TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: UNC Innovation Center, 110 Municipal Drive - Special Use Permit Application (File No. 9799-88-6375)
DATE: September 17, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Attached for consideration is an application from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for a Special Use Permit which proposes an 80,745 square foot university building at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Municipal Drive. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9799-88-6375.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
The proposed Special Use Permit includes an 80,745 square foot 3-story office building and 214 parking spaces on an 8-acre portion of the University of North Carolina – Carolina North campus. Vehicular access is proposed from the west side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, north of Estes Drive, across from Piney Mountain Road. The site is in the Office/Institutional-2 (OI-2) zoning district. We note that this is the first building proposed at the University’s proposed Carolina North campus.
DISCUSSION
During staff and advisory board review we identified the following key issues related to this project:
1. Transportation-Related Improvements to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Advisory board review and discussions between the staffs of the Town and the University focused on transportation-related impacts and improvements.
Comment: The transportation-related conditions in Resolution A address the concerns raised, and are summarized here:
· Sidewalk at least 5 feet wide will be constructed along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard frontage from Estes Drive to the bus stop north of this site boundary, and along the entrance drive. The University has agreed to maintain the sidewalk and guarantee public access for segments not located in the public right-of-way;
· Bikelane and curb and gutter will either be constructed or funded by the applicant along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard frontage (west side of the boulevard);
· A pedestrian refuge island in Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard will be funded by the applicant;
· Street and sidewalk lighting will be provided by the applicant along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard frontage and on other segments of sidewalks where warranted;
· Traffic signal improvements will be made at the Piney Mountain Road intersection and the Estes Drive intersection, including pedestrian amenities, bicycle activated loops on Piney Mountain Road and Municipal Drive, and new traffic signal phasing;
· The applicant has agreed to pay for Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard signal timing improvements and for bus stop improvements.
2. Design of New Access Drive: Questions were raised by Town staff and by advisory board members as to the final design of the new access drive for this building, which may become a major entrance into surrounding university development.
Comment: The applicant has agreed to construct the new access drive to withstand transit traffic. The University also agrees that the drive may be widened and/or dedicated as public right-of-way in the future. We have included a provision in Resolution A reflecting this.
3. Landscape Buffer along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Frontage: The applicant is proposing a landscape approach which differs from the standard “Type D” landscape buffer required along the boulevard frontage, and therefore requests a modification of the regulations.
Comment: Please see the section below on Modifications of the Regulations.
PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE REGULATIONS
The applicant is requesting the Council modify the regulations pertaining to the required landscape bufferyard along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard frontage. This request is discussed below.
Landscape Buffer: As part of the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard streetscape, the applicant proposes landscaping between the road and the building which may not meet the opacity standard for a Type “D” 30-foot Landscape Buffer, whether standard or alternative. Therefore the applicant is requesting a modification to the regulations, LUMO subsections 5.6.2 and 5.6.6., to allow for a different landscaping scheme.
A preliminary streetscape concept under consideration by the applicant includes bike lane and curb and gutter along the western side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, a landscaped strip (lawn and ornamental trees), a sidewalk, a low Chatham stone wall reminiscent of the stone walls on the perimeter of the older parts of the main UNC campus, and additional lawn and shade trees between the sidewalk/stone wall and the building. The applicant has stated the streetscape design is in the conceptual stage, and the design has not been finalized. The applicant’s justification for such a modification is that the opacity standard required for a Type “D” buffer would be at odds with the applicant’s intent to provide a transit-friendly streetscape.
Comment: The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The Council could modify the regulations if it makes a finding in this particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree. We believe that with respect to the applicant’s request to modify the parking lot landscaping regulations, the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree because the applicant is proposing a landscape theme that is pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly, attempting to connect the building to proposed sidewalks, bikeways, and transit stops.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board: The Planning Board met on August 5, 2008 and voted 8-1 to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution A, with the following change:
Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Resolution A.
The Planning Board also asked that following two suggestions be conveyed to the Town Council:
Comment: We note that this is the first building proposed at the University’s proposed Carolina North campus. Discussions continue between the Town, the University, and the community on future plans for the property.
