot at 109 Merritt Mill Road be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the mixed use part of the development proposal at West Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane. The final design subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

19. Merritt Mill Road Parking Lot Cross-Access Agreement: That the applicant shall provide access to the parking lot from the Rogers property to the south, or from Merritt Mill Road with a driveway that straddles the southern property line. That the applicant shall enter into a cross-access agreement with the adjacent property owner to accomplish one of these two scenarios. The final design subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

20. Transportation Management Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Transportation Management Plan subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Transportation Management Plan shall include:

· A maximum of 45 parking spaces on the mixed-use portion of the site, including 2 handicapped spaces;

· A maximum of 16 parking spaces at the Merritt Mill Road off-site parking lot for employees of the business/ convenience business uses;

· Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

· Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;

· Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

· Ridesharing incentives;

· Public transit incentives; and

· Other measures subject to approval by the Town Manager.

21. Handicapped Parking Spaces: That no less than two handicapped parking spaces shall be located at the Rosemary Street site and meet the minimum Town and State Building Code dimensional requirements.

22. Parking Space Elimination: That the applicant shall eliminate 3 proposed parallel parking spaces, adjacent to units 27 – 31, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

23. Bicycle Parking: That the applicant shall provide a total of 72 covered bicycle parking spaces; 43 bicycle spaces shall be designed to Class I standards and 29 bicycle spaces shall be designed to Class II standards according to the Town Design Manual, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

24. Signal Retiming: That the applicant shall provide a $3,000 payment to retime traffic signals at the Columbia / Rosemary Street intersection, the Church / Rosemary Street intersection, and the Roberson / Rosemary Street intersection, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

25. Intersection Improvements: That the applicant will provide a payment, proportional to traffic impact (payment shall not exceed $15,000) to improve the Columbia / Rosemary Street intersection with protected left turn traffic signal phasing and 12-inch signal heads, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

26. Payment-In-Lieu for Recreation Space: That the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu of the required 5,050 square feet of recreation space, to be calculated according to Section 13.7.10 of the Development Ordinance, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That funds shall be used entirely for Hargraves Park recreation projects.

27. Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide 15% (6) affordable rental dwelling units on-site that are vary in size from 800 to 1,400 square feet. The units shall be located throughout the development, dispersed among the market units, and shall reflect the size distribution of the market units.

28. Affordable Housing Eligibility: That eligible renters for affordable dwelling units shall include families earning 80% or less of median 3-person family income for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Section 8 vouchers will be accepted for these units.

29. Affordable Housing Rental Rates: Rental rates shall not exceed current Section 8 Fair Market rents (including utilities) as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, according to the number of bedrooms in each unit (e.g. 2002 rate: 2 bedroom unit, $777/month).

30. Affordable Housing Marketing: That the owner and management company enter into a “good faith” marketing agreement to ensure that the affordable units are rented to eligible low-income renters. The owner shall work with local non-profit low income housing organizations to advertise affordable units and recruit eligible renters.

31. Affordable Housing-Rental Unit Exception: The recorded deed restrictions shall include a provision that if after working with local non-profits, owner/management company are unable to recruit eligible renters, they may rent such units to other renters without restrictions for up to 12 months, if written authorization is provided in advance for such rental units from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust and approved the Town of Chapel Hill.

32. Affordable Housing Maintenance of Affordability Over Time: That the applicant shall record deed restrictions to ensure that the affordable units remain affordable in perpetuity to low income tenants, to be approved by the Town Manager and the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

33. Completion of Affordable Housing: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for any units in the development until all required affordable units are available for occupancy.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

34. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed Landscape Plan and Landscape Maintenance Plan shall be prepared for the site including the plantings proposed in the public right-of-way. The plan shall be subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

35. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan be prepared, clearly indicating which rare and specimen trees will be removed and preserved and including Town standard landscaping protection notes. The plan shall be subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

36. Street Trees: That applicant shall provide a recorded encroachment agreement with the Town providing that the applicant will be responsible for long-term maintenance of the proposed street trees and vaults, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

37. Tree Preservation in Mixed-Use Portion of Development: That the applicant preserve the two 24-inch Oak trees located along the northern property line, adjacent to 207 Mitchell Lane. That the applicant shall indicate the critical root zones on plans, provide tree protection fencing, and not perform any land disturbing activity in the trees’ critical root zone areas.

