AGENDA #7.1
TO: Chapel Hill Town Council
FROM: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf
SUBJECT: Draft Response to University Regarding Development Issues
DATE: March 26, 2001
The purpose of this memorandum is to propose a response to University officials, replying to a set of suggestions made by Chancellor Moeser in his March 7, 2001, letter. A copy of the Chancellor’s letter is attached, along with other materials.
I suggest that the Town Council endorse the attached response and authorize me to transmit it to the University on behalf of the Town Council. In this memorandum, I summarize the background and context for this correspondence, and highlight key points in my suggested response. Before doing that, however, I would like to make a few observations about this process and this proposal.
The issues before Town and Gown today are large and complex. There is understandable community concern and interests in how we proceed and the decisions we reach. I can think of no better method of resolving these large questions than the joint committee discussions that the Chancellor and I initiated. Both the Town and the University are proceeding in good faith, and I believe we all want outcomes that are positive for both the University community and the whole community.
As one demonstration of our good faith, this set of materials clearly responds to the Chancellor’s call for timely consideration of projects approved by the recent bond issue. Those projects are not conceptual plans; they have been funded by the state’s voters. I particularly thank and commend members of the Mayor’s committee and our Town Manager, Town Attorney and Planning Director for their hard work in recent days to develop these proposals.
To the Council and to all citizens following this process, I emphasize that these are proposals for the Town to put forward in the negotiation process. Though our Town-Gown meetings are open to the public, they are negotiations. The sooner we can address specific, detailed options, the sooner we can accomplish the work that everyone expects of us.
This documents puts forward a proposed new development ordinance for the main campus for consideration; however, we all must remember that municipalities cannot adopt such ordinances without a public hearing and planning board review. As a companion agreement to regulatory adjustments, we offer here a new paradigm for cost sharing.
These documents address but do not recommend solutions to two University requests. Regarding the request for a modification of the Smith Center Special Use Permit, we explain that a legal process exists for seeking that amendment. We certainly need to follow our own laws in this instance and address that request through the proper process.
Regarding the proposed new access road to South Campus, we note that the Council has not had an opportunity to evaluate that proposal and weigh it against our other transportation priorities that compete for funding. Recently the Chancellor sent us an extremely informative set of transportation analyses conducted as part of the University’s new master plan, and we will be reviewing those carefully.
As you know, the University has been working on a Master Plan for development of the main campus and the Horace Williams tract. The Council received briefings on these plans, most recently a February 5, 2001 presentation on the Horace Williams tract. Last week the University’s Board of Trustees approved the Master Plan for the main campus.
On October 23, 2000, I reported to the Council that I intended to appoint a Mayor’s committee to begin a process of identifying and addressing issues of mutual concern for the Town and the University. Subsequently, I appointed Mayor pro tem Pavão and Council Members Foy and Strom to serve with me. We have conducted two meetings with Chancellor Moeser and members of his staff.
At the last meeting, there was agreement that the University would prepare a statement articulating specific requests to the Town of Chapel Hill, and that the Town would prepare a similar statement of requests to the University. Chancellor Moeser’s March 7 letter is the University statement. Attached here is a draft of what I suggest we send as a statement of Town requests.
I propose that this statement of Town interests be structured as follows:
With these thoughts in mind, I offer four attached documents for the Council’s consideration. The first is a draft narrative statement that would summarize the Town’s interests and requests. Next is a statement of Town and community concerns, titled “Addressing Costs and Mitigating Problems.” The statement discusses both current situations and costs, and anticipated costs resulting from growth. Third is an outline for a possible new zoning district that could be applied to University property in the context of agreement on a development plan, offered in response to the general request for relief from substantive and procedural development regulation. Last is a response to specific issues raised in Chancellor Moeser’s March 7 letter. I propose that we transmit these four pieces to the Chancellor for consideration, presentation at our March 29 meeting and further discussion.
I recommend that our proposal to the University be as follows: If agreement can be reached on a development plan and on sharing costs to mitigate the community impacts resulting from that plan, then the Town would be in a position, after following legally required steps, to adjust the regulatory environment to help facilitate implementation of the development plan.
