AGENDA #9

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: The Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont – Application for Special Use Permit Modification

DATE: August 26, 2002

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 17, 2002, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification application to authorize an addition to a residential training center for the University’s Kenan-Flagler Business School. This Special Use Permit Modification is proposed to allow construction of an additional 69,000 square feet of floor area and 49 additional parking spaces on the 27.64-acre site. Adoption of Resolution A, B, or C would approve a Special Use Permit Modification application with conditions. Adoption of Resolution D 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 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 17 Public 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 Modification application to authorize construction of 69,000 square feet of new floor area for an addition to the education building (Loudermilk Hall) for additional space for meeting and classrooms and a 60-room addition to the residence hall, McLean Hall. A parking area expansion for 49 additional cars is also requested. The site is at the Rizzo Conference Center, a training center for the Kenan-Flagler Business School adjacent to Meadowmont. We note that on June 17, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties that are within 500 feet of this site.

This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the 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 Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of 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 attachments containing the 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 Modification.

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

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

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (Attachment #1 pg. 38) provides evidence in support of Finding #1. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The minor site and building changes proposed herewith do not alter the findings of the Town Council, whose action in August 1997 approving the original SUP, signify compliance with these provisions.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Traffic conditions: As stated in the original SUP submittal, the Center is a residential education facility that will house approximately 120 participants. The participants will arrive to the facility for a scheduled session or program within a 12-hour period and remain at the facility until they have completed the program. At the completion of the program, the participants will leave the facility over a day’s period with most destinations being RDU Airport. The on-site accommodations will reduce the amount of daily commuting by visitors to the site, thus having negligible effect on traffic corridors. The Center will have a staff of approximately 20 people who will arrive to work on a daily basis. A minimum amount of traffic will occur by the participants throughout their stay. The heaviest traffic to the facility will be at the beginning and end of the program session, but the arrival and departure times are spread over the course of a day or weekend. Programs vary in duration from three to fourteen day sessions.” [Applicant Statement]

“Pedestrian conditions: As stated in the original SUP submittal, previously installed sidewalks connecting the Center to the Meadowmont development will be maintained as part of this project. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic will continue to be encouraged. Some additional sidewalks are proposed to connect the existing pedestrian way and the proposed area.” [Applicant Statement]

“Environmental conditions: As stated in the original SUP submittal, the site is outside of the Resource Conservation District and Floodplain. The site is within the Protected Watershed Area for Jordan Lake. A storm water management study has been performed and will be implemented as part of this project.” [Applicant Statement]

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

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

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

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

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment # 1, pg.39) provides evidence in support of Finding #2. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “As per Article 12, the original SUP approved this use in the R-5-C zoning district. Associated Land Use Intensity calculations, as per Article 13, are indicated on the Project Fact Sheet and summarized below.

a. Net Land Area – 1,208,790 SF

b. Maximum Allowable Floor Area Ratio – 319,121 SF

Proposed Floor Area – 160,236 SF

c. Minimum Allowable Outdoor Space Ration – 894,505 SF

Proposed Outdoor Space – 1,135,982 SF

d. Minimum Livability Space Ratio – 483,516 SF

Proposed Livability Space – 1,001,302 SF

· These modifications do not alter the findings of the approved SUP with regard to Article 14, Design Standards. Parking provided is less than that required by Article 14.6. However, this is intentional to promote the use of multi-occupant vehicles and mass transit systems.” [Applicant Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #2 for this application at the Public Hearing.

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

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

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 # 1, pg. 40) provides evidence in support of Finding #3. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

In 1998 Pickett-Sprouse Real Estate performed a study of the Meadowmont

development and its impact on the value of surrounding properties. Based on its previous study, Pickett-Sprouse has provided a letter dated October 23, 2001, which is attached, indicting that, in their profession opinion, the proposed additions will “…not cause a diminution in value of the surrounding properties.” [Applicant Statement]

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

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

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

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

Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (part of Attachment #1, pg.40) provides evidence in support of Finding #4. We note the following key points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

· “The proposed modification complies with the Planning for Chapel Hill’s Future: The Comprehensive Plan adopted May 2000. Some sections are provided as follows:

Section 3.0, Community Character: The University is committed to addressing these objectives and goals by maintaining the natural setting and historic structure, the DuBose house.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Section 6.0, Economy and Employment: As with the original project, these minor changes will provide additional opportunities for employment for Chapel Hill residents and achieves the Town’s goal to provide “non-residential development compatible with existing development.” The existing facilities have already established and this project will further facilitate the Town’s efforts to encourage a local economy characterized by varied scale and types of educational, research, professional, commercial and service activities.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Section 9.0, Natural Environment: As approved originally these minor changes conserve and enhance the original natural environment by maintaining the integrity of the historical structures, maintaining and enhancing the gardens and open spaces in the original Special Use Permit application and honoring the built and natural environment through sensitive design. Included is a storm water study, which addresses concerns for long-term water quality. As previously approved, a storm water management plan will be implemented.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Section 10.0, Transportation: The University promotes the use of public transportation and, as such, limits the number of parking spaces on site. In addition, the site, adjacent to the Regional Transit Corridor, offers the University an opportunity to work together with the Town to promote the transit facility.” [Applicant Statement]

· “Section 11.0, Community Facilities: The University proposes to provide and maintain solid waste management practices as originally approve. The University will handle all trash and recycling materials. The University will provide electrical and telecommunication services, however, public water and sewer utilities will be utilized for this project.” [Applicant Statement]

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

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

issueS

At the June 17 Public Hearing four issues were identified relating to this development proposal. The issues are further discussed as follows:

Storm Drainageway Easement: Stipulation #21 of the Manager’s Preliminary recommendation stated that all stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within reserved storm drainage way easements. The applicant has indicated that this requirement does not apply to this site.