38. Landscape Buffers in Mixed-Use Portion of Development: That the applicant provide the following landscape buffers:

Bufferyard Summary

Bufferyard Location	Bufferyard
Northern Border between proposed TC-2-C and existing R-3	10 ft. Type ‘B’ Buffer, with off-site enhancements*
Western, Southern and Eastern Borders between TC-2 to TC-2	Landscaping along Rosemary St. & Mitchell Lane frontages, as well as two 20 ft. segments of western property line, as identified on the approved plans.

*Ten-foot wide off-site landscape and grading easement to be provided with 6-foot high wooden fence and a 10-foot wide landscaped bufferyard on-site, beginning at the northwestern most corner of the site, running approximately 250 linear feet to the east, north-east.

This approval does not authorize alternative buffers. The off-site landscape easement shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

39. Off-site Parking Lot Landscape Protection Plan: That the applicant shall prepare a Landscape Protection Plan for the off-site parking lot at 109 Merritt Mill Road subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

40. Off-site Parking Lot Tree Preservation: That the applicant shall preserve the two 30-inch Oak trees along the frontage at the off-site parking lot at 109 Merritt Mill Road.

41. Off-site Parking Lot Landscape Requirements: That the applicant shall meet parking lot landscape screening requirements at 109 Merritt Mill Road as specified in Article 14 of the Development Ordinance by installing a low fence or wall along Merritt Mill Road rather than providing additional planted screening The final design shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Utilities

42. 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.

43. Utility Lines: That all utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground and shall be indicated on final plans.

Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety

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

45. Sprinkler System: That the buildings shall have sprinkler systems in accordance with Town Code, shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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

47. Fire Department Connections: That fire department connections shall be no more than 50 feet from the hydrants and located on street side of buildings in visible, accessible locations, subject to Town Fire Marshall approval.

Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection

48. 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 subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

49. Solid Waste and Recycling Facilities: That the applicant shall site solid waste and recycling facilities near the end of the western end northern drive aisle at the along the property line adjacent to the Burnette property, shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

50. Vertical Clearances: That the applicant shall clearly specify vertical “tunnel” clearances over driveways to provide for safe refuse and emergency vehicle circulation, shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

51. Pre-construction Conference: That the applicant shall hold a pre-construction conference with Orange County Solid Waste staff prior to any construction activity on the site. A note indicating such shall be included on final plans.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

52. Building Envelope Identification: That the applicant shall comply with Town height and setback regulations. The Final Plans shall identify the building envelope with building elevations (primary and secondary height limits) permitted by Sections 13.9 and 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance in the Town Center-2 (TC-2) zoning district, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

53. Recorded Recombination Plat: That a recorded recombination plat, subject to Town Manager approval, shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

54. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations and the lighting plan for the both portions of the development, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

55. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The facility design shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. The engineered stormwater facility shall also be designed to remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation.

56. Stormwater Best Management Practices: That the applicant shall provide a Best Management Practice for detention and water quality enhancement, such as an underground physical treatment system with a sand or gravel matrix, or alternative system, shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

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

58. Off-site Stormwater Conveyance: That the applicant shall provide information regarding the capacity and condition of the downstream stormwater conveyance system. That the applicant shall be required to improve off-site stormwater drainage facilities to mitigate this impact if the existing downstream conveyance system cannot accommodate runoff from the proposed development and shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

59. Stormwater Drainageway Easement: That all on-site stormwater facilities shall be located within a stormwater drainageway easement as required by the Town Manager.