Draft Statement to Chancellor Moeser (p. 4).
to
The Chapel Hill Town Council has followed with great interest discussions that have begun in the context of a new Town-Gown forum: a Mayor’s Committee, appointed by Mayor Waldorf, meeting with a delegation of University officials headed by Chancellor Moeser. The Council appreciates the opportunity for discussion of issues key to both the University and the Chapel Hill community.
At the last meeting of this group, there was agreement that the University would prepare a statement articulating specific requests to the Town of Chapel Hill, and that the Town would prepare a similar statement of requests to the University. We understand that Chancellor Moeser’s March 7, 2001 letter to Mayor Waldorf is the University response to this agreement. This statement contains the Town Council’s ideas.
Our approach to considering these issues related to University growth and development can be summarized as follows:
We believe that the University’s development plans ultimately must be considered as a whole, that the effects of development are cumulative, and that the impacts of development in one part of the campus may have a limiting effect on what can be developed elsewhere, because of cumulative community impacts.
Nevertheless, we are here to propose a process that would allow the University to carry out the projects that it has said it must construct in the next 7-10 years. We recognize that those projects include a number that are not a part of the bond issue, but that the University has said it needs.
We bring forward our proposal with the expectation that the University will provide information that we need to understand impacts on the community, and that the University will work to address the adverse impacts. We also bring it forward with the understanding that other projects on the main campus, the south campus, the Mason Farm lands and the Horace Williams tract eventually will be proposed for construction by the University. The impacts of what is developed in the next 7-10 years will affect what the community can bear in later years.
We believe that discussion of these issues is timely and desirable. A series of attachments offers details on the ideas raised above. The first is a statement of fiscal concerns, titled “Addressing Costs and Mitigating Problems.” The statement discusses both current situations and costs, and anticipated costs resulting from growth. Next is an outline for a possible new zoning district that could be applied to University property in the context of agreement on a development plan. Last is a response to specific issues raised in Chancellor Moeser’s March 7 letter.
We believe that the interests of both the community and the University would be served by an agreement that will establish the framework for a mutually beneficial long-term working relationship. We look forward to working with the University to develop such an agreement through continued discussions and the free exchange of ideas.
We look forward to the University’s consideration of these ideas.
ATTACHMENTS
1. State of Town and Community Concerns: Addressing Costs and Mitigating Problems, A New approach to Town-University Relationships” (p. 7).
ATTACHMENT 1
ADDRESSING COSTS AND MITIGATING PROBLEMS
A NEW APPROACH TO TOWN-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS
We believe that the large scale of development proposed by the University for its main campus and the Horace Williams tract makes it imperative that a new agreement be reached between the Town and the University to fairly address the costs and mitigate the adverse impacts that will come with the development. We also believe that the University must recognize and address problems and costs imposed on the community by its present operations.
The sections below describe a variety of steps that, if taken, would lead toward equitable treatment of the community and the Town by the University. Some of the measures outlined are broad policy initiatives having long-term effects. Others focus on details of community life.
For the purpose of this working paper, the term “University” is meant to include UNC Hospitals, unless otherwise specified. The term “campus” is meant to include the University’s main campus, the south campus, the Mason Farm lands, and the Horace Williams tract.
HISTORY OF TOWN-UNIVERSITY FISCAL RELATIONSHIPS
The Town and the University have a history of cost sharing that dates back at least to the 1920’s. Much of that history is outlined in a 1998 draft paper prepared for the Town-University Task Force on Fiscal Relationships, which reports in part:
· As early as the mid 1920’s the University contributed to the cost of Town services by paying half the cost of a fire truck.
· The University paid half the costs of a Town-owned sewage treatment plant constructed in 1931.
· During the 1930’s, the University provided the Town various services free of charge from the University-owned electricity, telephone, and water systems.
· In 1936, the University also paid $6,121 to support police and fire services.
· In 1937, a “University-Town Committee” met to consider such mutual problems as traffic, police patrols, and financing. After deliberation, the committee recommended that “the exchange of services between the Town and the University be placed on a business basis.”
· The agreement negotiated in 1937 was to serve as the basis for University-town fiscal cooperation for the next 35 years.
· Beginning about 1970, the three decades-old policy of cost sharing began to change.
