AGENDA #8

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Delta Upsilon Fraternity - Application for a Special Use Permit Modification

(File No. 79.E.19, 20)

DATE: August 26, 2002

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 17, 2002, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application to construct a 9,694 square foot fraternity with 23 parking spaces at 407 East Rosemary. 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. Adoption of Resolution A, B, C, or D, would approve a Special Use Permit Modification application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution E would deny the request.

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

¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, presents evidence in the record thus far in support of and in opposition to approval of the application, discusses key issues raised at the June 17, 2002 Public Hearing, and offers recommendations for Council action.

¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, related attachments, a copy of the June 17, 2002 Public Hearing memorandum, including advisory board comments, and related attachments.

background

On June 17, 2002 the Council held a Public Hearing to consider the Special Use Permit Modification application for Delta Upsilon Fraternity. The application proposes to construct a 9,694 square foot fraternity with 23 parking spaces at 407 East Rosemary and reduce the boundary of the existing Special Use Permit. The Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties that are within 500 feet of the site. Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit Modification application recessed until August 26, 2002.

This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on June 17, 2002, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit Modification.

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

Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based around the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification.

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

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

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding for the application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The proposal will not alter site lines at street and driveway intersections.”

[Applicant Statement]

· “Fire protection will be improved due to the new structure being in compliance with the State Building Code and fully sprinkled in accordance with the Town of Chapel Hill Ordinance. The new building will have emergency lights and proper emergency exits making the building safer for residents and visitors.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The impervious surface on the site will not be increased.” [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: Evidence in support of Finding #2 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).

We note the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “As previously stated, the new structure will cover less ground area than the existing structure.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The plans do include, and this applications requests, a modification of the Development Ordinance to include additional basement square footage to provide below grade space for social functions. Having a basement will make it easier to control noise associated with social activities.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Existing green open space and trees will be maintained.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2 other than the requested modifications of regulations.

We note that the applicant is asking for modifications to the regulations for this site. We believe that in this particular case the Council could make the finding that the proposed modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree. For additional discussion on the requested modifications, please see “Requested Modification of Regulations” section below.

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

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

We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The relationship of the new structure to the contiguous property will remain the same as the existing structure.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Replacing a run down, worn out structure with a new structure and associated site improvements, will clearly improve the value of the surrounding property.” [Applicant Statement]

· “The proposed building design, use, and character is unchanged from the existing original structure, which works well within the historical context of the neighborhood.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Due to a new city ordinance requiring fire sprinkler systems for new and existing fraternity and sorority houses, the work required by this proposed addition may be considered (in part) a public necessity.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Current plans are to return the Historic Dey House at 401 E. Rosemary St. to single family use. This will also improve the value of contiguous single family properties.” [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: Evidence in support of Finding #4 for this application has been provided by the applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to this memorandum).

We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The proposed plans to replace the existing DU Fraternity is consistent with current zoning for this property, and is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Resource Conservation District, Thoroughfare Plan, Greenway Plan, Land Use Plan and Urban Services Area.” [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.

REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS

Subsection 18.7.1 of the Development Ordinance allows the Council to authorize specific modifications to the regulations in approving Special Use Permit Modification applications. Subsection 18.7.1 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 particular case the Delta Upsilon Fraternity House application may be considered under the provisions of Subsection 18.7.1 as a Modification of Special Use Permit.

We note that the applicant is requesting that the Council make several modifications to the regulations as discussed below.

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 fraternity and ordinance mandated sprinkler system, is a preferred use to a use in which a sprinkler system is not required.

Our 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. We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied.

Alternatively, the Council could reasonably conclude that the proposed modification would not satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree and could therefore deny the application or require compliance with the particular regulation.

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.

Our 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. We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied.

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 a five-foot landscaped buffer strip is provided between parking facilities and the exterior walls of a building. The applicant’s plan includes this buffer strip along the east wall of the new building and a portion of the west wall of the building.

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

Staff Comment: With respect to the modification request along the western and northern building facades, we note that compliance with the five-foot landscaped buffer strip would result in the applicant eliminating several proposed parking spaces. The applicant already has fewer (23 spaces) than the minimum number (29 spaces) of parking spaces required by the Development Ordinance for this site (see modification request below).

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 not appropriate to 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’s 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. We believe that a reduced or eliminated planting strip, along the eastern wall, is desired in order to preserve the existing tree line between this site and the adjacent sorority.

Therefore, our 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. We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied.

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 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 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 fewer that 23 off-street spaces.

Our 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 fewer off-street parking spaces instead of the required minimum 29 parking spaces. We believe that the Council could find that public purposes are satisfied.

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) ) the proposed fraternity and ordinance mandated sprinkler system, is a preferred use to a use in which a sprinkler system is not required, (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.

KEY ISSUES

We believe that the key issues raised during the June 17, Public Hearing focused on 1) Sidewalks along East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street, 2) The number of on-site parking spaces and 3) Encumbering the Dey House with a Special Use Permit in order to preserve the structure as a single family residence. We offer additional information on these issues below.

Sidewalks along East Rosemary Street and Hillsborough Street: At the June 17, 2002 Public Hearing, the applicant stated that the fraternity was opposed to installing a brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage. The applicant’s proposal does not include sidewalk improvements.

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 stonewall which is located at or very near the curb line. The East Rosemary Street frontage includes a Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk.