Manager’s Comment: We agree that property owned by the State does not require easements in the same manner as private property. The Rizzo Conference Center is owned by the University. The Manager’s Recommendation has been revised and does not include the requirement that the storm drainage way easement be located on a plat and recorded prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

In the June 17 memorandum, Stipulation 16 required an Operations and Maintenance Plan and a 30-foot storm drainage way easement for the location of engineered stormwater structures. As no storm drainage easements are required for state-owned land, this portion of Stipulation 16 requiring an easement has been removed. The Manager’s revised recommendation, Resolution A, no longer contains this requirement as part of the Operations and Maintenance Plan.

Erosion Control Bond: At the June 17 Public Hearing, the applicant asked for clarification of Stipulation 18 requiring an Erosion Control Bond.

Manager’s Comment: State-owned lands are exempt from this Town requirement of an Erosion Control Bond for land disturbance of more than an acre. Stipulation 18 requiring an Erosion Control Bond has been removed from the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, Resolution A. We note that Stipulation 17 requires that the NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources approve an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Building Elevations: At the Public Hearing on June 17, Council members expressed concern about the building elevation of the proposed addition. The Design Commission’s recommendation to the Council noted that the applicant had not addressed building elevation issues that were previously raised by the Commission during Concept Plan Review for this project. In particular, the Commission “expressed serious concerns” that the proposed elevations “do not maintain the details, gables, and other architectural vocabulary of the main house.”

Manager’s Comment: On June 17, the applicant provided an architectural model of the proposed site in order to demonstrate how they have responded to the Community Design Commission’s comments. The applicant’s representatives explained that the long, uninterrupted façade has been revised, and indicated that the facade is now articulated with appropriate architectural features. The gables and boxy architectural features at the ends of the buildings have also been adjusted.

We have included in Resolution A, the standard stipulation requiring building elevations to be approved by the Community Design Commission during Final Plan Review, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This stipulation is included in Resolutions A, B, and C.

Summary of Transportation Board Action: A Council member noted that the Summary of Transportation Board Action may contain a minor error, because the Summary was not consistent with the Board’s minutes.

Manager’s Comment: The Transportation Board reviewed the Summary of Transportation Board Action. No revisions ere made to the Summary by the Board. The Board amended the minutes of the May 7, 2002 Transportation Board meeting. The Board maintained the recommendation for approval of the 162 parking spaces as contained in the Transportation Board Summary of Action (see attached) and the original 1996 Special Use Permit.

We continue to believe the applicant’s request for 10 additional spaces over what was approved in the 1996 Special Use Permit is acceptable. Resolution A would authorize 172 parking spaces. The applicant maintains that the parking accommodations are considerably below what other conference centers of this magnitude provide. It is anticipated that most visitors will arrive at the site by airport shuttles, limo, or taxi service.

Recommendations

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

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

Staff Comment: Resolution A includes the Planning Board’s recommendation.

Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Commission reviewed this application on May 15, 2002 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution C. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action.

Resolution C includes the following recommendation of the Community Design Commission:

· That the parking be limited to 162 parking spaces. An additional ten (10) spaces (increasing the total number of spaces to 172) may be constructed if the applicant provides information documenting that the additional ten (10) spaces can be constructed with the same runoff coefficient as pervious surface.

Staff Comment: The Town Manager’s Recommendation, Resolution A, does not include this recommendation. The increase of 10 parking spaces does not exceed the impervious surface limit of 24% for the Town’s Watershed Protection District. We believe that creating the same runoff coefficient for impervious parking surfacing (including gravel and porous pavers) as for pervious surface would be impossible.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation: The Board met on May 28, 2002 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with the following stipulation:

· That for the purposes of calculating bicycle parking only, that the use shall be considered “commercial.” Bicycle parking shall be provided per the guidelines in the Design Manual.

Staff Comment: We believe that this recommendation is reasonable and have included it in Resolution A. Bicycle parking numbers and classifications are based on the land use. The Design Manual lists the following land uses for determining bicycle parking:

· Industrial and Office

· Commercial/Retail

· Multi-Family Residential

· Recreation

· School

· Park and Ride Lot/Transit Center

The conference center is a teaching facility of the Kenan-Flagler Business School for trainees enrolling in a variety of classes. We believe that the category, Commercial/Retail, best fits this facility.

We have included the recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board in Resolution A.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on May 7, 2002 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution B, approving the application with the following stipulation:

Parking should be limited to 162 spaces.

Staff Comment: The applicant has requested approval of 172 parking spaces. We believe that the applicant’s request for 10 additional parking spaces in excess of the 1996 Special Use Permit approval of 162 is reasonable. We note that this addition would not exceed the impervious surface limit of 24% for development in the Town’s Watershed Protection District. The applicant states that the request is less than what other executive training centers provide.

Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the four findings required to approve the Special Use Permit Modification.

We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions. Resolution A includes the Planning Board recommendation and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommendation and has been revised with the following changes:

Resolution A has been revised to remove references to the requirement to record storm drainageway easements.

Resolution A has been revised to remove reference to an erosion control bond requirement.

Resolution B would approve the application with the stipulation of the Transportation Board.

Resolution C would approve the application with the stipulation of the Community Design Commission.

Resolution D would deny the application.

THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RESOLUTIONS

Issue

Resolution A

Manager's Revised Recommendation;

Planning Board; Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

Resolution B Transportation Board Recommendation

Resolution C Community Design Commission Recommendation

Parking for 172 cars

Yes

No, limit to 162

No, limit to 162; 172 allowed if runoff is restricted

Attachment

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

RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s Revised Recommendation and

Planning Board Recommendation and

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER AT MEADOWMONT (2002-08-26/R-6a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Planned Development – Office/Institutional Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on property identified as Durham County Tax Map 479, Block 1, Lot 1, if developed according to the site plan dated March 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 that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont 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, 2012 (ten years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by August 26, 2014 (twelve years from the date of Council approval).

2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit Modification authorizes a total of 160,236 square feet of floor area on site to include additions to Loudermilk Hall, the educational center, and McLean Hall, the residential center.

3. Parking: That a maximum of 172 parking spaces shall be permitted on this site with standard parking dimensions.

Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues

4. Parking Lot Sidewalk: That the sidewalk located on the northern edge of the proposed Phase II parking area be extended on its entire northern length and compliance with the Low Density Option of the Watershed Protection District can be maintained.

5. Bicycle: That 18 bicycle parking spaces be identified on the plans. Bicycle parking shall be in accordance with the Town’s Design Manual. Motorcycle parking shall also be identified on the plans.

6. Transportation Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall prepare and obtain Town Manager approval of a Transportation Management Plan. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:

· Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;

· Provisions for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;

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

· Ridesharing incentives; and

· Public transit incentives.

7. Town Standards: That all parking lots, drive aisles and sidewalks associated with this development shall be constructed to Town standards.

Stipulations Related to State and Federal Government Approvals

8. That any required State or Federal permits or encroachment agreements, including approval from the State Historic Preservation Office, be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architecture

9. Landscape Bufferyards: That the following landscape bufferyards shall be provided, and that if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirement, the vegetation shall be protected by fencing from adjacent construction. If any of the existing vegetation is removed as a result of the proposed parking lot expansion on the southern border, supplemental plantings are required that would replace the vegetation removed. Supplemental plantings shall be subject to Town Manager approval.

Location of Bufferyard	Type of Buffer Required by the Development Ordinance

Eastern, Northern, and Western Border (residential)	Minimum of 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer
Southern Border (future transit corridor)	Minimum of 30’ Type ‘D’ Buffer

10. Landscape Protection Plan: That tree protection fencing be installed adjacent to the construction limits of the proposed Phase II expansion and that the critical root zones of the 3 oak trees on the northern perimeter of the proposed parking area be shown and protected. Areas for construction staging, material storage, and construction parking shall also be indicated on the plans. These plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.

11. Landscape and Shading Plan: A Landscape Plan and Shading Plan shall be submitted that demonstrates that the Phase II parking area will have 35% shade on noon August 21 when the vegetation matures.

12. Urban Forester Pre-Construction Conference: We recommend that prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, a pre-construction conference be held with the Town’s Urban Forester.

13. Building Elevations: Detailed Building Elevations shall be approved by the Community Design Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

14. Lighting Plan: A detailed Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Community Design Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues

15. Stormwater Detention: That the plans show the maintenance access for the two stormwater detention basins to be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

16. Operations and Maintenance Plan: That all engineered structures have an Operations and Maintenance Plan with the Owner’s responsibility designated.

17. Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources and a copy of the approval be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

18. Best Management Practices: That the applicant utilize Best Management Practices as approved by the NC Division of Water Quality and the Town Manager. These features shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

19. Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the Town Manager. The plan shall apply to the additional impervious surface which 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. Engineered stormwater facilities shall also remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation utilizing NC Division of Water Quality design standards. All stormwater management improvements outside public right-of-way must be located within storm drainageway easements and shall not be permitted within approved bufferyard areas.

20. Stormwater Drainage Hoods: Public and private stormwater drainage curb hood/covers shall be pre-cast stating, “Dump No Waste! Drains to Jordan Lake”, in accordance with the specifications of the Town Standard Detail SD-5A.

21. Watershed Protection District: The site is in the Town’s Watershed Protection District and as such is subject to density and/or impervious surface limitations. The developer is required to provide with final plans an impervious calculation sheet and an impervious surface monitoring plan to ensure that the development stays under the 24% threshold of the Watershed Protection District.

Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues

22. Utility Plans: That detailed utility plans be reviewed and approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

We recommend that the plans clearly locate and identify all existing and any future utility lines, including proposed electric, phone lines and three-phase power lines on the Site Plan.

23. Underground Utilities: That all utility lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be placed underground.

24. Fire Department Connections: That all existing and proposed fire department connections and hydrants be located and shown on the plans prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

25. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

26. Sprinkler System: That the education and residential buildings shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code.