· The Town’s financial audit records show that University payments to support Town police and fire operations ended with the 1972-73 fiscal year. Other town records indicate that University payments for general services declined to $26,167 in 1975-76…and that the University did not…make payments (thereafter).
Today, the Town annually receives $850,000 from the State for fire protection services; the University provides certain services for itself (including refuse collection and on-campus police services); and, the Town leases land from the University for its public works and transit facilities at the rate of $1.00 per year. The University also purchases certain transit services from the Town, as does the Town of Carrboro.
STEPS TOWARD EQUITABLE TREATMENT
General infrastructure needed to support University development.
It is obvious that proposed development of University land will generate off-site infrastructure needs.
Parking will be limited on campus so park-ride lots and decks will be needed at the edge of the community. Water and wastewater treatment demands will require enlargement of existing and construction of new facilities. Existing roadways in some areas may be inadequate to carry expected traffic at acceptable operating levels. There will be a need for sidewalks and other pedestrian system improvements, as well as improved bicycle facilities. Existing storm water facilities, already inadequate to meet modern standards, will need to be reconstructed and new control facilities will need to be built to address both quality and quantity issues. Traffic control systems will need to be expanded, adjusted, and made more sophisticated in order to allow the most efficient management of new traffic volumes.
As a matter of general principle, we believe that the University, rather than the community, should pay the costs of off-site improvements that are necessitated by development on the University’s property.
· We request that the University agree to pay the costs of off-site infrastructure improvements necessitated principally by development on the University’s property.
Private development on University property.
The University has stated that it intends to promote partnerships with the private sector at the Horace Williams tract, to bring complementary resources and create opportunities for both faculty and students. Such private development will generate service demands that the Town must meet on the site (e.g. fire protection, bus service) and service demands throughout the community (e.g. recreation facilities, traffic law enforcement).
The UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel final report of January 13, 1997 was submitted to the University with the request that the report become a reference document to be included with the University’s plans and used as any future development is contemplated on the Horace Williams and Mason Farm properties. The section of the report on fiscal goals and principles includes a statement that all new development at the Horace Williams site should be revenue neutral or positive to the Town.
Earlier, in a letter dated January 25, 1996 Michael Hooker, Chancellor of the University, stated:
“For future University development on the Horace Williams and the Mason Farm tracts, the University agrees generally to support to the extent feasible and permitted by law the Town’s goal of recovering the capital and operating costs of municipal services required by and directly provided to University development.”
We are concerned that the service load created by the large-scale development anticipated by the University could create a substantial cost burden for the rest of the community. While University land and buildings used to further the University’s academic and service missions are, of course, exempt from taxes, we believe that there would be a basic unfairness if the University allowed private businesses to build facilities and carry out enterprises on public land in a manner that allowed them to escape taxation to which they otherwise would have been subject.
· We request that the University cause any private development or commercial operation on the Horace Williams tract (or other part of the campus) to pay taxes customarily paid for the support of Town government and local schools by any similar development or operation when it occurs on private property, or to pay an equivalent amount in lieu of taxes.
· Further, we request that the University cause the owner or occupant of any private development on University land to make a payment in lieu of taxes that would be equivalent to the amount of tax that would be assessed against the land if the land were taxable.
Properties owned or leased by the University in off-campus areas.
The University now owns or leases a significant number of properties inside the corporate limits of Chapel Hill that are in off-campus areas. The campus is defined for purposes here as the main campus, the Mason Farm tract and the Horace Williams tract.
Properties owned by the University are not taxable under North Carolina law. Off-campus properties owned by the University reduce the Town’s tax base.
In addition, University ownership and leasing of off-campus properties reduces developed space available for private business use. Adverse effects of such reduction include: loss of street-level retail locations in the downtown; loss of office space in several business districts; loss of business expansion space; and upward pressure on rents.
Faculty and staff housing.
The University is well aware of the difficulty that its staff and entry-level faculty have in finding housing that they can afford near their places of employment. The Town recognizes that its employees have the same difficulty.
A shared interest in addressing this problem brought representatives of the University and the Town together to work toward the development of employer-employee housing that could be afforded by employees because of subsidy. We continue to believe that development of such housing is feasible and desirable.
