MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director  David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Coordinator George Small, Engineering Director Kumar Neppalli, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT:	Follow-up Report: Development Activity in the Northern Area
DATE:	March 26, 2007

PURPOSE

This memorandum provides a follow-up report to the March 7, 2007 Council work session concerning development activity in the north and northwest areas of Chapel Hill. The report summarizes the issues discussed and identifies alternative actions the Council could take to address the issues.

Recommended Actions:

• Resolution A establishes a task force to provide the Council with recommendations managing the future development of the Northern Area. We recommend this action.
• Resolution B calls a Public Hearing for a downzoning of the property, which is the subject of the University Station Concept Plan. We recommend this action.

Alternative Options:

• Resolution C directs the Town Manager to provide a follow-up report outlining the implications of downzoning or rezoning developable property without vested rights along the corridor of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Eubanks Road, including staffing workload and resource considerations. We do not recommend this action.
• Resolution D calls a Public Hearing for a development moratorium for the Northern Area. We do not recommend this action.

BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2007, the Council held a work session to review development activity in the north and northwest areas of Chapel Hill. This work session provided a comprehensive overview of development activity and planning efforts occurring in northern Chapel Hill and in the Chapel Hill/Orange County Joint Planning Transitional Area. The intended outcome was to provide information that the Council and citizens could use to:  1) understand the scope and impacts of development activity occurring and/or proposed in this area of Town; 2) learn about planning efforts and opportunities intended to manage growth in this area; and 3) consider alternative directions (Attachment 1).

The Council indicated its area of concern as that area north of Homestead Road, east of the railroad, south of I-40, and west of Carol Woods (referred to as the Northern Area in this memorandum). Please see Attachment 2 for a location map. The Rogers Road Small Area Plan is a separate planning effort underway which is focused on the Rogers Road neighborhood to the west of the NC railroad corridor.

DISCUSSION

The following key issues were identified by the Council at the work session. Staff comment and suggested actions are provided with a discussion of each issue:

Aesthetics/Sense of Place/Establishing a Vision for the Area:

Several Council members noted that Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and its intersection with Weaver Dairy Road are a key entranceway into Chapel Hill.  These Council members believed that the current character and appearance of this area is not consistent with the stated goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Comments included:

• The design of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and Weaver Dairy Road and adjacent development should provide those entering the Town a clear indication that they have entered Chapel Hill.
• Both the design of the roadway and development should also act to slow vehicle speeds and support safe pedestrian activity.
• Existing buildings were set too far from the street and piecemeal development contributed negatively to the area’s character and appearance.
• Development should be better integrated to maximize accessibility to the community.
• A preference for site designs that emphasize urban rather than suburban proposals.

As an outgrowth of the observations about the character and appearance of the area, the Council expressed the need to establish what its vision is for the area and what character and appearance it wished to see. Council members indicated that the land use patterns in the area should reflect Chapel Hill’s desire to implement transit oriented development along major transit corridors such as Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and Weaver Dairy Road.  In particular, Council members suggested that the design and appearance of development within these corridors should reflect a distinctive Chapel Hill character.

Specific discussions focused on:

• The intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Weaver Dairy Road. The Town owns Fire Station 4 on the southwest quadrant and should consider the appearance and future of that property in relation to the property adjacent to the south.
• Development Opportunity Sites: A Council member suggested that the Town should be more specific about what it envisions for Development Opportunity Sites. For example, the Town should provide more detailed guidance.
• A Council member expressed concern that some of the development opportunity sites contain affordable housing that is an important resource.

Comment:  We believe the development of a vision statement for this area could address the issues identified above. If the Council decides to appoint a Task force, the development of a vision statement could be part of the charge of the Task force.

Street Design/Walkability and Bikeability:

Integral to the issue of appearance, Council members noted that the current design of this area was too auto-oriented and hostile to alternate modes of transportation. General comments included the following:

• The design of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is unsatisfactory. This is because the street design caters to high traffic volumes, causes physical separation of the community and allows high vehicle speeds. The design makes it difficult for pedestrians to cross and is uninviting for bicyclists.
• Vehicles need to slow down. This is also a problem with other arterial streets in the Town.
• Alternative traffic management solutions to road widening are desired.

• The roadway network should provide alternative route options for traffic to avoid concentration within a single corridor.
• For new development, additional street connectivity is needed to provide vehicles with alternate routes; also, the width of streets should be minimized for pedestrians to cross easily.

Specific comments and suggestions included:

• The current five lane cross section of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is aesthetically unsatisfactory and existing development does not relate to the road.