27. Heavy-Duty Paving: That all drive aisles that provide access to the compactors, dumpsters or recycling facilities, be constructed with heavy-duty pavement.

Other Stipulations

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

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 plat.

30. 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.

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

32. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit. The construction sign may have a maximum of 16 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.

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

34. 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 Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION B

(Transportation Board Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER AT MEADOWMONT (2002-08-26/R-6b)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Planned Development - Office/Institutional Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on property identified as Durham County Tax Map 479, Block 1, Lot 1, if developed according to the site plan dated March 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.

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. Parking: That parking shall be limited to 162 parking spaces according to the 1996 Special Use Permit.

This the 26^th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION C

(Community Design Commission Recommendation)

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER AT MEADOWMONT (2002-08-26/R-6c)

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.

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. Parking: That a maximum of 162 cars shall be permitted on this site with standard parking dimensions.

This the 26th day of August, 2002.

RESOLUTION D

(Denying the Application)

A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER AT MEADOWMONT (2002-08-26/R-6d)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Planned Development – Office/Institutional Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill on property identified as Durham County Tax Map 479.1.1 if developed according to the site plan dated March 21, 2002 and conditions listed below, would:

Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

1. 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;

2. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds:

(INSERT REASONS FOR DENIAL)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for The Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont.

This the 26^thday of August, 2002.

ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

From: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

Subject: Public Hearing: Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont - Application for a Special Use Permit Modification (File No. 479.1.1)

Date: June 17, 2002

Introduction

Attached for your consideration is an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit Modification for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont, located in the Meadowmont development on the east side of Meadowmont Lane. The original Special Use Permit for the conference center was approved on October 16, 1996. The Special Use Permit Modification application was granted expedited processing by the Town Council on February 25, 2002.

The applicant is proposing to construct Phase II of the approved Special Use Permit for construction of an addition to a residential training center for the Kenan-Flagler Business School associated with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This Special Use Permit Modification is proposed to allow construction of an additional 69,000 square feet of floor area and 49 additional parking spaces on the 27.64-acre site.

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

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

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

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

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

PROCESS

The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it against Town standards; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows below). Evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Development Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY

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

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

The Development Ordinance defines contiguous property as follows:

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

According to this definition, in this case the minimum distance would be 500 feet.

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The 27.64-acre site is located north of Hwy. 54 with access off the east side of Meadowmont Lane in the north part of the Meadowmont development. The property is located in the Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C) zoning district and is identified as Durham County Tax Map 479, Block 1, Lot 1.

Existing Conditions: The site is the residual parcel of the original Dubose family holding, now the site of the Meadowmont Development. The original DuBose mansion is the main building on the campus of The Rizzo Conference Center. In addition to the DuBose mansion, the features of the original estate that are included with the conference center include a pool and pool house, a basketball court, greenhouse and garden shed, formal gardens, wishing well, stable, and the DuBose family cemetery.

The existing campus of the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center represents Phase I construction of the1996 Special Use Permit that approved construction of Phase I and Phase II. Construction of Phase I was completed in September, 2000. The DuBose mansion, original outbuildings, residence hall (McLean Hall), and educational building (Loudermilk Hall) comprise the existing buildings on the site. A total of 91,236 square feet of floor area and 123 parking spaces currently exist on the site.

The Kenan-Flagler Business School is now seeking approval of Phase II construction. The modification of the Special Use Permit is required because the project completion deadline for Phase II has expired and because the request of additional guest rooms exceeds a 5% change above what was authorized in the Special Use Permit in October 1996.

Development Description: This application for a Special Use Permit Modification proposes to construct an addition of 69,000 square feet of floor area for additions to the education building and residence hall. Loudermilk Hall, the educational center, is proposed to add two new classrooms, 14 breakout rooms, and administrative offices. McLean Hall, the residential center, is proposed to add 60 guest rooms and three smaller seminar rooms. This addition was shown on the 1996 Special Use Permit, but was not constructed within stipulated time limits.

An additional 49 parking spaces are proposed to provide parking for a total of 172 spaces on-site. This represents 10 additional parking spaces from the 1996 approval of 162. This proposed increase provides for an increase in the daily training capacity to 320 persons and residential accommodations to 120 guests.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance. We have prepared a Staff Report that discusses a state historic preservation designation, intensity standards, access and circulation, parking, bicycle parking, traffic impact, transportation management, bus stops, buffers and landscaping, building elevations, lighting plans, Watershed Protection District, stormwater management, best management practices, erosion control, utilities, fire safety, and solid waste. A checklist describing compliance with regulations is also provided as an attachment to this memorandum.

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

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

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

Special Use Permit Modification – Required Findings of Fact

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

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

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

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

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

KEY ISSUES

Based on the review of this development application by Town advisory boards and the Town staff, we believe three key issues have been identified: automobile parking numbers; bicycle and motorcycle parking numbers; and differences between the Special Use Permit and the Proposed Floor Area. These issues are further discussed below.

1. Parking: The Transportation Board and Community Design Commission have recommended that parking be limited to 162 spaces. This is the current number authorized by the Special Use Permit and is 10 less than the applicant proposes with this application. The Board and Commission believe that the 10 additional spaces are not warranted because transportation would be provided mostly by airport limousine or bus and few would arrive by car. The Design Commission also stressed the need to keep paved, impervious surfaces to a minimum.

Staff Comment: The use of the site is “college or university” which is allowed in the Residential-5-Conditional zoning district with approval of a Planned Development – Office/Institutional. The Development Ordinance does not identify parking requirements for an unlisted use in Section 14.6.7, such as a college or university use. The Ordinance section indicates that in such cases, the minimum parking requirements shall be determined by the Town Manager. For the September 16, 1996 Public Hearing for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center the applicant stated that parking needs will be below what would normally be expected for an educational or conference center.

We agree that under the proposed use scenario, parking needs will be below what would be expected for an educational center. The conference center is a residential education facility proposed to house approximately 120 overnight participants with the completion of Phase II. The participants are proposed to arrive to the facility for scheduled sessions/programs within a 12 hour period and remain at the facility until they have completed the program. At the completion of the program the participants will leave the facility over a days’ period with most destinations being RDU Airport. The on-site accommodations will reduce the amount of daily commuting by visitors to and from the site. The conference center will have a staff of approximately 20 people who will arrive to work on a daily basis. Minimum amount of traffic will occur by the participants throughout their stay. The heaviest traffic to the facility will be at the beginning and end of the program session, but the arrival and departure times are spread over the course of a day or weekend. Programs vary in duration from three to fourteen day sessions. With the completion of Phase II, a maximum of 320 visitors are proposed to be accommodated. The maximum number of proposed daily visitors is approximately 180. Staff is proposed to be 20 and overnight residents are proposed to be a maximum of 120. Parking is proposed to be 172 spaces with this application. We note that an addition of 10 parking spaces does not by itself require a modification to the Special Use Permit.

The impervious surface cap of 24% has been met with this proposal. The increase in parking spaces represents a 6.2% increase above what the 1996 Special Use Permit specified for parking, or 10 spaces, about 2,500 square feet of parking area. Up to 10 spaces may be approved without a Modification to a Special Use Permit being required.

2. Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking: The Site Plan has not shown bicycle or motorcycle parking. The Development Ordinance requires that for parking facilities designed to accommodate five (5) or more vehicles there shall be provided areas as necessary for the parking of motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles. Such areas are to be clearly defined and reserved for the exclusive use by motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommend the bicycle parking be calculated as if this were a commercial use. The Design Manual states that for “Commercial” use, that 10% of auto spaces be provided for bicycle parking. Of that 10%, 20% are to be Class I and 80% are to be Class II. Class I means a locker, individually locked enclosure, or supervised area within a building providing protection for bicycles therein from theft, vandalism, and weather. Class II is a stationary rack to which a bicycle can be secured with the user supplying both lock and cable or chain.

Staff Comment: We recommend that the applicant provide the 18 parking spaces for bicycles as recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and that motorcycle parking be identified. We believe that bicycle access should be encouraged for this development.

3. Differences Between the Special Use Permit and the Proposed Floor Area: The Planning Board asked why the proposal indicates a near doubling of guestrooms over what was authorized in the 1996 Special Use Permit (64 authorized by the 1996 Special Use Permit and an additional 60 requested) when the proposed floor area to the residential hall (approximately 45,000 square feet of existing floor area) does not reflect a comparable doubling of the existing floor area (69,000 square feet for both buildings).

Staff Comment: The applicant stated that there was misinformation provided for the 1996 Special Use Permit for the number of residential rooms authorized. The total build out for guestrooms was intended by the applicant to be 120 and not 64 as authorized by the Special Use Permit. Phase I proposed 64 guest rooms. Sixty guest rooms were constructed. With Phase II the applicant is requesting an additional 60 rooms bringing the total to 120 rooms. This request for additional guest rooms represents a 94% increase over what was approved in the Special Use Permit for both Phase I and II. The plans submitted with the Special Use Permit in 1996 did not show the Phase II additions to the residential hall nor the educational facility. A 94% increase in guest rooms requires a Modification to the Special Use Permit.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

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

The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

SUBSEQUENT REGULATORY STEPS

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

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

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

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

3. Community Design Commission reviews and approves building elevations and site lighting plan.

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

5. The State Department of Insurance issues Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

Staff Comment: Resolution A, the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation includes the Planning Board’s Recommendation.

Resolution C includes the following recommendation of the Community Design Commission:

Staff Comment: The Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation does not include this recommendation. The increase of 10 parking spaces does not exceed the impervious surface limit of 24% for the Town’s Watershed Protection District. We believe that creating the same runoff coefficient for impervious parking surfacing (including gravel and porous pavers) as for pervious surface would be impossible. Documentation for constructing 10 additional parking spaces with this coefficient is unattainable. We believe that the 10 additional spaces would add approximately 2,460 square feet of additional impervious surface to the overall site.

· That for the purposes of calculating bicycle parking only, that the use shall be considered “commercial.” Bicycle parking shall be provided per the guidelines in the Design Manual.