· We request that the University cooperate with the Town in development of employer-employee housing on suitable University or Town land in the downtown and on University land at the Horace Williams tract. We request that a formal agreement can be reached no later than the fall of this year.
We understand that the University may also wish to develop a range of housing for faculty at the Horace Williams tract in a manner that would be different from the proposed employer-employee housing program, perhaps to be used as a recruitment tool. We believe it would be reasonable for the University to make a payment in lieu of taxes to help pay for Town service demand generated by such housing.
· We request that the University make a payment in lieu of taxes to the Town for housing developed on the Horace Williams tract that is intended to meet needs different from the proposed employer-employee housing program.
·
As we understand it, Duke University raised funds as a part of their endowment campaign that were specifically earmarked for development of affordable housing. We ask that the University consider a similar approach.
· We request that the University consider earmarking funds raised through the endowment campaign for development of affordable housing.
Student housing.
The University has stated its intent to provide a “bed for every head”, at least for growth in the number of undergraduate students. We applaud this policy and challenge the University to provide additional student housing to relieve the pressure on the small amount of moderate-cost housing near the campus that remains in family occupancy. This would also serve to reduce traffic and parking problems in neighborhoods and have other positive affects on residential areas near the University. We are concerned particularly that housing in the Northside neighborhood too frequently is being converted from family to student occupancy. We believe the University should address the present deficit of student housing on the campus, not just the anticipated future deficit.
· We request that the University construct 1,000 additional units of student housing on the campus (south campus, Horace Williams tract, or some other part of the campus) in addition to the number of units that would be need to provide a bed for every projected additional undergraduate head.
Recreation facilities for University students.
We believe that it is important for the University to provide adequate recreation facilities for students and that recreation facilities should be appropriately expanded to meet the needs of the student body as total enrollment grows. If the University fails to provide adequate facilities for its students, then the load on the Town’s recreation and park facilities will increase.
· We request that the University provide additional recreational facilities for students to meet the needs of an expanded student enrollment.
The Horace Williams tract lease.
In March 1977, the Council of State approved the lease of a 24-acre tract of land at the University’s Horace Williams Airport property to the Town for development of a public works facility, bus garage and other municipal uses. The charge for the lease was $1.00 per year.
The lease will expire on December 31, 2006. Town officials have requested extension of the lease on several occasions over the past several years. In prior years, University officials have stated that they would recommend a two-year extension of the lease; however, no extension has been granted to date. In addition, it is clear from the University’s plans for development of the Horace Williams tract that the Town’s municipal facilities will not be allowed to remain. Therefore, the Town is in the process of seeking to acquire other land that may be developed as a replacement facility.
The lease agreement states that the University may, at the expiration of the lease, require the Town to remove, at the Town’s expense, any improvements constructed on the leased premised by the Town. Further, the lease states that any improvements not removed at the request of the University shall become the property of the University.
The Town Council and Chancellor Michael Hooker appointed a Task Force on Fiscal Relationships in 1997. In its 1999 final report, the task force noted that the estimated value of the Horace Williams property lease was then $348,000 annually. The report also stated that this contribution should be taken into account in any balancing of costs and payments between the Town and the University and noted that a reasonable balance then existed in regard to a list of key services.
If the University is to take credit for the market value of the annual lease in its calculation of the balance of costs and payments for various services provided by the Town, it would seem unreasonable that it also would claim the full value of the improvements developed by the Town at the Horace Williams site by taking them without compensation at the end of the lease.
Additionally, we note the financial burden that will be imposed on Town taxpayers by the necessity of the Town purchasing land and developing a replacement facility in a short period.
We also are concerned about the difficulty that we may encounter in getting federal and State assistance for purchasing land and building a replacement transit operations facility; and, we point out that both the University and the Town of Carrboro will have to join in paying for the new facility as partners in the bus system.
· We request that the University extend the Town’s lease at the Horace Williams site for 10 years so that the Town will have a reasonable opportunity to plan, finance, and develop replacement public works and transit facilities.
· We request that the University not require the Town to demolish improvements at the end of the lease, but that such demolition be included in the cost of future projects developed at the site. (Here, we note especially that the University has indicated that much of the development will be paid for by the private sector.)
