to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
George Small, Engineering Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager
subject: Woodmont on NC 54 East Application for Master Land Use Plan
(File No. 9798-04-71-8729)
date: September 8, 2008
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to follow up from the May 12, 2008 Public Hearing for a Master Land Use Plan application from Capital Associates to allow 601,000 square feet of mixed use floor area (427,100 square feet of office; 150,400 square feet of residential, and 23,500 square feet of retail) on the site located on the south side of NC 54, between Barbee Chapel Road and Little John Road.
Accompanying this application are applications for a Zoning Atlas Amendment and a Phase I Special Use Permit. Please refer to the accompanying memoranda for additional information.
Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Master Land Use Plan application. We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application, with a short effective date.
We have identified several key issues related to this development. A brief discussion on each follows.
Comment: A Master Land Use Plan approval is intended to provide some assurance regarding how the property will develop. A rebuttal presumption is established regarding three of the four Special Use Permit findings when a Master Land Use Plan is approved. Because of concerns about the functionality of a Master Land Use Plan, and the desire for flexibility in planning for this site along NC 54, we offer three options:
1) Approve the Mixed Use-Village rezoning and Special Use Permit (Phase I), but not the Master Land Use Plan application.
2) Approve all three applications, but impose a certain, set expiration date (such as seven years) on the Master Land Use Plan.
3) Approve all three applications, and adopt flexibility language as proposed by the applicant as a stipulation of the Master Land Use Plan to provide the ability to adjust future phases.
We recommend that the Council approve the application for a Master Land Use Plan with a short expiration date, such as seven years. An expiration date for the Master Land Use Plan would allow the Council more discretion in future approvals that would no longer have the presumption of three of the four findings. This option will provide some idea of a potential development form. Because of the size of subsequent phases, the Council will review and approve subsequent development as Special Use Permit applications. Revised Resolution A includes an expiration date of seven years.
2. Pedestrian Connectivity to Meadowmont: A Council member asked about pedestrian connectivity to Meadowmont, including the possibility of a tunnel under Highway 54.
Comment: We do not believe that a tunnel would be economically feasible to construct at this location on NC 54.
In lieu of a pedestrian tunnel, we recommend that the applicant upgrade the traffic signal at NC 54 and Barbee Chapel Road (Phase I) to include pedestrian amenities on all approaches with:
We also recommend at the main entrance on NC 54 (Phase II) that the applicant install:
· a traffic signal with pedestrian amenities and
· bicycle activated loops.
Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation to this effect.
3. Access to NC 54/Little John Road: A citizen described the process of exiting and entering the Sherwood Forest neighborhood from NC 54, indicating concerns about safety and delay.
Comment: We believe that a traffic signal at the entrance to the site and NC 54 will greatly improve accessibility and safety for the residents of Sherwood Forest, as well as Woodmont. Revised Resolution A includes the recommendation for a traffic signal at this intersection (subject to NCDOT approval).
4. Stancell Drive Closure: The applicant is proposing that two sections of Stancell Drive be closed to traffic (with Phase II of the Master Land Use Plan), just west of the main entrance drive, and just west of Downing Creek Parkway.
Comment: We do not recommend the elimination of the existing street connections now provided by Stancell Drive. The removal of sections of Stancell Drive as proposed by the applicant would:
If the Woodmont development is approved with a new street connection to NC 54 then Stancell Drive should be realigned to provide a greater distance between NC 54 and Stancell Drive. Adequate separation between the streets would increase the operational efficiency of the intersection. A re-alignment similar to the Dobbins Drive/Erwin Road intersection would provide east-west street connectivity and an acceptable distance from NC 54. This is included in Revised Resolution A.
5. Concerns about Traffic Impact Analysis: A citizen presented comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis, including concerns about the likelihood of NCDOT approving the traffic signal recommended by the Traffic Impact Analysis, the growth rate used, and the omission of planned development in southwest Durham.
Comment: Traffic Impact Analyses for the proposed Woodmont development were prepared by the Town’s Consultant in 2007 in accordance with the Town Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines and procedures. Traffic generated by the following approved or planned development area included as background developments for both analyses: East 54, UNC Hospital Clinic Facility, Gateway Bank, and Aydan Court. We believe that the Traffic Impact Analysis is acceptable.