During the review of this application, the Planning Board and Historic District Commission recommended 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.

A Historic District Commission board member 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, the Bicycle and Pedestrian 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, a minority of Bicycle and Pedestrian 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.

Attached to this memorandum is a May 31, 2002 correspondence from Eva and Bob Metzger expressing support for a sidewalk along Hillsborough Street. The correspondence was omitted in error from the June 17, 2002 Public Hearing memorandum.

Manager’s Comment-Brick sidewalk along East Rosemary Street: 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 that causes difficulty for bicyclists. We believe that over a period, 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 to the June 17, 2002 Memorandum.

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 to the June 17, 2002 Memorandum) for additional information.

On balance we believe that it is desirable and appropriate to extend a brick sidewalk along the East Rosemary Street frontage of this site. 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. We note that a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required for a sidewalk, to be approved by the Historic District Commission. If an alternative sidewalk material other than brick is approved by the Historic District Commission, we recommend that the approved alternative is 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.

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.

Manager’s Comment-New Sidewalk along Hillsborough Street: Concerning a sidewalk along Hillsborough Street, we do not believe a sidewalk segment on the fraternity frontage along Hillsborough Street is necessary or desirable. We note that a brick sidewalk exists on the opposite side of Hillsborough Street, beginning at East Franklin Street and continuing south beyond North Street. We believe that the existing sidewalk, on the west side of Hillsborough Street, provides adequate and safe pedestrian travel along Hillsborough Street. We also believe that, due to the existing stonewall and topographic constraints, the installation of a sidewalk along the fraternity’s Hillsborough Street frontage is not practical.

The Number of On-Site Parking Spaces: A Council member noted that the Development Ordinance requires that a minimum of 29 parking spaces (one space per resident) be provided on the site. The applicant is proposing 23 parking spaces. The Council member expressed a concern that without adequate on-site parking, overflow parking from the fraternity may spill out into the immediate neighborhood.

During the Public Hearing, the applicant stated that the original site plan included 29 parking spaces. However, in response to staff recommendations concerning necessary revisions to the refuse facility and provision of several landscape bufferyard areas, six parking spaces were eliminated from the original site plan.

Manager’s 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 believe that in a communal living arrangement, such as a fraternity, providing on-site parking space for each residence is unnecessary and not desired. We also note that the Town Manager’s 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.

Encumbering the Dey House with a Special Use Permit in order to preserve the structure as a single family residence: A Council member noted that the applicant believes that the Dey House should be removed from the current Special Use Permit boundary and converted to a single family dwelling. The Council member expressed a concern that approval of the proposed Special Use Permit Modification, including the removal of the Dey House from the Special Use Permit boundary would not prohibit the demolition of the Dey House. The Council member wondered if the preservation of the Dey House and conversion to a single-family residence could be ensured if the Dey House remained within the current Special Use Permit boundary or became part of a new Special Use Permit.

Manager’s Comment: We believe that the use of the Dey House as a single-family residence and/or its protection from demolition cannot be guaranteed with a Special Use Permit. We do not believe that the Council has the legal authority, under the Special Use Permit process, to prohibit the demolition of this structure or require its conversion to a single family residence.

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, church, duplex, rooming house), we believe that removing this historic structure from the encumbrances of a Special Use Permit and thereby severing its regulatory connection to the proposed fraternity development, enhances its restoration potential and its marketability.

We recommend approval of the reduction of the boundary for the 1979 Special Use Permit Modification. Resolution A includes this stipulation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are summarized below. Summaries of board actions and recommendations are attached to the June 17, 2002 memorandum.

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 Recommendation, does not include this gravel sidewalk recommendation. However, the Manager’s recommendation would permit a Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk if it was preferred by the Historic District Commission. For additional information on this issue please refer to the Key Issues discussion in this memorandum 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 June 17, 2002 Key Issues discussion under Special Use Permit boundary.

Resolution B differs from the Town Manager’s 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. However, the Manager’s recommendation would permit a Chapel Hill gravel sidewalk if it was preferred by the Historic District Commission. For additional information on this issue please refer to the Key Issues discussion in this memorandum 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 Recommendation.

Resolution C differs from the Town Manager’s 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 June 17, 2002 Key Issues discussion.

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 Recommendation stipulates that the area around the tree remain Chapel Hill gravel. For additional information on this issue please refer to the Key Issues discussion in this memorandum under sidewalks.

Resolution D also differs from the Town Manager’s 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 June 17, 2002 discussion 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 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 Modification application with modification of the regulations.

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 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.

Delta Upsilon Fraternity

Special Use Permit Modification

Differences between Resolutions

Issues	Resolution A Manager's 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. May 31, 2002 Letter from Eva and Bob Metzger (p. 29).

2. June 17, 2002 Public Hearing and related attachments (begin new page 1).

RESOLUTION A

(Town Manager’s

Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE DELTA UPSILON FRATERNITY (2002-08-26/R-17a)

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 that (1) the proposed fraternity and ordinance mandated sprinkler system, is a preferred use to a use in which a sprinkler system is not required, (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 August 26, 2004 (2 years from the date of approval) and is completed by August 26, 2005 (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 parcel (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 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION B

(Planning Board’s and

Historic District Commission’s

Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE DELTA UPSILON FRATERNITY (2002-08-26/R-17b)