· We request that the University pay the Town the fair market value of any improvements on the site that it chooses to use rather than abandon at the time the Town relocates its operations.
School Sites.
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system recently went through a process to identify potential sites for future schools. There are few available and, as development continues, the importance of preserving potential sites will increase.
The number of new employees likely to be associated with the University’s planned development will generate demand for additional housing. Construction of additional housing will contribute toward the ultimate build-out of the land remaining in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban service area. The University also plans to build new housing on the Horace Williams tract.
New housing eventually will mean new students in the schools, and new schools will be needed to house them. Because of the scarcity of suitable land, we believe it would be reasonable for the University to provide sites for an elementary and middle school on the Horace Williams tract or other University property.
· We request that the University provide sites for construction of elementary and middle schools on the Horace Williams tract or on other University property.
Fire protection service and first-responder medical service.
The University receives fire protection service and first-responder medical service from the Town in the same manner as they are provided to all other properties inside the corporate limits of Chapel Hill.
The Town has received varying levels of compensation for fire protection services for a number of years, through payments made by the State and through contributions for equipment made directly by the University. The level of compensation provided by the State and the University seldom has equaled the level of cost incurred by the Town for fire protection services provided to the University.
There has been no compensation from the University for first-responder medical service provided by the Town.
We believe that the University should pay its fair share of fire protection service costs. The need for fire protection services is determined largely by the amount of property exposed to particular types of fire hazards within a specified area. The value of University properties as a proportion of the total value of all properties within the Town limits can be determined with reasonable effort and reliability.
· We request that the University pay the Town annually for its fair share of fire protection service cost. The cost assessed to the University would be based on the value of University properties as a proportion of the total value of all properties within the Town limits.
· We further request that the amount to be paid be adjusted annually based on this formula.
We believe that the cost of providing first-responder medical service could be separately calculated, but that it would be reasonable to include such cost in the assessment for fire protection service.
Transit Services.
The University relies upon the Town-operated bus system for transportation of many students, faculty, staff and visitors to and from campus.
Net local costs of operating the bus system now are shared among the Town of Chapel Hill, the University and the Town of Carrboro based on what is known as the “population formula”. The population formula counts population for the two towns as the latest annual population figures published by the Office of State Planning. For the University, population is the total of all registered students, plus full-time and part-time faculty and staff. Net local cost of transit services is shared in the same proportions as the population that each local partner represents of the total population derived under the population formula.
In the spring of 2000, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and University representatives proposed a fare-free bus system in which the University would have paid the full costs of fixed-route services that are used almost exclusively by University students, faculty, and staff. Specifically, these services were routes on the campus and express services from park-and-ride lots. Each of the transit partners would have shared in the remaining costs based on the population formula. The proposal was not adopted.
We believe it is reasonable for the University to pay the full net local costs of bus services that are provided principally to transport University students, faculty, staff and visitors to and from park-ride lots and the campus and to and from University facilities.
· We request that the University pay the net local cost of present and future transit services that are provided principally to transport University students, faculty, staff to and from park-ride lots and the campus and to and from University facilities.
Park-ride lots.
The Town has developed park-ride lots with substantial financial assistance from the federal government and support of the State, the Town of Carrboro and the University. The principal purpose of the park-and-ride lots is to meet the commuting needs of University students, faculty, staff, and visitors. We note that the category of visitors includes persons attending events at the Smith Center and Kenan Stadium.
Last week the University provided the Town information about its projection of parking and transportation needs for the next 5-7 years and in relation to its master plan. As of this writing, we have not had time to evaluate the information provided; however, it appears from the University’s discussion with the Town that there will be a greater reliance on park-ride lots in coming years. We understand that the University will not be able to meet demand for parking on the campus, and that thousands of students, faculty, staff and visitors will have little choice except to use park-ride lots and the transit system. (We recognize that needs of UNC Hospitals are different because of patient needs.)
It will be necessary to develop additional park-ride facilities, including other locations and creation of parking structures to meet the University’s needs. We believe it is reasonable for the University to pay the local share of costs for development and maintenance of all park-ride facilities, because they exist now and will in the future principally for the University’s benefit.
· We request that the University pay the local share of costs for development and maintenance of park-ride facilities that principally benefit the University, including present and future facilities.