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

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

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

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

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

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

65. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant 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.

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for ROSEMARY STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION B

(Planning Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-08-26/R-16b)

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.

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

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be revised:

2. Passageway Width: That the passageway between the building fronting on Rosemary Street and the building immediately north of it be increased to a minimum of 14 feet wide, rather than 10 feet. Accordingly, Stipulation #15 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Passageway Width: That the width of the passageway between the building fronting on Rosemary Street and the building immediately north of it shall be increased to a minimum of 14 feet, to be approved by the Town Manager.”

3. Signal Retiming: That the signal retiming payment be proportional to the projected impact (payment shall not exceed $3,000) generated by traffic from the proposed development at the specified intersection, rather than the full amount. Accordingly, Stipulation #24 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Signal Retiming: That the applicant shall provide a payment to retime traffic signals at the Columbia / Rosemary Street intersection, the Church / Rosemary Street intersection, and the Roberson / Rosemary Street intersection, proportional to the traffic impact, and shall not exceed $3000, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

4. Payment-In-Lieu for Recreation Space: That the payment-in-lieu funds for recreation not be used exclusively for Hargraves Park recreation projects. Accordingly, Stipulation #26 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Payment-In-Lieu for Recreation Space: That the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu of the required 5,050 square feet of recreation space, to be calculated according to Section 13.7.10 of the Development Ordinance, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

5. Provision of Affordable Housing: That rental or for sale affordable housing be allowed, with lesser detail than that stipulated in Resolution A. Accordingly, Stipulation #27 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide 15% affordable dwelling units on-site that are for rent, for sale, or some combination thereof.”

6. Affordable Housing Maintenance of Affordability Over Time: That the applicant shall employ land trust or deed restrictions to maintain affordability rather than deed restrictions exclusively. Accordingly, Stipulation #32 shall be revised as follows:

· “Affordable Housing Maintenance of Affordability Over Time: That the applicant shall employ land trust or deed restriction provisions to ensure long-term affordability of affordable dwelling units regardless of ownership structure (for sale or for rent).”

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be removed:

· Stipulations 10, 28 – 31, and 33.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION C

(Transportation Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-08-26/R-16c)

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.

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

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be revised:

2. Land Use Intensity: That the number of dwelling units shall be limited to 42 rather than 39. Accordingly, Stipulation #2 shall be revised as follows:

· “Maximum # of Dwelling Units: 42”

3. Intersection Improvements: That the applicant pay the full $15,000 payment for intersection improvements, rather than a proportional payment. Accordingly, Stipulation #25 shall be revised as follows.

· “Intersection Improvements: That the applicant will provide a $15,000 payment to improve the Columbia / Rosemary Street intersection with protected left turn traffic signal phasing and 12-inch signal heads, subject to Town Manager approval, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.”

· “Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide 15% affordable dwelling units on-site that are for rent, for sale, or some combination thereof.”

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be removed:

· Resolutions 10, 15, 28 – 31, and 33.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION D

(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-08-26/R-16d)

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.

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

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be revised:

2. Land Use Intensity: That the number of dwelling units shall be limited to 42 rather than 39. Accordingly, Stipulation #2 shall be revised as follows:

· “Maximum # of Dwelling Units: 42”

· “Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide 15% affordable dwelling units on-site that are for rent, for sale, or some combination thereof.”

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be removed:

· Resolutions 10, 15, 28 – 31, and 33.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION E

(Community Design Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-08-26/R-16e)

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.

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

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be revised:

2. Land Use Intensity: That the number of dwelling units shall be limited to 42 rather than 39. Accordingly, Stipulation #2 shall be revised as follows:

· “Maximum # of Dwelling Units: 42”

· “Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide 15% affordable dwelling units on-site that are for rent, for sale, or some combination thereof.”

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be removed:

· Resolutions 10, 15, 28 – 31, and 33.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION F

(Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-08-26/R-16f)

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.