• A median break and signalized crossing should be added in the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) proposed improvements to Weaver Dairy Road.
• The Town should review the advantages and disadvantages of requesting NCDOT removal of the NC 86 designation from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
• More pedestrian friendly street designs should be adopted for street corridors.
• A transit route or routes serving and circulating within the northern area should be established.
• An area wide traffic impact analysis should be prepared to understand what the impact would be of the approved and proposed developments on the streets and on street capacity.
• We should assess the ability of the Town to require pedestrian, bicycle and streetscape improvements from adjacent developments.

Comment:

The Council has the following key transportation evaluation initiatives under way:

• NC 86/Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and Town-Wide Pedestrian Safety Evaluation Study: In order to improve pedestrian mobility along and across NC 86/Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., the Town is currently completing an implementation study. The draft implementation study, which is based on the recommendations of the NC 86 Pedestrian Safety Report completed in 2005, is currently before the Council and was referred to advisory boards and commissions on February 26, 2007. The study identifies pedestrian improvements between I-40 and North Street. The implementation plan will be used to prioritize pedestrian safety improvements to be funded from approximately $200,000 in Surface Transportation Program Direct Allocation funds and Town Capital Improvement funds. It will also be used as a resource to work with NCDOT to secure short, medium and long term improvements to the corridor. If endorsed by NCDOT, it will be used as a template to secure other improvement to State-maintained street corridors throughout Town, including NC 54 and US 15-501.

• Chapel Hill-Carrboro Long Range Transit Plan: In order to implement the goals of the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan to encourage greater use of the public transit system, the Town, in collaboration with Carrboro and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have funded the development of a Long Range Transit Plan. The Plan will assess the impact of existing and anticipated development on travel patterns around the community and from outlying areas. The Plan will assess future transit needs to serve Chapel Hill, Carrboro and the University. The Plan will also be coordinated with ongoing efforts to evaluate and prioritize regional transit projects and the development of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan.

• Traffic Impact Studies: Developments which generate traffic over certain thresholds on a collector or local street are required by the Town to provide a traffic impact study as part of a development application. These analyses do not typically include a detailed assessment of transit, bicycle or pedestrian activity. Town staff is in the process of developing revisions to the Traffic Impact Study process in order to take into account recent legislation authorizing payments toward transit related improvements.

We believe these three key transportation evaluation initiatives provide important information that will help us make changes to address the concerns in this area.

We suggest that the suggestion that the Town request removing the NC 86 designation from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard could be the subject of a future report. If desired, we can return to the Council with a report identifying the advantages and disadvantages of changes to the status of this road.

Regulations and Incentives:

The Council discussed zoning as a tool to achieve its development vision. Discussion included the following ideas, comments and suggestions for possible short term and longer term actions:

• In the short term, rezone property, in particular eliminate multi-family residential as a use adjacent to I-40. Several Council members stated that allowing residential development adjacent to the Interstate was inappropriate, in particular because of noise impacts. It was suggested that alternate land uses such as office, institutional or industrial be considered.

• Consider downzoning property within the area having development potential. Down zone to low density residential as an interim step to provide the Council with greater leverage to encourage the type of development it wished to occur.

• In combination with a down zoning, find ways to express the character and appearance the Town actually wants to see in these locations, communicating to citizens and the development community that it is not the Council’s intent to restrict developments to low density residential uses.

• Consider an overlay zone or transit-oriented zone as a way to establish regulations to control the form of development the Town would expect to see.

Comment:

Eliminating multi-family residential use adjacent to the Interstate: Residential single-family and multi-family are currently permitted uses in all the general use zoning districts of the Land Use Management Ordinance except for the Industrial zoning district. Eliminating multi-family residential use from property adjacent to the Interstate would impact potential mixed-use developments at the intersection of I-40 and NC 86 as well as I-40 and US 15-501. There are currently many existing residential developments adjacent to I-40. An alternative approach may be to require noise attenuation to be provided as part of developments, or to restrict residential development within a specified distance of the highway unless it meets a noise attenuation standard. 

Down zoning: Downzoning existing property to a low density residential use would reduce the scope of development potential unless the property was later rezoned. The Council may wish to consider this downzoning action and encourage development with a rezoning to the new Mixed-Use-Village zoning district which promotes vertical mixed-use development in a transit-oriented fashion (such as the East 54 Development recently approved). With the downzoning of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands along NC 86 and I-40, the Council may be able to better leverage affordable housing and energy efficiency objectives.

Rezone to Mixed-Use Village District or Transit-Oriented Development District: Another option would be not to down zone property but to rezone to the Mixed-Use-Village zoning district or the Transit-Oriented Development District. As discussed in the visioning discussion above, the development of design standards for the Town’s Transit-Oriented Development District is one of the tasks for the consultant who has been engaged to prepare a comprehensive Long Range Transit Plan for Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

Create Non-Residential Zoning Classification: An additional option would be to create a new non-residential zoning classification, where residential use is not a permitted use. A new zone of this nature might allow office and institutional uses for example. The new classification would be suitable for major highway corridors where noise and air quality are concerns. It could then be applied, by rezoning, to undeveloped property along I-40.