Storm water management utility.
Most of the land in the Town and much of the University’s property was developed over a 200 year period without substantial concern for controlling storm water runoff quantity and quality. The needs for management of storm water were not as well understood in prior years as they are today.
The magnitude of proposed additional development on the University’s properties could result in significant additional storm water runoff problems unless the University manages development to hold runoff to present levels. We also think that it is desirable to mitigate current storm water runoff problems that stem from the University’s existing development.
The Town is working toward the creation of a storm water management utility that would generate funds necessary to pay for mitigation of existing storm water management problems through construction of quantity and quality control systems.
· We request that the University join with the Town in creation of a storm water management utility that not only would address storm water runoff problems but that also would be a leader in advancing the state of the art of storm water management.
· We request that the University commit to pay its fair share of the costs of operating a storm water management utility, paying for research and engineering, and funding capital improvements through an acreage fee, or other fee structure as ultimately adopted by the utility, similar to that which would be charged to other landowners, or an equivalent sum as a payment in lieu of such fee.
· We request that the University control total storm water runoff on new development so that present total runoff levels and quality do not worsen.
Refuse Collection Service
The University has for many years engaged private contractors to collect, transport, and dispose of solid waste generated at its facilities. We believe such a practice is reasonable and that it should apply to all new facilities, as well.
· We request that the University continue to engage private contractors to collect, transport and dispose of solid waste generated at its existing facilities and at any new facilities.
Maintenance of on-campus streets.
The Town maintains certain streets (e.g. Cameron Avenue, Raleigh Street, Ridge Road, Friday Center Drive, Airport Drive, and others) having segments that go through and principally serve the University campus. Such street segments function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties rather than as through streets.
· We request that the University maintain all on-campus street segments that function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties.
Traffic signal system maintenance.
Traffic signals on the campus are maintained by the Town. In the case of signals that are on State roads, such as South Columbia Street, the State Department of Transportation reimburses much of the cost of signal maintenance. In the case of signals that are not on State Roads, such as Raleigh Street, the Town now pays the costs of signal maintenance.
We believe that it would be reasonable for the University to pay the cost of maintaining traffic signals that are not on the State road system and that are on campus or on streets that function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties.
The Town maintains traffic signals for the Town of Carrboro on a contract basis, with Carrboro paying a proportional share (based on the number of signals) of total costs incurred for signal system maintenance.
· We request that the University contract with the Town to pay the costs of maintaining traffic signals that are not on the State road system and that are on campus or on streets that function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties.
Basketball victory celebrations.
With increasing frequency, University students and fans of the University’s basketball teams have conducted disruptive and costly celebrations on Franklin Street and environs in downtown Chapel Hill. The Town has received little assistance from the University in past years in planning for, controlling and cleaning-up after these events.
We are grateful for the recent offers of assistance from the University and look forward to working with University staff in the future.
Costs of victory celebrations include outlays for employee overtime work, rental of equipment, replacement of damaged landscape materials, removal of trash and other costs. The range of costs varies by the nature of the event, from a few thousand dollars for a “Beat Dook” celebration to as much as $75,000 or more if the Tar Heels win the national championship.
It is unquestionable that the basketball program has a business element to it. The basketball victory celebrations are a cost of doing business that the Town should not have to pay.
· We request that the University continue its new policy of collaborating with the Town in planning for, controlling and cleaning-up after basketball victory celebrations.
· We request the University reimburse the Town for all out-of-pocket costs of such basketball victory celebrations.
Football Games.
Systems are in place for management of most of the traffic and parking control problems associated with University football games. There still are a few neighborhoods in which fans of the University’s football team will park their cars and take up all of the spaces normally used by neighbors, unless the Town barricades the neighborhood entrance and posts parking monitors at the sites.
Clearly, there is an element of business in the football program, and this is a business expense that we believe the University should pay.
· We request that the University pay the costs of neighborhood parking control necessitated by football games.
Parking meters on certain streets.
Over a long period, a de facto agreement has been reached between the University and the Town that the University is allowed to regulate parking on certain street segments bordering the University (e.g., Country Club Road) and obtain the revenue associated with such regulation. The Town is authorized by statute to regulate parking on such street segments, and the University may do so if the Town chooses not to do so, as we understand it.