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

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be revised:

2. Land Use Intensity: That the number of dwelling units shall be limited to 42 rather than 39. Accordingly, Stipulation #2 shall be revised as follows:

· “Maximum # of Dwelling Units: 42”

4. Provision of Affordable Housing: That rental or for sale affordable housing be allowed, with lesser detail than that stipulated in Resolution A. Accordingly, Stipulation #27 of Resolution A shall be revised as follows:

· “Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide 15% affordable dwelling units on-site that are for rent, for sale, or some combination thereof.”

5. Affordable Housing Maintenance of Affordability Over Time: That the applicant shall employ land trust or deed restrictions to maintain affordability rather than deed restrictions exclusively. Accordingly, Stipulation #32 shall be revised as follows:

That the following Stipulations in Resolution A shall be removed:

· Resolutions 10, 15, 28 – 31, and 33.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION G

(Denying the Application)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-08-26/R-16g)

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 that the Council finds:

(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

ATTACHMENT 1

Orange County Section Eight Program

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is a federally funded rental assistance program administered by public housing authorities (PHAs) or other government agencies. The programs' primary purpose is to provide rental assistance to low-income families with affordable decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Tenants' take the voucher/certificate and uses it to rent homes in the private market. The programs were authorized by the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 Section 8 (b) (1) and Section 8 (o), hence the name "Section 8".

Families may apply to a local housing authority or other government agency for a Section 8 tenant-based voucher- a voucher that "stays" with the tenant. A family is ineligible for the program if more than 40 percent of its income has to be used to pay rent in the first year. Currently, Section 8 helps more than 1.4 million households in the United States by paying private landlords the difference between what the household can afford and the rent for the

unit.

The administering housing authority or government agency must inspect the selected housing unit to make sure it complies with the Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) housing quality standards. In addition, the housing authority must accept a rent that is reasonable for the local housing market.

A family in the Section 8 program may choose to exercise a "portability" right that allows it to use its voucher outside the boundaries of a particular housing authority's jurisdiction. This in essence means that a family can move anywhere in the United States and its territories where there is a housing authority that administers the Section 8 Program.

Eligibility/Waiting List: To be considered eligible, a family's gross income may not exceed 50% of the local median family income.

SECTION 8 INCOME LIMITS

Family Size	Very Low Income	Extremely Low Income
1	$23,150	$13,900
2	26,450	15,850
3	29,750	17,850
4	33,050	19,850
5	35,700	21,400
6	38,350	23,000
7	41,000	24,600
8	43,650	26,200

Voucher Payment Standards

In the Section 8 Voucher Program, the Housing Authority sets a Payment Standard. The tenant pays no more than 40% of the adjusted income towards the rent, minus the utility allowance for any tenant paid utilities. The Housing Authority pays the remaining balance, which is the contract rent, minus the tenant's portion of rent.

The Payment Standard minus 30% of the family's adjusted monthly income is the maximum amount the housing authority will pay towards the tenant's rent. The Payment Standard is based on bedroom size and is as follows:

PAYMENT STANDARD (effective October 1, 2001)

Bedroom Size	Voucher Payment Standard
0	545
1	662
2	777
3	1042
4	1230
5	1415
6	1599

General Orange County Statistics

· The Section 8 Program is administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department.

· The current budget authority provides funding for 623 families countywide.

· There are approximately 269 participating property owners. Program participation is totally voluntary.

· Majority of units are in Chapel Hill/Carrboro area (Southern Orange County).

· Racial family composition – roughly 60% African-American; 37% Caucasian; 3% Other.

· Current waiting list totals 1,020 families and was closed to new applicants in October 2001.

· Most non-elderly heads of households are working families.

· Most families lease two-bedroom units.

Recommendations

Attachments

Miscellaneous Stipulations

Family Size

Very Low Income

Extremely Low Income

Bedroom Size

Voucher Payment Standard

General Orange County Statistics