We have reviewed this Special Use Permit application on a stand-alone basis, requiring improvements for this development alone in order to meet ordinance requirements and the four findings required for Special Use Permit proposals. For each of the following three improvements, the applicant proposes a basic standard with the initial construction of the Innovation Center, with the understanding that these features may be refined and upgraded in the future as the Carolina North campus is further developed:
a) Municipal Drive (may become an entrance into a future Carolina North campus); cross-section, streetlighting, and ownership;
b) Landscape buffer along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (to become a part of the Carolina North overall streetscape); and
c) Cross-section (road design and improvements) for Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
Comment: We note that the applicant’s Statement of Justification indicates intent to meet the LEED Silver shell and core standards. This could be included as a stipulation of approval in Resolution A.
A copy of the Planning Board Summary of Action is attached.
A copy of the Transportation Board Summary of Action is attached.
Comment: We agree that this timeframe is reasonable and have revised the stipulation in Resolution A accordingly.
Comment: The applicant has shown on the plans two “wave” type racks of 4 bike parking spaces each, for a total of 8 bike parking spaces. Another advisory board suggested a total of 22 bicycle parking spaces on the site. We have included this recommendation as a provision in Resolution A.
Comment: Both the Planning Board and the Community Design Commission had concerns about the storage of hazardous materials on the site and how the Chapel Hill Fire Department would be kept abreast of the nature of hazardous materials, given the anticipated tenant turnover within the Innovation Center.
We note that Town firefighters will be first responders to fire emergencies for this building. In the original advisory board version of Resolution A, our objective was to ensure that potentially hazardous materials would be accounted for, that a safety plan would be developed for the new building, and that pertinent fire safety-related information would be relayed to the Chapel Hill Fire Department. After further consultation with the Fire Department staff and UNC staff, we learned there is a reporting process already in place between UNC and the Chapel Hill Fire Department for campus buildings, and both parties are satisfied with the current reporting process. We have reworded the pertinent stipulation to include the following language:
“That the UNC Department of Environment, Health, and Safety will be responsible for monitoring hazardous materials and developing a safety plan for the development; and shall report pertinent fire safety information to the Chapel Hill Fire Department on a regular basis, in accordance with current reporting policy for campus buildings.”
Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance does not specify minimum and maximum parking space numbers for university uses. The applicant proposes 4 disabled spaces. We note that the applicant will need to comply with ADA requirements. Compliance with federal standards on handicap parking and access will be monitored by the NC Department of Insurance. We have not included a requirement for additional handicapped spaces in the attached Resolution A.
A copy of the Community Design Commission Summary of Action is attached.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on August 26, 2008 to review the application and voted 10-0 to recommend adoption of Resolution A with the following changes:
· Bikelane and Curb and Gutter: That a 5-foot bikelane be installed or funded on the east side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard opposite the Innovation Center frontage.
Comment: This recommendation is inconsistent with the standard staff recommendations for roadway improvements for development projects. Staff typically recommends non-frontage improvements if it is necessary to mitigate the traffic impact of a project. Such is not the case for this project. Because this recommended improvement is not located along the frontage of the proposed development site, and the improvement would not mitigate traffic impacts associated with this project, this recommendation has not been incorporated into Resolution A.
· Traffic Signal Improvements: That bicycle activated loops be installed for left turn lanes on all streets and approaches (not just side streets).
Comment: At this time NCDOT will only approve bicycle loops on side streets. Therefore, Resolution A includes a stipulation for bicycle loops only for Estes Drive, Piney Mountain Road and Municipal Drive.
· Bicycle Path Connection to Bus Stop: That the pedestrian connection from the proposed parking lot to the existing bus stop be designed to accommodate bicycles as well as pedestrians.
Comment: This recommendation has been stipulated in Resolution A.
· Right-of-Way Dedication: That additional right-of-way be dedicated on the University’s property if right-of-way is not sufficient on the east side of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard for a bicycle lane.
Comment: This recommendation is inconsistent with the standard staff recommendations for roadway improvements for development projects. Because this recommendation for right-of-way is associated with an improvement that will not be located along the frontage of the proposed development site, this recommendation has not been incorporated into Resolution A.
· Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking spaces should be modified to comply with town standards. Specifically, the number of spaces should be increased to at least 22, bicycle racks should be of the inverted U type, and the standard town ratio of Class I and Class II spaces should be provided.
Comment: For bicycle parking, the Ordinance does not specify a minimum number of parking spaces for university use, but eight are being proposed with this application. In the case of a use not listed in the Ordinance, the minimum and maximum bicycle parking space requirements shall be determined by the Town Manager. In making such determinations, the Town Manager shall be guided by the requirements for similar uses, the number and kind of bicycles likely to be attracted to the use.
On September 17, the Council will consider a text amendment to change the bicycle parking standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance. As currently proposed, the text amendment is silent with respect to university use.
Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring that the applicant provide a minimum of 22 bicycle parking spaces and that the spaces comply with Class I and Class II town standards. Resolution A also includes a stipulation that, if the Council adopts a text amendment creating bicycle parking standards for university use prior to acting on this Special Use Permit application, the new bicycle parking standards shall apply.
1. Construction deadlines changed;
2. NCDOT included in review/approval of new access drive;
3. Bicycle parking spaces added;
4. Design and ownership of new access drive clarified;
5. Sidewalk provided along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard frontage and along new entrance drive and northern site boundary;
6. Bikelane, curb, and gutter to be provided on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard frontage (western side of boulevard only);
7. Pedestrian refuge island in Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to be funded;
8. Street and sidewalk lighting to be provided;
9. Traffic signal improvements to be provided in Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard at intersections with Piney Mountain Road and with Estes Drive (includes pedestrian amenities, bicycle activated loops on side streets, and traffic signal phasing upgrades)
10. Payment for traffic signal timing improvements on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard;
11. Payment for (rather than construction of) bus stop improvements on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard;
12. Clarification re: dedication of right-of-way, NCDOT approvals, hazardous materials notification, street naming and addresses, and terminology;
13. Landscape buffer request will be modification of the regulations rather than alternative buffer; and
14. Path between bus stop and parking lot to accommodate bicycles.
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.
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings (description of the findings follows). Evidence will be presented tonight. If, after consideration of the evidence, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, and modifies the regulations as proposed by the applicant, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit 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.
EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION
We have evaluated the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance. Based on our evaluation, our preliminary conclusion is that the application as submitted, including the proposed modification to the regulations, complies with 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 each of four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit. The four findings are:
|
Special Use Permit – Required Findings of Fact
Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; Finding #2: That the use or development would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance; Finding #3: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity; and Finding #4: That the use or development conforms to the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan. |
Following the Public Hearing, we will prepare an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application.
SUMMARY
We have attached a resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, our preliminary assessment is that, with the requested modification to the regulations, the Council could make the four findings necessary in order to approve the application. Our recommendation, Resolution A, incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.
UNC Innovation Center Special Use Permit
DIFFERENCES AMONG RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff’s Preliminary |
Planning Board |
Community Design Commission |
Transportation Board |
Bicycle & Pedestrian Adv.Board |
|
Amend construction deadline |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Include NCDOT in review/approval of street design |
Yes
|
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
|
Design/ownership of new access drive clarified |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Sidewalk along west side of MLK, new drive and north boundary |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Bikelane, curb/gutter along Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd |
West side only |
West side only |
* |
West side only |
West and east side |
|
Pedestrian refuge in Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd |
Payment in--lieu |
Payment in--lieu |
* |
Payment in--lieu |
Payment in--lieu |
|
Street and sidewalk lighting |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Traffic signal improvements including bicycle loops and signal phasing upgrades |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Traffic signal timing payment |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Landscape buffer modification |
Yes |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Bicycle activated loops from all approaches at boulevard intersections |
No |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Connection from parking lot to bus stop to accommodate bikes |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Dedication of r.o.w. along site’s frontage in order to accommodate bikelane on east side of MLK |
No |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Add bicycle parking spaces |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Require additional handicap spaces |
No |
* |
Yes |
* |
*
|
|
Payment instead of construction of bus stop improvements |
Yes |
* |
* |
* |
* |