The streets and the associated parking areas are maintained by the Town, in some cases, and by the State in others. We believe it is time to reconsider the present arrangements.
· We request that the Chancellor authorize the appropriate University official to meet with the Town Manager or his representative to review options for parking regulation on street segments bordering the University, including the options of Town regulation, shared enforcement, revenue sharing, and maintenance cost sharing.
On-street parking regulation in neighborhoods adjacent to the campus.
The demand for parking on and near the University campus is so strong that the Town must post signs, issue permits to residents, and employ staff to regulate parking in neighborhoods adjacent the campus and in certain areas adjacent bus stops that have direct transit connections to the University.
We recognize that the University cannot prevent its students, staff, faculty, or visitors from seeking to park in such areas; however, we believe it would be reasonable for the University to pay the costs of enforcing parking regulations in such areas.
· We request that the University pay the costs of enforcing parking regulations in neighborhoods adjacent the campus and in other neighborhoods where it is demonstrated that neighborhood parking near bus stops is generated principally by University students, faculty, staff and visitors.
Storage of student cars.
A significant number of students bring cars to the community and do not have a place to store them that is both secure and convenient to reach at all times. In many cases such vehicles end up being stored in residential neighborhoods and obtained for use on week-ends and other occasions, while the students regularly use the bus system, walk or bike to class. Storage of student vehicles in residential neighborhoods creates unwanted parking in some areas.
· We request that the University provide free and secure storage lots for student vehicles that are well served by public transit or special University transit.
Registration of student vehicles.
Thousands of students bring vehicles to the community each year. The students who live in the community use the streets and other public facilities for much of the year, in the same manner as residents. Many of the vehicles brought to Town by students are not registered locally and, therefore; do not pay the Town motor vehicle registration fee that other residents of the community pay annually.
In those cases in which the University issues parking permits to students who reside on campus or elsewhere in the Town, we believe it would be reasonable for the University to require proof of payment of the local car registration fee or to collect an equivalent fee and transmit it to the Town. If legislation is needed to permit such a practice, we believe it should be sought.
· We request that the University require proof of payment of the Town motor vehicle registration fee, or collect an equivalent fee for transmittal to the Town, at the time of issuing any parking permit to a student in residence in the community.
· If the University believes that legislation would be needed to permit the above practice, we request that the University take the lead in seeking it.
Hotel/motel occupancy taxes.
Several years ago, the Town gained from the General Assembly the authority to levy an occupancy tax on receipts from rental of hotel/motel rooms. A principal purpose of the tax is to obtain revenue from visitors to help pay the costs of services from which they benefit while in the community. Certain occupancies in University lodging are exempt from the occupancy tax, because of the University’s tax-exempt status.
· We request that the University assess the occupancy tax against all occupancies at University lodging facilities, treating the payment for occupancies which are formally exempt as a payment in lieu of taxes.
ATTACHMENT 2
POTENTIAL NEW ZONING DISTRICT:
OFFICE-INSTITUTIONAL-4
The Town of Chapel Hill, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, regulates the location, intensity, and form of new development within Chapel Hill’s Town limits and zoning jurisdiction. For the main campus of UNC, the zoning district that has been assigned to most of the property is Office-Institutional-3 (OI-3).
OI-3 is a zoning district that was created in 1981, expressly for the purpose of application to University property. The zoning district carries with it a Floor Area Ratio, limiting the amount of floor area that may be built on the property to a ratio based on land area. One of the unique features of the OI-3 district is that it is the only zoning district in Chapel Hill that does not establish maximum height limits. (An exception is the creation of a 100-foot “transition” area, wherever University abuts residential area, wherein the height limit mirrors that of the adjacent residential zoning district.)
The current application of the OI-3 Floor Area Ratios on the main campus limits the amount of building space to approximately 14,000,000 square feet of floor area. The current amount of existing and approved floor area on campus is 13,731,333. The University has indicated long term plans for adding approximately 5.5 million square feet of buildings to the main campus. Short-term plans (7-10 year time frame) call for additions that would bring the total to approximately 16,500,000, about 2.5 million square feet more than current zoning would allow.