Process:

We believe the Council confirmed that its area of interest was defined by the area depicted on Attachment 2; that is, the area north of Homestead Road, east of the NC railroad, south of I-40, and west of Carol Woods. The Council discussed the following options for next steps in responding to development activity in this northern area:

• Suspending consideration of new development proposals except development applications already before the Council.

• Appointing a task force to establish a vision for the area within six months.
• Enacting a downzoning or selective rezoning for the area.

Comment:

Provisions of a Moratorium:

It is the Town Attorney’s opinion that suspending consideration of new development proposals in the area is a moratorium and would be subject to statutory provisions including requirements to:

• expressly state the reasons for the moratorium and why other alternative actions are deemed to be inadequate;
• expressly state the scope and duration for the moratorium; and
• set forth an action plan to address the issues that led to the moratorium’s imposition.

Unless there is an imminent threat to public health and safety, moratoria do not apply to:

• projects that have already received a vested right under current law; or
• preliminary or final plats or special and conditional use permit applications that have been accepted for review prior to the call for a hearing on the moratorium.

Provision is also made in the statute for expedited judicial review and the government has the burden of showing compliance with the procedural requirements of the statute in such challenges.

A more detailed description of the statute on moratoria is provided in Attachment 3.

Moratoria longer than 60 days require the same notice, advertisement, and hearing as any zoning atlas amendments.

Impacts on Development of a Moratorium:

Based on the review of the moratoria provisions with the Town Attorney, we advise that existing developments under construction would be unaffected.  In addition, the following development applications have been accepted for review, and would not be subjected to a moratorium if the Council wished to pursue one:

• Residences at Chapel Hill North, 123 dwelling units
• Chapel Watch Village, 123 dwelling units
• Freedom House, 19,000 square feet addition
• Orange United Methodist Church,  38,000 square feet addition

The following development projects are currently Concept Plan Submittals:

• Restaurant at Chapel Hill North, 6,500 square feet
• Howell Mixed-Use, 38,000 square feet office/retail
• Altemueller Mixed-Use, 48 dwelling units and 22,000 square feet office/retail
• American Board of Pediatrics, 23,800 square feet
• University Station, 374 dwelling units

A Concept Plan review by the Council is required before a development application may be made. Concept Plan review is a mandatory pre-application step in our process that provides developers an opportunity to get early feedback from the Council.  The University Station Concept Plan has been reviewed by the Council. The remaining concept plans are scheduled for review before the end of June 2007.  If the Council were to enact a moratorium and a Special Use Permit or subdivision application had not been accepted, the proposals that had been to the concept plan stage but had not submitted a formal application, would be subject to the moratorium.

We note that enactment of a moratorium in the Joint Planning Transition Area could only occur with the agreement of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. The Joint Planning Area (JPA) is identified on the map provided as Attachment 2.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The main concerns we heard expressed at the work session relate to the following:

• Ways to achieve the type, form, character and appearance of development desired in the northern area.
• Determining the appropriateness of multi-family residential uses adjacent to the Interstate particularly at University Station.

To address these concerns we recommend:

1. Establishing a Northern Area Task Force and developing a vision for the Northern Area, and
2. Downzoning of the University Station property.

We also provide:

3. Alternative options that we do not recommend.

Northern Area Task Force:

If the Council wishes to appoint a task force to study and make recommendations for development in the Northern Area, we propose that the task force be composed of 11 members.

We suggest representation on the task force as listed in the table below:

Proposed Composition of the Northern Area Task Force

Number of Representatives	Group Represented
2	Chapel Hill Planning Board
1	Chapel Hill Community Design Commission
1	Chapel Hill Transportation Board
1	Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
3	Citizens of NW Area living within the Town limits of Chapel Hill
2	Business Owners or Landowners of the Northern Area
1	Citizen of the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area living within the Northern Area

This recommended composition includes residents and business owners in the area as well as advisory board members that will provide a broader community perspective.

We suggest that the charge of the task force could include:

• Developing a vision statement for the area.
• Developing recommendations for the Council’s consideration on design standards and appearance guidelines for the implementation of transit oriented development along Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Weaver Dairy Road and Eubanks Road.
• Developing recommendations on pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements throughout the study area. (Review of the NC86/Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and Town-Wide Pedestrian Safety Evaluation Study.)

Relationship to Other Planning Initiatives:

We note that the Council has a separate planning effort underway to create a Rogers Road Small Area Plan (RRSAP). The Rogers Road Small Area Plan is focused on the Rogers Road neighborhood to the west of the railroad. The RRSAP Task Force includes two Council members, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Strom and Mark Kleinschmidt; it also includes two Planning Board members. The RRSAP Task Force is tentatively scheduled to present a draft plan to the Council by the end of 2007 with a Public Hearing and Council Action by Spring, 2008. We also note that the Town of Carrboro will shortly begin an update of a Small Area Plan for its Northern Area. The Planning Board has been asked to provide a representative to that effort. 

Downzoning the University Station Property:

We believe that consideration of a rezoning of the University Station property to exclude multi-family residential uses will help address the concern regarding the inappropriateness of multi-family residential uses adjacent to the Interstate. Other ideas may emerge from a new task force.

If the Council wishes to initiate a rezoning of the University Station property, the following steps would be required:

- Call Public Hearing (March 26, 2007)

- Planning Board recommendation (April/May 2007)

- Notification of property owner and surrounding property owners of Public Hearing

- Advertisement

- Public Hearing (May 7, 2007, Regular Business Meeting)

- Council Action (In late May or early June, 2007)

Alternative Actions:

• Resolution C would direct the Town Manager to provide a follow-up report outlining options and implications, including the staffing workload and resource implications of a broader downzoning or rezoning of developable property without vested rights along the corridor of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Eubanks Road. We do not recommend this action.

• Resolution D would call a Public Hearing for a development moratorium for the Northern Area, excluding that portion of the area in the Joint Planning Transition Area. We do not recommend this action.

Moratorium in the Town Controlled Zoning Jurisdiction Excluding the Joint Planning Area

If the Council schedules a moratorium for property in the Town limits the same steps would be required as for Resolution B:

- Call Public Hearing (March 26, 2007)

- Establish the reasons for the moratorium, expected duration, and why alternative actions are not adequate

- Planning Board recommendation (April/May, 2007)

- Notification of property owner and surrounding property owners of Public Hearing

- Advertisement

- Public Hearing (May 7, 2007, Regular Business Meeting)

- Council Action (In late May or early June, 2007)

Moratorium including the Joint Planning Area

If the Council schedules a moratorium for property in the Joint Planning Transition Area, the following steps would be required which include involvement of the County Commissioners:

- Contact Board of County Commissioners

- Call Public Hearing (March 26, 2007)

- Establish the reasons for the moratorium, expected duration, and why alternative actions are not adequate

- Planning Board recommendation (April/May, 2007)

- Notification of property owner and surrounding property owners of Public Hearing

- Chapel Hill Public Hearing (May 7, 2007, Regular Business Meeting)

- Joint Chapel Hill-Orange County Public Hearing (October 25, 2007)

- Council Action (November 2007)

We do not recommend a moratorium to address the Council’s stated concerns for the following reasons:

• A moratorium would not apply to the following development submittals which have been accepted for review:

- Residences at Chapel Hill North, 123 dwelling units

- Chapel Watch Village, 123 dwelling units

- Freedom House, 19,000 square feet addition

- Orange United Methodist Church, 38,000 square feet addition

• A moratorium would not likely extend beyond six months. Because of the mandatory Concept Plan review process, the earliest the Council could expect to receive a new Special Use Permit application for development in the northern area would be after June, 2007. Therefore, we believe the value of a moratorium would be limited. All developments greater than 20,000 square feet of floor area or 40,000 square feet of land disturbance require the Council to approve a Special Use Permit and the prior consideration of a Concept Plan. The Council’s schedule for the consideration of Concept Plans that have already been submitted to the Town is full until the Council’s summer recess of June, 2007. Excepting the proposed development at University Station the earliest the Council could expect to receive a new Special Use Permit application for development in the northern area would be after June, 2007.

RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND OTHER TASKS

We believe that the work to address the issues identified in the work session have a relationship to and future implications for the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Update. We recommend focusing staff time and resources on the establishment of a new task force rather than on the Comprehensive Plan Update. We believe the resulting product can inform the Comprehensive Plan Update.

The tasks identified for the Comprehensive Plan Update include:

• The development of and public consultation on a vision statement to describe what citizens might expect to see in the Town in 20 to 30 years time, and
• Chapter updates of the plan to address the comments received from boards and commissions last year and to recognize the actions and initiatives taken by the Council since the Plan was adopted in 2000.

If a task force is established, we anticipate that the Chapter Updates of the Comprehensive Plan will be delayed.

If the Council directs the Town Manager to provide for a moratorium on development or other significant zoning changes, we will provide information about the effect on existing work tasks and Council priorities.

SUMMARY

Staff Recommendation: We recommend adoption of Resolutions A and B:

• Resolution A establishes a task force to provide the Council with recommendations of how to manage the future development of the Northern Area. We recommend this action.

• Resolution B calls a Public Hearing for a downzoning of the property, which is the subject of the University Station Concept Plan. We recommend this action.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Memorandum to Council dated March 7, 2007 (p. 12).
2. Potential Task Force Study Area (p. 15).
3. Moratorium Extract from the School of Government Report on 2005 Session of the NC General Assembly (p. 16).