Staff Comment: We believe that this recommendation is reasonable. Bicycle parking numbers and classification is based on the land use. The Kenan Flagler Business School operates this facility as an educational training facility for executive clientel. The conference center is a commercial teaching facility of the Kenan-Flagler Business School for trainees enrolling in a variety of classes. The number of individuals using this facility at any one time and the varying length of their stay depending on the classes enrolled in, make it difficult to gauge student/teacher ratios. It is a teaching facility. It is also a commercial enterprise.

We have included the recommendation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board in Resolution A.

Parking should be limited to 162 spaces.

Staff Comment: We believe that the applicant’s request for 10 additional parking spaces in excess of the 1996 Special Use Permit approval of 162 is reasonable. We note that this addition would not exceed the impervious surface limit of 24% for development in the Town’s Watershed Protection District. The applicant states that the request is less than that that would be required in similar situations for a similar use as an executive training center. Most of the 120 overnight visitors will be using airport shuttle and limousine service to the conference center.

We note that the Phase II proposed parking expansion will require clearing and grading into a small portion of the 50-foot landscape buffer along the southern property line. Supplemental plantings may be necessary in this area. We believe that the Phase II expansion of 49 parking spaces (includes the request for 10 additional spaces) with this 60 residential guest room expansion, additional administrative offices and educational classrooms is reasonable. Resolution A would authorize the minor parking lot expansion.

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: Based on our evaluation of the application, our preliminary conclusion is that the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance.

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

Resolution B would approve the application with the stipulation of the Transportation Board.

Resolution C would approve the application with the stipulation of the Community Design Commission.

Resolution D would deny the application.

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

The Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center Special Use Permit Modification

Differences between Resolutions

Issue

Resolution A

Manager's Prelim. Recommendation;

Planning Board; Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

Resolution B Transportation Board Recommendation

Resolution C Communituy Design Commission Recommendation

Parking for 172 cars

Yes

No, limit to 162

No, limit to 162; 172 with runoff coefficient equal

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Report (p. 12)

2. Resolution A (p. 20 )

3. Resolution B (p. 25 )

4. Resolution C (p. 26)

5. Resolution D (p. 27 )

6. Resolution E (p. 28)

7. Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p.29 )

8. Summary of Planning Board Action (p.30 )

9. Summary of Transportation Board (p. 31)

10. Summary of Community Design Commission (p. 32 )

11. 1996 Special Use Permit (p. )

12. Statement of Justification (p. )

13. Fact Sheet (p. )

14. Reduced Plans (p. )

ATTACHMENT 1

Staff Report

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont -

Application for a Special Use Permit Modification

(File No. 479.1.1)

DATE: June 17, 2002

INTRODUCTION

We have received and reviewed an application for a Special Use Permit Modification from the University of North Carolina for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont. The executive conference center is located in the Meadowmont development on the east side of Meadowmont Lane. The site is zoned Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C). Adjacent properties are primarily single-family residential with the exception of the southern border which is adjacent to The Cedars Retirement Community. The site is identified as Durham County Tax Map 479, Lot 1.

The Special Use Permit Modification requests approval of an addition of 69,000 square feet of floor area for classrooms, residential guest rooms, and meeting rooms. The primary clientele consists of executive trainees. Parking spaces for an additional 49 cars are proposed.

BACKGROUND

The original Special Use Permit for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center was approved on October 16, 1996. The Special Use Permit Modification was granted expedited processing by the Town Council on February 25, 2002.

The concept plan for this proposal was reviewed by the Community Design Commission on May 15, 2002. A copy of the Design Commission Summary of Concept Plan is attached.

EVALUATION

GENERAL

Existing Conditions: The 28-acre site is north of Hwy. 54 and east of Meadowmont Lane in the Meadowmont development. The site is the remainder of the original DuBose family holding, now the site of the Meadowmont development. The original Dubose mansion is the main building at the Rizzo Conference Center. In addition to the DuBose mansion, the features of the original estate that are included with the conference center include a pool and pool house, a basketball court, greenhouse and garden shed, formal gardens, wishing well, stable, and the DuBose family cemetery.

The Kenan-Flagler Business School completed construction of the first phase of the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont in September, 2000. The Business School is now seeking approval of Phase II construction. The modification to the Special Use Permit is required because the project completion deadline has passed and because of additional guest rooms.

Two 30-foot Duke Power Company utility easements exist on the northeast and northeastern portions of the site. A 30-foot OWASA sewer easement crosses the center of the site. A 50-foot future transit easement swings south of the southern property line on The Cedars property and a 30-foot access easement exists on the southern portion of the property. The site rests on a high knoll. This location commands a view of the surrounding area for several miles. The site is in the Town’s Watershed Protection District.

An irregular-shaped pond is shown on Sheet 2 “Existing Conditions” with a rip rap channel and headwall above the pond. Two detention basins are shown on Sheet 3 “Site Plan of Proposed Conditions.” The basins appear to be approximately 10 feet deep. One is located to the south of the existing parking area and the other to the west of the education building.

Development Description: This Special Use Permit Modification proposes construction of additions to the education building and residential hall and parking lots. Loudermilk Hall, the educational center, is proposed to add two new classrooms, 14 breakout rooms, and administrative offices. McLean Hall, the residential center, is proposed to add 60 guest rooms and three smaller seminar rooms.

The 49 additional parking spaces provide for a total of 172 spaces on-site. These spaces are proposed to provide for an increase in the daily training capacity to 320 persons and an increase in overnight residential guests to 120.

A new retaining wall approximately 8 feet in height is shown on the north of the irregular-shaped pond. The rip rap and headwall for the pond are no longer shown.

Historic Preservation Issue: The DuBose house has been characterized by the State Historic Preservation Office as “one of the state’s finest Georgian Revival estate” manor houses. The applicant proposes to preserve the manor house and out buildings removing only the stable and well house. No changes are proposed to the DuBose house with this application.

Intensity Standards: The proposed project meets the Development Ordinance standards for floor area, outdoor space, and livability space for the Residential-5-Conditional zoning district. The maximum floor area allowed for the proposed use is 319,121 square feet of floor area. The 1996 Special Use Permit authorized a total of 153,760 square feet of floor area. Currently, the site contains 91,236 square feet of floor area. The developer proposes to construct 69,000 square feet of additional floor area. The proposed total floor area on the site would be 160,236 square feet. We note that there is a discrepancy between the numbers on the Project Fact Sheet and the Site Plan for the amount of floor area being proposed as well as the number of parking spaces proposed. We have included stipulations in Resolution A that would restrict the expansion as described in this report.

The developer proposes 1,001,302 square feet of Livability Space. The required minimum is 483,516 square feet of Livability Space. The required minimum Outdoor Space is 894,505 square feet. The applicant proposes 1,135,982 square feet of Outdoor Space.

Setbacks are met with this proposal as are parking requirements and building heights.

Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as university use.

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

Access and Circulation: No changes are proposed for access. Circulation would be modified by the addition of the new parking area off the southern edge of the existing parking area. There is one point of access from Meadowmont Lane.

An existing pedestrian walkway system exists throughout the campus. Phase II residence and education additions are shown connected to sidewalks. We recommend that the Phase II parking lot include sidewalk along the entire northern side of the proposed parking area that connects to the eastern edge of the existing parking area where impervious surface limits allow. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to provide a sidewalk along the entire northern edge of the proposed parking lot.

Parking: The use of the site is “college or university”, which is allowed in the Residential-5-Conditional zoning district with a Planned Development – Office/Institutional. The Development Ordinance states that there are no pre-determined parking requirements for an unlisted use in Section 14.6.7, such as a college or university use. The Ordinance section indicates that in such cases, the minimum parking requirements shall be determined by the Town Manager.

The applicant proposes 172 spaces. This is 10 spaces over what was approved in the Special Use Permit. Currently, 123 parking spaces exist on the site. The applicant indicates that most visitors arrive by limousine, taxi, or shuttle service. Because visitors will be staying a short while (3 days to a maximum of 14 days) and have all needs provided on site, parking needs will be below what would normally be expected for an educational or conference center. We believe this proposal is acceptable. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to provide for 49 additional parking spaces.

We recommend that all parking areas be constructed to Town standards for pavement design and dimension. Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit detailed construction drawings showing proposed clearing, grading, storm drainage, paving, and curb and gutter locations for the parking lot. Curb and gutter are planned for low areas where drainage features are required. On the higher portions of the parking area, curb and gutter is not proposed. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A that detailed construction drawings be approved prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Bicycle Parking: There is no accommodation for bicycle parking identified on the plans. We recommend that bicycle and motorcycle parking be identified on the final plans along with the number of spaces to be provided. Bicycle parking is required to provide for each 3 students, plus one space for every 120 faculty/staff. 90% of the total bicycle parking spaces provided are required to be Class II spaces and 10% are required to be Class I spaces.

Class I bicycle spaces are defined as individually locked enclosures or supervised areas inside buildings providing bicycles protection from theft, vandalism, and weather. Class II bicycle spaces are defined as a stationary rack to which a bicycle can be secured with a U-lock or cable lock. Examples of this type of rack are an inverted “U” rack or a wave rack. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A to this effect.

Traffic Impact: The Traffic Impact Analysis was completed by the Town’s traffic engineering consultant. Based on the study the Town’s consultant has determined that this project would not generate traffic of sufficient volumes to justify off-site transportation improvements. The staff concurs with this recommendation.

Transportation Management Plan: A Transportation Management Plan is required with this proposal. The plan will need to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall be updated and approved annually by the Town Manager. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to require a Transportation Management Plan prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Bus Stops: There are a number of bus stops presently found in the existing development at Meadowmont.

LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL ISSUES

Buffers and Landscaping: The Town’s Development Ordinance requires the following landscape buffers:

Location of Bufferyard	Type of Buffer Required by Ordinance

Eastern, Northern, and Western Border (residential)	Minimum of 20’ Type ‘C’ Buffer
Southern Border (future transit corridor)	Minimum of 30’ Type ‘D’ Buffer

We note that all proposed buffers are appropriately shown according to the above chart. The applicant shows on the plans that the landscape buffers meet or exceed the minimum buffer requirements.

Tree Protection is shown on Sheet 3 for the three areas of proposed construction: the parking lot, the education building, and the residence hall. One white oak and two red oaks near the perimeter of the proposed parking lot are within the tree protection area and an additional note has been added that matting around the critical root zone of these trees may be required. A stipulation has been added to Resolution A that the tree protection fencing be shown with the construction limit lines and that the critical root zone of the two red oak and one white oak trees be shown and protected. In addition, staging areas for the construction expansion must be shown on the plans.

Landscape and Shading Plan: We recommend that a planting and shading plan be developed for the new parking area demonstrating 35% pavement shading requirement. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A for this plan.

Building Elevations: We recommend that building elevations be approved by the Community Design Commission, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recommendation is included in Resolution A.

Lighting Plan: We recommend that the detailed lighting plan be approved by the Community Design Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This recommendation is included in Resolution A. Special consideration of the adjacent residential area will be necessary.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Watershed Protection District: This area is in the Town’s Watershed Protection District. Appropriate water quality treatment controls are required if the site exceeds 24% impervious surface, based on the Watershed Protection District regulations. The calculations provided by the applicant indicate that the impervious surface (post-development) is approximately 22.5%. Impervious surface existing before 1993 is not subject to the percentage limits. We recommend that Best Management Practices be utilized to provide water quality treatment to the extent practicable. A stipulation is included in Resolution A that the applicant use Best Management Practices on the site.

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

Stormwater Management: We recommend that prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submit a Stormwater Management Plan with engineered stormwater facilities that demonstrate that for the additional impervious surface that will be added, the peak discharge rate for post-development conditions shall be no greater than the peak discharge rate for pre-development conditions for the 1-year, 24-hour duration and the 50-year, 24-hour duration storms. We note that it may be feasible to modify the existing detention basins for this requirement or additional facilities may be provided.

We note that the stormwater detention basins will need to have maintenance access. We recommend that this access be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. We have included this stipulation in Resolution A.

All engineered structures requires that an Operations and Maintenance Plan be developed. We note that it is the University’s responsibility to operate and maintain these structures. We recommend that these structures be located with a “reserved storm drainage way easement” to be located on a plat and recorded as such. We have included this stipulation in Resolution A.

A Stormwater Management Plan must be approved prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit indicating detention and treatment facilities and design for all new impervious surfaces. The basin may be designed as wet or dry as long as provisions are made for water quality treatment. A stipulation to this effect has been included in Resolution A.

Best Management Practices: We recommend that the applicant utilize Best Management Practices (BMP’s), as approved by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and the Town Manager, to treat stormwater runoff from all improved areas. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect.

A performance guarantee in accordance with Section 5-97.1 Bonds of the Town Code of Ordinances shall be required prior to final authorization to begin land-disturbing activities if one acre or more is uncovered by land-disturbing activities for this project. This financial guarantee is intended to cover the costs of restoration of failed or railing soil erosion and sedimentation controls, and/or to remedy damages resulting from land-disturbing activities, should the responsible party or parties fail to provide prompt and effective remedies acceptable to the Town. A stipulation is included in Resolution A to this effect.

Erosion Control: We recommend that a Soil and Erosion Control Plan for the site be approved by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This stipulation is included in Resolution A.

UTILITY AND SERVICE ISSUES

Utilities: The applicant states that no additional utilities are required. Phase I expansion plans included the requirements for utilities in the Phase II expansion. We recommend that the plans clearly locate and identify all existing and any future utility lines, including proposed electric, phone lines and three-phase power lines on the Site Plan. A stipulation is included in Resolution A that all existing and proposed utility lines be identified and labeled.

Section 14.10 of the Development Ordinance requires that all utility lines, other than lines used only to transmit electricity between generating stations or substations and three-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be placed underground. This section also requires that all surface disruptions required for installation shall be rehabilitated to the original or an improved condition. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect.

Fire Safety: We recommend that the applicant submit a fire flow report prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of North Carolina, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. A stipulation has been included in Resolution A to this effect.

We recommend that the proposed fire department connections and the hydrant (existing and proposed), locations be labeled in relation to the fire department connections. This stipulation has been included in Resolution A.

Solid Waste: An agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in March, 2000 allows the University to provide their own
solid waste service. We recommend that the applicant clearly identify and describe on the plans the solid waste collection areas.

SUMMARY

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

(a) That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

(b) That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provision so Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations;

(c) That the use or development is locate, 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; and

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

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

CONCLUSION

Based on information available at this stage of the application review process, we believe that the proposal, with the conditions in Resolution A, meets the requirements of the applicable section of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual and that the proposal fulfills the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

Resolution A would approve the application with conditions.

Resolution D would deny the application the application.

Project Fact Sheet Requirements Check List of Regulations and Standards

Special Use Permit Modification Application

THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER
THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER	Compliance	Non-Compliance
Use Permitted	Ö
Min. Gross Land Area	Ö
Min. Lot Width	Ö
Max. Floor Area	Ö
Min. Outdoor Space	Ö
Min. Livability Space	Ö
Min. Recreation Space	N/A
Impervious Surface Limits	Ö
Min. # Parking Spaces	Ö
Min. # Loading Spaces	N/A
Max. # Dwelling Units	N/A
Min. Street Setback	Ö
Min. Interior Setback	Ö
Min. Solar Setback	Ö
Max. Height Limit	Ö
Min. Landscape Buffers	Ö
5-Foot Planting Strip Requirement	Ö
Parking Lot Screening	Ö
Parking Lot Shading Requirement	Ö (with condition)
Public Water and Sewer	Ö
Underground Utility Lines	Ö

N/A = Not Applicable Prepared: June 17, 2002