6. Transit/ Park Ride: Council members asked about the potential for voluntary contribution to transit for Phase I of the project (prior to implementation of the transit payment-in-lieu ordinance) as well as payment for operating costs. Questions were raised about a contribution toward a shuttle to Meadowmont as proposed during the Concept Plan Review.
Comment: The applicant has offered a voluntary combined contribution toward transit and a future park/ride facility in the amount of $100,000 for Phase I. The applicant’s argument supporting the payment-in-lieu is that although the Woodmont Master Land Use Plan has been designed as a transit-friendly campus with an extensive sidewalk system connecting each building to bus stop facilities, the Phase I plans do not include a connection to NC 54 and will therefore not be suitable for transit service. We have included such a stipulation in Resolution A.
Although the idea of a park/ride facility had been discussed with the applicant for several months, its recent inclusion was due to increased emphasis on providing park/ride facilities along major transit corridors (as referenced in the Chapel Hill Long Range Transit Plan).
We have provided a list of advantages and disadvantages of a park/ride facility at this location:
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
- Helps to support concept that development is transit-friendly - Good location (at edge of Town, on major corridor) - Ability to draw ridership from the surrounding area including Alta Springs
|
- Woodmont will not be conducive for transit service until the road is connected with NC 54 and has a traffic signal - A park/ride facility at this location may increase traffic congestion on NC 54 and Barbee Chapel Road and within the site during peak hours
|
We believe bus transit service would be impractical in Phase I (due to the lack of connection to NC 54). Later phases (II and III) would have a limited number of space locations that theoretically could be designated for park/ride, but these would be a significant distance from the bus stop area(s). They would also not be useable until the completion of Phase II at the earliest, and would likely need to be returned to Woodmont use after a relatively short time as park and ride use. For these reasons we recommend a $100,000 voluntary combined contribution to transit/park/ride, to be used for transit and/or park-ride land acquisition and matching funds. This initial contribution would be provided in Phase I.
Woodmont plans to operate and fund the private shuttle to Meadowmont as a function of the development’s owners association.
Revised Resolution A includes stipulations requiring the transit and park/ride $100,000 contribution for Phase I and the implementation of the shuttle service to Meadowmont at such time as the Town Manager determines necessary as part of an approved Transportation Management Plan.
7. Submetering: A Council member asked about the possibility of using submetering as a method of raising awareness of water consumption among residents.
Comment: Following discussion with OWASA, we recommend the inclusion of the following stipulation:
Per unit Water Consumption Management: That the applicant provide a system and management arrangement to ensure billing for water use by each dwelling unit within the development. The system and arrangements must be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and must meet the requirements of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority and North Carolina Utilities Commission.
8. Adding Lanes on Barbee Chapel: A Council member asked about adding lanes on Barbee Chapel Road.
Comment: With the current application, no additional lanes are proposed, except for turn lanes and stacking at the Barbee Chapel Road/ NC 54 intersection. We note, however, that the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Farrington Road Corridor Study includes the widening of Barbee Chapel Road from Farrington Road to NC 54 in its “Long Term Capacity Improvements.”
9. Greenway realignment at Barbee Chapel Road/NC 54: A Council member drew attention to the alignment of the proposed greenway crossing at Barbee Chapel Road and the difficulty of crossing multiple lanes of traffic.
Comment: We believe the existing bicycle path is currently in the appropriate location for crossing Barbee Chapel Road. The proposed plans show a crossing farther to the south. The plans should be corrected to show existing conditions and alignment to continue the trail to the east. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation to this effect.
We recommend that the intersection of Barbee Chapel Road and NC 54 be improved with pedestrian amenities on all approaches. Therefore, if the Council approves the staff-recommended improvements at this intersection, pedestrian–actuated signals with countdown heads and street-imprinted crosswalks would be provided for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Barbee Chapel Road at this location.
10. Barbee Chapel Road Entrance – traffic signal: A Council member questioned whether the Resolution includes a stipulation regarding a payment-in-lieu for a traffic signal at the intersection of the Phase I entrance and Barbee Chapel Road (across from Finley Forest).
Comment: The Resolution presented to the Council on May 12, 2008 included a stipulation to this effect (stipulation #7).
11. Proximity to Reclaimed Water – A Council member asked about the potential for the applicant to connect to the reclaimed water system being developed by the University.
Comment: According to OWASA representatives, based on the very high expected cost to extend reclaimed water lines to and within the development, the developer would probably find such an investment to be economically infeasible unless the infrastructure costs are shared by other private and public parties.