Following is a proposal for creation of a new zoning district, OI-4, that might be considered as a replacement for the current OI-3 zoning of the main campus. This proposal assumes that agreement can be reached on matters of dealing with community impacts and fiscal issues related to growth. That is, as a prerequisite to the Council considering creating an OI-4 district of this design and applying it to the central campus, it is assumed that agreement between the Town and the University has been reached on the University’s plans for development on the central campus (both in terms of quantity and location).
Given those starting points, here is an outline for a new OI-4 Zoning District.
Permitted Uses: Same as the current OI-3.
Perimeter Sub-Zones of O-I 4 District: A 200-foot wide perimeter sub-zone shall be established on University property around the entire perimeter of the main campus. This would be of a nature similar to the current 100-foot “transition” area currently included in the OI-3 zone, and also be similar to the existing 200-foot buffer area that exists currently along Mason Farm Road.
Land Use Intensities: The current Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for OI-3, for university-type uses, is .566, allowing a maximum floor area on central campus of about 14,000,000 square feet. If this ratio were set at .677 for OI-4, that would allow approximately 16,225,000 million square feet to be built on the central campus. (For sake of comparison, the Floor Area Ratio for institutional-type uses in our Community Commercial zone is .429; in our Town Center zone it is 1.84).
We believe it is desirable for the University to construct additional (not just replacement) housing for students, staff and faculty. Therefore, in the OI-4 zone, we would propose that additional housing constructed on the campus not be counted in determining compliance with the floor area ratio limit.
With the adjustment for additional housing FAR for OI-4 would allow construction of the University’s 7-10 year development plan. There shall be no height limits in the OI-4 district except in perimeter sub-zones (see above), wherein the height limit shall be the same as whatever zoning establishes for the adjacent, non-OI-4 area. This proposed absence of height restriction for the interior portions of an OI-4 district on the central campus is similar to the current OI-3 district.
Standards: For the OI-4 district, outside of the perimeter sub-zone, standards related to parking, utilities, buffers, storm water management, impervious surface, recreation requirements, and access/circulation shall be established and confirmed with approval of a development plan (see “Process,” below). For areas within the designated perimeter sub-zone, special standards shall be established related to building uses, height, landscaping, and placement of peripheral equipment such as HVAC units.
Process: State statutes require that State buildings comply with local zoning ordinances. There must be a mechanism for demonstrating such compliance when new buildings are to be built.
This new OI-4 district will contain a provision for Town Council approval of a Development Plan, addressing issues such as location and size of new facilities, parking, utilities, buffers, storm water management, impervious surface, recreation requirements, and access/circulation. For development within this new OI-4 district, in areas for which the Town Council has approved a Development Plan, the process for demonstrating compliance with Chapel Hill’s zoning regulations shall be as follows:
1. For interior areas of campus, not in a perimeter sub-zone: No further review shall be required from the Town of Chapel Hill, as long as proposed construction is consistent with a Development Plan that has been approved by the Town Council. Copies of schedules and plans for future construction shall be provided to the Town on a regular basis. Upon submittal of plans for new development to the Town Manager, Zoning Compliance Permits shall be issued within 15 working days. Copies of as-built drawings showing new development shall be provided to the Town as facilities are completed.
2. For perimeter sub-zones covered by an approved Master Plan: Plans for development shall be submitted to the Town Manager prior to construction. Plans shall be checked against the approved Development Plan for compliance with regulations governing use, building height, and landscaping. Notice of application shall be mailed to property owners within 500 of the proposed new development. Approval of a Zoning Compliance Permit shall be by the Planning Board, as a Site Plan Review. Typical time frames would be 3-4 months from application to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
3. For any areas not covered by an approved Development Plan: Development of new buildings in the OI-4 zone smaller than 20,000 square feet in size, with land disturbance less than 20,000 square feet, shall be permitted uses with approval by the Planning Board as Site Plan Review. Any development in the OI-4 zone larger than 20,000 square feet, or with more than 40,000 square feet of land area, for areas not covered by an approved Development Plan shall be classified as a special use, requiring a Special Use Permit process.
ATTACHMENT 3 CAN BE VIEWED AT THE TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE OR THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY.