memorandum

to:                  Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

from:            J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director

Gene Poveromo, Development Manager

George Small, Engineering Director

Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager

subject: Woodmont on NC 54 East Phase I Special Use Permit

date:             September 8, 2008

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from May 12, 2008 for an application from Capital Associates for a Special Use Permit to allow a mixed use development on 14.25 acres with 95,000 square feet of office use; 88,900 square feet of residential use; and 404 parking spaces. Accompanying this application are applications for a Master Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendment. The site is identified as Durham County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9798-04-93-2035, 9798-04-92-0930, 9798-04-82-9499, 9798-04-82-6093, 9798-04-81-1816, 9798-04-71-8729, and 9798-04-82-6534.

Based on the information in the record to date, the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit application. We recommend that the Council adopt Revised Resolution A, approving the application.

DISCUSSION

We have identified several key issues related to this development.

1. 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:

• street imprinted crosswalks,
• countdown pedestrian heads, and
• bicycle activated loops.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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 prior, 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.

Resolution A includes stipulations requiring both the transit and park/ride contribution and the shuttle service to Meadowmont.

3. 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 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Farrington Road Corridor Study includes the widening of Barbee Chapel Road from Farrington Road to NC 54 in its “Long Term Capacity Improvements.”

4. Bicycle Facilities on Barbee Chapel Road: A Council member asked about the potential for bicycle facilities on Barbee Chapel Road.

Comment: We recommend that the applicant provide additional pavement width along the Barbee Chapel Road frontage to provide for the future installation of a bicycle lane   (stipulation #8).  The Woodmont street frontage on Barbee Chapel Road isn’t long enough to provide for a striped bicycle lane at this time. Therefore, a short section of wider, un-marked pavement would be constructed by Woodmont. This section 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.

5. Affordable Housing: Robert Dowling, of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, presented his concerns regarding the number of affordable housing condominium units proposed for this project, in combination with other projects.

Comment: The applicant is proposing 15% affordable housing, which would translate into nine units. The Orange Community Housing and Land Trust recommends that a portion of the affordable housing be provided as a payment-in-lieu. We recommend a stipulation that the applicant provide either nine affordable units or some combination of units and payment-in-lieu equivalent to nine, with the requirement that the applicant provide at least five affordable units. We have included such a stipulation in Resolution A.

6. 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.

7. 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.

We have not included a stipulation to this effect in Resolution A.

8. 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 xerophytic 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.

We have included a stipulation to this effect in Revised Resolution A.

9. 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 worked with the applicant to create the following stipulation:

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. 

PROCESS

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

RELATIONSHIP TO MASTER LAND USE PLAN

The Land Use Management Ordinance states that “if a Master Land Use Plan is approved for a tract of land, and an application for a Special Use Permit is subsequently received, then the Special Use Permit application must be consistent with the Master Plan. If it is consistent with the Master Plan, a rebuttal presumption shall thereby be established that the proposed development would:

1. Maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a public necessity; and
3. Conform to the Comprehensive Plan.”

These are three of the four findings that must be made to approve an application for Special Use Permit. The fourth finding, “that the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in the supplemental use regulations (article 6), and with all other applicable regulations,” is the only finding that must then be made by the Council in order to approve the Special Use Permit application with an approved Master Land Use Plan.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the Master Land Use Plan and standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Based on our evaluation, our preliminary conclusion is that the application as submitted complies with the Master Land Use Plan and the regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, and Design Manual, with the conditions included in Resolution A.

Tonight the Council receives our attached evaluation and information submitted by the applicant. The applicant’s materials are included as attachments to this memorandum. All information that is submitted at the hearing will be included in the record of the hearing.  Based on the evidence that is submitted, the Council will consider whether or not it can make the one finding:

Special Use Permit – Required Finding of Fact

Finding: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

Finding:  That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“5.6: Landscaping, Screening and Buffering: Woodmont plans comply with all buffer and screening requirements. Existing vegetation will be retained and maintained wherever possible; this will be the case for significant portions of the development. All landscaping and screening vegetation will be maintained to a very high quality standard to ensure continuing effectiveness and continued aesthetic appeal.”

- Applicant’s Statement of Justification

We believe the application complies with the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to this Finding.

SUMMARY

We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With approval of the rezoning requested, the Master Land Use Plan, and these conditions, our revised recommendation is that the Council could make the finding necessary in order to approve the application for the Phase I Special Use Permit. Our recommendation, Revised Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

Resolution A has been revised to include:

• Public Art:

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. 

• Irrigation: That the applicant incorporate 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 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.

• Payment-In-Lieu for Park-Ride/Transit:  Prior to the Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase II, the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu of $100,000 to be used for transit and park/ride. 
• 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.

Resolution B would deny the application.

Woodmont Special Use Permit Application

      DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUES	Revised	Planning Board	Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Board	Greenways Commission	Parks and Recreation Commission	Community Design Commission
Minimum Bicycle Parking Spaces	52 (no changes to plan)	52 (no changes to plan)	60	52 (no changes to plan)	52 (no changes to plan)	52 (no changes to plan)
Angled Parking	no	*	yes	*	*	*
Recreation Space Payment-in-lieu	yes	*	*	yes	yes	*
Additional Retail authorized (5,000-8,000 SF)	yes	*	*	*	*	yes
Submetering	yes	*	*	*	*	*
Affordable Housing Partial Payment	yes	*	*	*	*	*
Transit/Park-Ride payment-in-lieu	yes	*	*	*	*	*
Public Art Payment-in-Lieu	yes	*	*	*	*	*
Irrigation Strategies	yes	*	*	*	*	*

* = Issues not discussed, and therefore not included in the recommendation

ATTACHMENTS

1. May 6, 2008 Planning Board Summary of Action (p. 21).
2. Revised Applicant’s Statement of Justification (p. 22).
3. May 12, 2008 Public Hearing Memorandum  (begin new page 1).