The reclaimed water distribution system now under construction by OWASA will be more than 2 miles from the proposed Woodmont project, and therefore a major new reclaimed water line would be required to serve this project. We understand that line would cost several million dollars to build. OWASA’s 15-year Capital Improvements Program does not include funding for further extensions of the reclaimed water system by OWASA. OWASA policy requires developers to pay the cost of extending utility lines required to serve their projects.
12. Irrigation: A Council member asked about the potential for minimizing the use of potable water for irrigation, mentioning xeriscaping and cisterns as potential options.
Comment: The applicant has indicated that they will be incorporating several strategies for using rainwater and minimizing the use of potable water. These strategies include:
1) Collecting water from rooftops in cisterns for use in irrigating ground level plant materials.
2) Utilizing the site’s retention ponds for irrigating ground level plant materials.
3) Collecting water from rooftops in cisterns for use in evaporative cooling Heat and Air Conditioning systems, on buildings where these systems are used.
4) Specifying native plants, which are acclimated to local wet and dry cycles, and xeropyhtic landscaping in areas that are not intended to be wet. The applicant proposes to use plants that thrive in wet conditions at the proposed water retention basins, similar to plantings at the Exchange office complex.
Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation to this effect. Further, recent legislation enacted by the General Assembly requires restrictive covenants established after October 1, 2008 to specifically state that any requirements for irrigation are suspended during declared periods of drought. We have added a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.
13. Public Art: A Council member asked the applicant to meet with the new Public Art Administrator to discuss a voluntary contribution.
Comment: The Public Art Administrator has met with the applicant and determined the following:
All Phases: An artwork construction and installation plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals and method of artist selection shall be agreed upon by the applicant and the Public Art Administrator. Should the applicant choose to employ an outside public art consultant, said consultant, the initiated process, and contract must be approved by the Public Art Administrator.
Phase I: The applicant shall provide an initial payment of $25,000 to the Town of Chapel Hill for public artwork at the development site prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase I. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I, the applicant shall provide an additional $50,000 for public artwork for Phase I.
Phase II: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase II, the applicant shall provide an additional $25,000 toward public artwork at the development site. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II, the applicant shall provide an additional $50,000 for public artwork.
Phase III: The applicant shall provide the $100,000 for public artwork prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase III.
14. Bicycle Facilities on Barbee Chapel Road: A Council member asked about the potential for bicycle facilities on Barbee Chapel Road.
Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant provide additional pavement width along the Barbee Chapel Road frontage to provide for the future installation of a bicycle lane. The Woodmont street frontage on Barbee Chapel Road is not long enough to provide for a striped bicycle lane at this time. Therefore, a short section of wider, un-marked pavement is recommended which could be designated as a bicycle lane if future right-of-way and street widening is provided by others along the frontage of abutting properties and connected to the Woodmont road improvements. Revised Resolution A includes this stipulation.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
The standard for review and approval of a Master Land Use Plan application involves consideration of the following three findings of fact that the Council must consider.
Master Land Use Plan – Required Findings of Fact
Finding #1: Maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Finding #2: Maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a public necessity; and
Finding #3: Conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the three required findings for the approval of a Master Land Use Plan. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the three findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Master Land Use Plan 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 in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the three findings of facts that the Council must consider to approve a Master Land Use Plan. We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
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. |
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:
“A significant element of the Woodmont development proposal calls for the extension of the Town’s bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the south side of NC 54 from its existing terminus at Barbee Chapel Road to Downing Creek Parkway. This will provide convenient pedestrian access to the Sherwood Forest and Downing Creek neighborhoods. Woodmont will also develop an extensive system of internal pedestrian/exercise trails and sidewalks that will be available for use by the public.”
[Applicant’s Statement of Master Land Use Plan Design Criteria Conformance]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.
|
Finding #2: That the use would be 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. |
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.
“The existing tracts comprising Woodmont contain a number of older structures, most of which are showing significant signs of deterioration. These include warehouse and storage structures and associated unpaved parking and loading areas that are clearly visible from NC 54. The contiguous properties consist of single family residences along Little John Road to the east, single family residences along Barbee Chapel Road and Pearl Lane to the west, a commercial photography studio along Stancell Drive to the northwest, and a 300 unit apartment complex along Barbee Chapel Road to the south. It can be asserted with a high degree of certainty that the value of none of these contiguous properties is currently being enhanced by the nature of the existing Woodmont structures.”
