AGENDA #5f

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Response to Petition From Sunrise Coalition Regarding Potential Habitat Development

 

DATE:             September 8, 2003

 

 

This memorandum responds to a petition from the Sunrise Coalition, brought to the Council by Mr. Doug Schworer on behalf of the Coalition on June 9, 2003.  A copy of the petition is attached (Attachment 1, dated May 21, 2003).

 

BACKGROUND

 

On July 25, 2002 Habitat for Humanity entered into an Offer to Purchase and Contract to purchase a 16-acre parcel on Sunrise Road in Chapel Hill.  Habitat requested funding from the Chapel Hill Town Council ($50,000) to be matched with funds provided by Orange County ($250,000), to assist in the purchase of the property.  On November 25, 2002, the Town Council voted to approve a loan of $50,000 to assist Habitat in the purchase, for development of affordable housing.

 

Subsequent to the November 25 action, Mayor Foy appointed a Mayor’s Committee on the Proposed Habitat Development on Sunrise Road.  The purpose of the Committee was to engage Habitat and neighboring residents in discussion about potential development of this property. The Committee was asked to discuss issues that had been raised in November, and recommend a set of goals and principles for development of this property that could be considered by the full Council.  The committee was made up of Council Members Flicka Bateman, Mark Kleinschmidt, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.  

 

On May 12, 2003, the Town Council received a report from a Mayor’s Committee. The Committee met with Habitat representatives and neighbors and walked the proposed development site, and submitted a report to the Council with a set of 17 Goals/Principles for the Council’s consideration (Attachment 2).  On May 12, the Council adopted the set of principles for use and consideration by Habitat for Humanity as plans for development of its Sunrise Road property are pursued.  An excerpt of minutes from May 12 is attached, indicating discussion that evening (Attachment 3).  A representative of the Sunrise Coalition spoke at the meeting and stated that the Coalition supported the 17 principles and asked the Council to adopt them with no change.  The Council adopted the principles without change.

 

 

 

 

2

 

No development applications have yet been submitted for this property.  The first step in seeking development approval would be the submittal of a Concept Plan for development of the property, followed by either a Subdivision or Special Use Permit application. 

 

PETITION

 

The attached petition was presented to the Council on June 9, offering the following comments:

 

• An early draft of the Goals/Principles included a recommendation that the applicant (Habitat) retain the services of an acoustical engineer to study impacts of I-40 noise, and report these at the time a Concept Plan is reviewed by the Council.

 

• This recommendation was not included in the final report of the Mayor’s Committee, and was not included in the set of principles adopted by the Town Council.

 

• Future noise due to the planned I-40 widening is a special condition which is only applicable to properties immediately adjacent to I-40 newly being developed.

 

• A Habitat representative stated at a meeting of the Mayor’s Committee that the subject site has 100 feet of frontage on the I-40 right-of-way; the petition says the correct distance is 281.95 feet.

 

• The entire north property line of the subject property will be subjected to noise impacts of between 67+ and 74 decibels after the widening is completed.

 

• It is the Town’s responsibility to review noise and prevent inappropriate development.

 

• One quarter of the developable acreage of the site will be subject to noise levels over 67 dBA, a criterion for considering noise abatement.

 

• The Town of Chapel Hill should be responsible for an acoustical study and assuring that noise levels are considered in the development of a concept plan for this property.

 

• Such an acoustical study should be conducted prior to any submission of a concept plan for this property.

 

• The Town has an obligation to determine whether or not noise levels along I-40 are within NCDOT guidelines prior to review or approval of concept plans and other development proposals.

 

Subsequent to the submittal of this petition to the Town Council, additional information was submitted to the Planning Department in support of attention to I-40 noise.  This additional information is included here as Attachment 4, and includes the following:

 

• A memorandum to the Chapel Hill Town Council (dated August 10, 2003) from Mr. Seymour Freed, a Carol Woods resident, arguing that local governing bodies are

3

 

 

• responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the I-40 widening project.  This 6-page memorandum is accompanied by 31 pages of attached documents,
• including Mr. Freed’s estimate of probable decibel readings on the Habitat site following a future widening of I-40, based on Mr. Freed’s applying NCDOT general distance-noise data to the Habitat site.

 

• A memorandum from Mr. Freed dated August 17, 2003 in which he argues that NCDOT provided an inadequate base for assessing the impact of future noise levels related to the proposed I-40 widening.

 

• A memorandum from Mr. Freed dated August 18, 2003.  This 2-page memorandum has 23 pages of attachments, and argues that local governments should practice noise-compatible land use planning.

 

• A memorandum from Mr. Freed dated August 18, 2003.  This 2-page memorandum has 14 pages of attachments, and argues that it was not correct when a statement was made at the May 12, 2003 Town Council meeting that noise studies have never been required of Chapel Hill developers.

 

• A 3-page paper prepared by Mr. Freed, dated August 18, 2003, with 18 pages of attachments, arguing that NCDOT is committed to constructing High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes alongside the Habitat project, and that as a result the nearest traffic lane will be 45-50 feet closer to the property line than it is at present.

 

DISCUSSION

 

We note that no application for development of the proposed site has yet been filed.  Based on discussions during the work of the Mayor’s Committee, we would expect a Concept Plan to be submitted at some point as a first step, likely followed by preparation and submittal of a Special Use Permit application. 

 

The Council discussed the idea, on May 12, of suggesting to Habitat that Habitat arrange for an acoustical study of I-40 noise.  The Council decided not to include that suggestion in the set of principles that it adopted and forwarded to Habitat.  The Council could choose to re-open that discussion and consider again whether or not to suggest that Habitat conduct acoustical studies.

 

Whether or not that suggestion is made, and whether or not Habitat decides to conduct acoustical studies, we expect that the issue of I-40 noise will be raised at any Public Hearing for any development abutting I-40.  The Council could decide in the course of such Public Hearing that information on noise impacts is necessary, or could decide that I-40 noise is not a factor in consideration of a particular application.  An application for development would be considered in the Council’s normal quasi-judicial process, with a decision based on evidence and sworn testimony.

 

 

3.1

 

 

We also note that future widening of Interstate 40, between US 15-501 and Interstate 85 in Orange County, has not been approved by either the State or the Metropolitan Planning Organization for funding, and is an unscheduled project on the State’s Transportation Improvement Program.  The regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has stated its expectation that new noise studies would be need to be performed along the I-40 corridor in Orange County prior to the MPO agreeing to a schedule and funding plan for the project.  We expect that the concerns raised by Mr. Freed and others regarding noise impacts of I-40 widening would be addressed in a new noise study.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

We recommend that the Council take no action at this time.  The Council has already prepared a non-binding list of topics it would like to be considered as plans are drawn for this Sunrise Road property. We expect full discussion of all issues to unfold as a Concept Plan application and subsequent Special Use Permit application are prepared and submitted for consideration by the Council and the community.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      Petition from Sunrise Coalition, dated May 21, 2003 (p. 4).

2.      Council Memorandum on Report from Mayor’s Habitat Committee, May 12, 2003 (p. 6).

3.      Excerpt of Council Minutes from May 12, 2003 (p. 13).

4.      Materials prepared and submitted by Mr. Seymour Freed (p. 23). Part A, Part B