[Applicant’s Statement of Master Land Use Plan Design Criteria Conformance]
Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.
|
Finding #3: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan. |
Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.
“The proposed Woodmont Master Land Use Plan supports all applicable objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed discussion of Woodmont’s conformance to this criteria is included in the Rezoning Statement of Justification.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Evidence in opposition: Evidence in opposition to this finding are offered in the Citizen’s Response, April 1, 2008. Please see rezoning memorandum for additional arguments. Below are arguments from the April 1, 2008 Citizen’s Response:
“To support the objectives of the NC 54 East Entryway Goals (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) – ‘Streets and parking should be designed to promote easy, safe pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and to inhibit fast traffic in both residential and retail/office segments of neighborhoods.: The NC 54 East Entranceway Goals clearly enumerates that proposed projects should “avoid placing driveways on the main collector road (ie, NC 54). Since the applicant intends for the main entrance to Woodmont to be a major intersection on NC 54 East, the applicant’s plan is in direct conflict with the second stipulation 10 of the Attachment 2 from the Planning Department staff.’”
“Promote transit facilities, including preserving the potential for regional transit in this corridor: ‘The applicant provides no evidence that Chapel Hill Transit has any plans or funding to extend service to the applicant’s proposed project. In fact, no plans or funding are available in the Chapel Hill Transit budget for service extension.’”
[Citizen Statement]
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process. Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the three findings.
We have attached a revised resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, we believe that the Council could make the findings regarding health, safety and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, our recommendation is that, with the stipulations in Revised Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The Community Design Commission, Transportation Board, Greenways Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended that the Town Council approve the Master Land Use Plan. The Planning Board recommended that the Town Council deny the Master Land Use Plan. For additional information on their recommendations, please refer to the matrix in the report and to May 12, 2008 Public Hearing memorandum.
Revised Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Master Land Use Plan application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A. Since the May 12, 2008 Public Hearing, the following stipulations have been incorporated into the Revised Resolution A:
All Phases: An artwork construction and installation plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals and method of artist selection shall be agreed upon by the applicant and the Public Art Administrator. Should the applicant choose to employ an outside public art consultant, said consultant, the initiated process, and contract must be approved by the Public Art Administrator.
Phase I: The applicant shall provide an initial payment of $25,000 to the Town of Chapel Hill for public artwork at the development site prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase I. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I, the applicant shall provide an additional $50,000 for public artwork for Phase I.
Phase II: Prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase II, the applicant shall provide an additional $25,000 toward public artwork at the development site. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II, the applicant shall provide an additional $50,000 for public artwork.
Phase III: The applicant shall provide the $100,000 for public artwork prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase III.
1) Collecting water from rooftops in cisterns for use in irrigating ground level plant materials.
2) Utilizing the site’s retention ponds for irrigating ground level plant materials.
3) Collecting water from rooftops in cisterns for use in evaporative cooling Heat and Air Conditioning systems, on buildings where these systems are used.
4) Specifying native plants, which are more acclimated to local wet and dry cycles, and xeriscopic landscaping in areas that are not intended to be wet. The applicant proposes to use plants that thrive in wet conditions at the proposed water retention basins, similar to plantings at the Exchange office complex.
5) Restrictive covenants established after October 1, 2008 shall specifically state that any requirements for irrigation are suspended during declared periods of drought.
Revised Resolution A would approve the application with conditions.
Resolution B would deny the application.
Woodmont
DIFFERENCES AMONG RESOLUTIONS-RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Revised |
Planning Board |
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Greenways/Parks and Recreation Commission |
Community Design Commission |
|
Angled Parking |
No angled on-street parking |
* |
Angled on-street parking permitted |
*
|
* |
|
Recreation Space Paymt-in-lieu |
Yes |
* |
* |
Yes |
* |
|
Additional Retail Floor Area |
Yes, authorized |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Specific No. of Parking Spaces Approved |
No (to allow more flexibility) |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Park and Ride/Transit Paymt-in-lieu |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Master Land Use Plan Flexibility |
No, short time limit |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Public Art Paymt-in-lieu |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Irrigation Strategies |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Sub-metering |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
*= Issues not raised at Advisory Board meeting