AGENDA #9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District, Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment
DATE: June 15, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Tonight’s reconvened Public Hearing is a continuation of the May 4, 2005 Community Dialogue on proposed changes to the provisions of the Town’s Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. On May 4, the Town Council and University representatives held a Community Dialogue on proposed changes to provisions of the Town’s Office/Institutional-4 zoning district.
At the conclusion of the May 4 dialogue meeting, the Town Council recessed the Public Hearing to June 15, 2005 and referred the item to the Planning Board for their review and recommendation. This memorandum and staff report provide a discussion of the issues raised on May 4 and include recommendations on a proposed ordinance amending the Land Use Management Ordinance for the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. A copy of the draft minutes from the May 4 Community Dialogue is attached (Attachment 8). Also attached is recent correspondence from Vice-Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield that communicates the University’s view on the issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the Staff Report on June 7, 2005 and voted 8-0 to recommend enactment of Ordinance A and adoption of Resolutions A, B, and C. Resolution D, regarding a policy establishing expedited processing of Development Plan Modification applications was not before the Planning Board on June 7. We will provide the Planning Board Summary when it is available.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: We recommend that the Council enact Ordinance A and adopt Resolutions A, B, C and D.
Ordinance A would amend the Land Use Management Ordinance as discussed in the attached Staff Report.
Resolution A would ask the University to participate in semi-annual meetings between the Town Council and University representatives to provide the Town Council with updates on University development activity, including upcoming projects that would require a Development Plan Modification.
Resolution B would amend the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines from 2001 to include a provision for submittal of an Executive Summary Report on a biannual basis beginning in December of this year.
Resolution C would request that University representatives present a Development Plan or Modification to specific advisory boards prior to Town Council review.
Resolution D would establish a policy to allow the Town Council to grant expedited processing of a Development Plan Modification, at the conclusion of a Concept Plan Review, should the Council determine that the particular proposal involves minimal or no impact to the surrounding areas.
ATTACHMENTS
2. December 6, 2004 proposed changes endorsed by Town Council (p. 27).
3. April 27, 2005 letter from UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield (p. 28).
4. May 23, 2005 letter from UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield (p. 33).
5. July 2, 2001 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (p. 37).
6. June 27, 2001 List of Development Plan Requirements (49).
7. October 3, 2001 Resolution on Neighborhood Workshops and Perimeter Transition Areas (p. 50).
8. Draft Meeting Minutes from May 4 Community Dialogue (p. 51).
9. Materials distributed on May 4 (p. 78), (p. 82).
10. May 4 Memorandum and related attachments (begin new page 1).
RESOLUTION A
A RESOLUTION ASKING UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO PARTICIPATE IN SEMI-ANNUAL MEETINGS (2005-06-15/R-17a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is interested in reviewing the status of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill development projects under construction, and previewing University developments that are planned;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby requests that representatives from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill participate in semi-annual meetings to provide the Town Council with updates on University development activity, including upcoming projects that would require a Development Plan Modification.
This the 15th day of June, 2005.
RESOLUTION B
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT (2005-06-15/R-17b)
WHEREAS, the Office/Institutional-4 regulations of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance currently require a Transportation Impact Analysis for development in the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2001, guidelines were endorsed by the Chapel Hill Town Council to identify the purpose, schedule and methodology of the detailed analysis;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends the 2001 Guidelines to require the submittal of an Executive Summary Report of the Transportation Impact Analysis, on a biannual basis beginning in December 2005, based on the guidelines agreed by the University and Town Council. The submittal of the Executive Summary Report would coincide with the biannual submittal of the Transportation Impact Analysis. The Reports are intended to be short and focus on key issues using lay language.
This the 15th day of June, 2005.
RESOLUTION C
A RESOLUTION ASKING UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS TO PRESENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS TO SPECIFIC ADVISORY BOARDS (2005-06-15/R-17c)
WHEREAS, University representatives have offered to make presentations of Development Plan or Development Plan Modification applications to specific advisory boards before the application is reviewed by the Chapel Hill Town Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby accepts the University’s proposal to make presentations of Development Plan or Development Plan Modification applications to specific advisory boards before the application is reviewed by the Town Council and suggests that the following advisory boards be included, in addition to the Town Planning Board:
· Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board,
· Community Design Commission,
· Historic District Commission,
· Transportation Board.
This the 15th day of June, 2005.
RESOLUTION D
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY REGARDING EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION APPLICATIONS (2005-06-15/R-17d)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is considering granting expedited processing of particular Development Plan Modification applications at the conclusion of a Concept Plan Review; and
WHEREAS, expedited processing grants priority status, for review of projects where there is a public interest or public objective involved, in being scheduled on agendas of advisory boards and the Town Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council may, at the conclusion of a Concept Plan review of a Development Plan Modification, determine that there is a public interest or public objective involved and determine that the proposal involves minimal or no impact to the surrounding area, and may granted expedited processing to allow review to occur in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
This the 15th day of June, 2005.
ORDINANCE A
(Manager’s Revised Recommendation and
Planning Board Recommendation)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE to ADJUST THE OFFICE/iNSTITUTIONAL-4 pROVISIONS (2005-06-15/O-5)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has been concerned about the provisions of the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has found that adjustments to the Office/Instititional-4 zoning district are desirable, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
The purpose and intent of the Office/Institutional-4 District (OI-4) is to establish procedural and substantive standards for the Town Council’s review and approval of development on large tracts of land where the predominant use is to be college, university, hospital, clinics, public cultural facilities, and related functions.
The objective of this Section and the OI-4 district is to allow for growth and development while protecting the larger community, nearby neighborhoods, and the environment from impacts accompanying major new development. A key feature of this district is the preparation of a Development Plan that would allow the property owner, immediate neighbors, and the larger community to understand specifically what levels of development are being proposed, and what impacts would likely accompany the development, so that mitigation measures can be designed and implemented.
(b) Overview of Development Review Procedures
Procedures in this zoning district are designed to facilitate:
· Articulation of development plans that involve multiple buildings in multiple locations over an extended time period on a given tract of land, as defined in a Development Plan;
· Identification of total infrastructure needs for such proposed development as specified in a Development Plan and cumulative impacts resulting from full development as specified in a Development Plan; and
· Provision
of measures to mitigate the negative impacts, including off-site construction
of parking decks as described in subsection (c)(d)(2), phased in
a manner appropriate with the pace of construction.
To this end, owners of property zoned OI-4 are encouraged to prepare detailed Development Plans, as described below, for review and approval by the Town Council. For buildings that are included in an approved Development Plan, Site Development Permits for individual buildings are to be issued by the Town Manager, following a determination by the Town Manager that such individual building plans are generally consistent with the Town Council-approved Development Plan.
For development proposed within an OI-4 zoning district that is not included in a Town Council-approved Development Plan, but is a minor change according to the provisions of subsection (i) of this Section, the Town Manager may approve a change to the Development Plan and issue a Site Development Permit. For development proposed within an OI-4 zoning district that is not included in a Town Council-approved Development Plan and that cannot be considered a minor change to the Plan according to subsection (i) of this Section, such development shall be considered to be a Special Use, and subject to the Special Use Permit procedural requirements of Section 4.5 of this Chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may apply to the Town Council for an amendment to the Development Plan.
Once a property is zoned Office/Institutional-4, all regulations, standards, and procedures prescribed for the previously-applicable zoning district shall apply until (1) a Development Plan is approved; or (2) six months have elapsed, whichever comes first.
Prior to submittal of a Development Plan or Modification of Development Plan, a Concept Plan Review shall be conducted by the Town Council. It is the intent of the Conceptual Development Plan process to provide an opportunity for the Town Council, Town Manager and citizens to review and evaluate the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
(1) Submittal Requirements. Applications for Conceptual Development Plan review shall be filed with the Town Manager. The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) on which information shall be submitted. Application submittal requirements shall include the following:
A. Descriptions of proposed development with building locations, building sizes, parking arrangements, and description of building heights with consideration of impact on adjacent areas.
A Development Plan shall address issues such as general location and size of new facilities, parking, utilities, stormwater management, impervious surface, and access/circulation. A Development Plan shall identify the general location, size, and proposed uses of buildings. A Development Plan shall project anticipated impacts on streets, water and sewer facilities, stormwater runoff, air quality, noise, and lighting.
(1) Submittal Requirements. Application submittal requirements shall include the following:
A. Specific descriptions of proposed development with building locations, building sizes, parking arrangements, and description of building heights with consideration of impact on adjacent areas.
B. Analysis of impacts resulting from proposed development, along with options to mitigate impacts relating to:
· Transportation Management (traffic, transit, parking, bikes, pedestrians, air quality);
· Stormwater Management Analysis (quantity and quality); and
· Noise and Lighting Analysis.
Individual effects must be evaluated in the context of the whole Development Plan and not in isolation. Impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with guidelines endorsed for use by the Town Council.
C. Preliminary timetable and sequencing schedule for building construction and for related mitigation measures.
(2) Off-site Components. Mitigation measures involving construction
of parking decks may need to be developed outside the boundaries of the
Development Plan. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Land Use
Management Ordinance, a parking deck proposed to mitigate impacts of a
Development Plan, and approved by the Town Council as part of a Development
Plan, may be located on a site not within the boundaries of an OI-4 zoning
district. Any such facility shall be reviewed as a Site Development
Permit according to the provisions of subsection (h)(i) (2) of
this Section.
Permitted
uses shall be identical with uses listed in the Use Matrix (Section 3.7)
as being permitted in OI-3, except that Place of Assembly shall be considered to be a permitted use and not a special use. The maximum floor area
allowed shall be as provided in a Development Plan that is approved by the Town
Council. Special restrictions apply in Perimeter Transition Areas (see
subsection (f)(g)).
For purposes of calculating compliance with a specified maximum floor area, the following land uses shall not be counted as floor area: new residential development (including Dwellings and Residence Halls), and new Public Cultural Facilities.
Development in the OI-4 zoning district shall be designed in a manner that provides a mix of uses which are integrated, interrelated and linked by pedestrian ways, bikeways, and other transportation systems. Development Plans shall, as practical and consistent with applicable laws and regulations, include measures to encourage reduction of automobile use and promote alternative modes of transportation; to mitigate adverse environmental impacts; to promote conservation of non-renewable energy resources; and to achieve visual continuity in the siting and scale of buildings. Specifically, a Development Plan shall address the following:
(1) Noise: Noise levels from development proposed in the Development Plan shall not exceed those allowed by the Town of Chapel Hill Noise Ordinance.
(2) Environment: Development proposed in the Development Plan shall minimize impacts on natural site features, and be accompanied by measures to mitigate those impacts.
(3) Transportation: Development proposed in the Development Plan shall be accompanied by measures to mitigate transportation impacts that are caused by the development.
(4) Stormwater Management: Development proposed in the Development Plan shall be accompanied by measures to mitigate stormwater impacts (quantity and quality) that are caused by the development.
(5) Public Utilities: There shall be a general demonstration that water, sewer, and other needed utilities can be made available to accommodate development proposed in the Development Plan.
(6) Historic Districts: The provisions of Section 3.6.2 of this Chapter shall apply to any development proposed within one of Chapel Hill’s Historic Districts.
A Development Plan shall designate a Perimeter Transition Area establishing appropriate standards at borders of the Development Plan, necessary to minimize impacts of development proposed in the Development Plan on adjacent property, to be approved by the Town Council as part of the Development Plan. Standards shall address:
(1) Screening mechanical equipment
(2) Exterior lighting
(3) Height limits
(4) Landscaping
Applications for a Development Plan, Special Use Permit, or Site Development Permit shall be filed with the Town Manager.
(1) Application Submittal Requirements. The Town Manager shall
prescribe the form(s) of applications as well as any other material he/she may
reasonably require to determine compliance with this Section.
Applications shall include information described in subsection (c)(d)
(1).
(2) Process for Review.
A. Applications for Development Plan approval shall be reviewed by the Planning Board and forwarded to the Town Council for consideration at a public hearing. The Planning Board shall review the application and the Town Manager’s report and shall submit to the Town Council a written recommendation based on the findings required in subsection (h)(3). The Planning Board shall prepare its recommendation within thirty-five (35) days of the meeting at which the Town Manager’s report is submitted to it or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant or by Town Council resolution. If the Planning Board fails to prepare its recommendation to the Town Council within this time limit, or extensions thereof, the Planning Board shall be deemed to recommend approval of the application without conditions.
B. Notice of the date, time, and place of the public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the planning jurisdiction once a week for two (2) successive weeks, with the first notice to be published not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the date of the hearing.
C. The Public Hearing shall be open to the public and all interested persons shall be given the opportunity to present evidence and arguments and to ask questions of persons who testify. The Town Council may place reasonable and equitable limitations on the presentation of evidence and arguments and the cross‑examination of witnesses to avoid undue delay. All persons who intend to present evidence at the public hearing shall be sworn.
D. The applicant shall bear the
burden of presenting evidence sufficient to establish persuasively that the
proposed development will comply with the determinations required in subsection
(g) (h)(3).
E. A record of the proceedings of
the hearing shall be made and shall include all documentary evidence presented
at the hearing. Town Council action on an application for Development Plan
approval shall occur within 90 120 days of the date of submittal
of a complete application.
(3) Town Council Action.
A. The Town Council shall approve a Development Plan unless it finds that the proposed development would not:
· Maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare; or
·
Maintain the value of adjacent property.; or
· Comply with all required regulations and standards of this Chapter, including all applicable provisions of Article 2 and with all other applicable regulations; or
· Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Town Council action shall be to:
· Approve;
· Approve with conditions; or
· Deny.
(1) Recording Approval. If the application for approval of a Development Plan is approved or approved with conditions, the Town Manager shall issue the approval in accord with the action of the Town Council. The applicant shall record such approval in the office of the County Register of Deeds. The Development Plan, including all conditions attached thereto, shall run with the land and shall be binding on the original applicant as well as all successors, assigns, and heirs.
(2) Individual Site Development Permits. If the Development Plan is approved, or approved with conditions, the Town Manager may then accept applications for individual Site Development Permits for specific buildings that are described in the Development Plan. No work on a building identified on the Development Plan may begin until a Site Development Permit has been issued. The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) of applications as well as any other material he/she may reasonably require to determine compliance with the Development Plan. Any application for a Site Development Permit in a Perimeter Transition Area shall include provisions for mailed notification to property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed development. If the Town Manager finds that the application is consistent with the Development Plan, he/she shall approve the application and issue the Site Development Permit within 15 working days of the submittal of a complete application. If the Town Manager finds that the application is not consistent with the Development Plan he/she shall deny the application within 15 working days of the acceptance of the application and refer the applicant to the Special Use Permit process described in Section 4.5 of this Chapter. Alternatively, the applicant may apply for an amendment to the Development Plan.
(3) Expiration, Abandonment, Revocation of Development Plan. If an application for a Site Development Permit pursuant to an approved Development Plan has not been submitted to the Town Manager within two (2) years of the date of approval of the Development Plan, the approval shall automatically expire. On request by the holder of an approved Development Plan, the Town Council shall approve the abandonment of the Plan if it determines that no subsequent development approvals have been granted and no construction activity has taken place pursuant to the Development Plan. If material conditions of a Development Plan are violated, and remain in violation after giving the property owner a reasonable amount of time to correct such violation, the Town Council may revoke the Plan after notification to the property owner and opportunity for property owner response at a public meeting of the Town Council.
The Town Manager is authorized to approve minor changes and changes in the ordering of phases in an approved Development Plan, as long as such changes continue to be in compliance with the approving action of the Town Council and all other applicable requirements, and result in a configuration of buildings that is generally consistent with the approved Development Plan. The Town Manager shall not have the authority to approve changes that constitute a modification of the Development Plan.
Before making a determination as to whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification, the Town Manager shall review the record of the proceedings on the original application for the Development Plan and any subsequent applications for modifications of the Development Plan, and shall use the following criteria in making a determination:
(1) A change in the boundaries of the Development Plan approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification;
(2) A substantial change in the floor area or number of parking spaces approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification. (General rule: more than a 5% increase in overall net new floor area or parking in a Development Plan approved by the Town Council would be considered substantial.);
(3) Substantial changes in pedestrian or vehicular access or circulation approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification. (General rule: changes that would affect access or circulation beyond the boundaries of a Development Plan would be considered substantial.); and
(4) Substantial change in the amount or location of open areas approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification.
If the proposed action is determined to be a modification, the Town Manager shall require the filing of an application for approval of the modification, following procedures outlined in this Section for initial approval of a Development Plan.
Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 15th day of June, 2005.
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District, Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment
DATE: June 15, 2005
INTRODUCTION
On May 4, 2005 the Town Council and University representatives held a Community Dialogue on proposed changes to provisions of the Town’s Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. This memorandum provides a discussion of the issues raised during the May 4th hearing and includes recommendations on a proposed ordinance amending the Land Use Management Ordinance for the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district.
BACKGROUND
July 2001 The Council amended the Development Ordinance in July 2001, to create the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. Also, in July 2001, the Council rezoned the main campus to apply the new OI-4 district.
June 2003 The Council received a petition asking for reconsideration of the required action time limits specified in the OI-4 district for Town Council review of a Development Plan. The Council referred this petition to the Town Manager and, in September 2003, the Town Manager submitted a report to the Town Council for consideration.
Jan 2004 At its annual Planning Session, the Council discussed whether and how a reconsideration of provisions of the OI-4 zoning district might be undertaken
Feb 9, 2004 The Council decided to call a Public Forum to hear citizen comments on this topic. The Forum was held on March 1.
April 2004 The Council adopted a resolution which called a Public Hearing for October 18 to consider specific adjustments to the Office/Institutional-4 provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The resolution included a list of proposed changes to the OI-4 zoning district. The Council referred the matter to the Planning Board for recommendation.
Sept 14, 2004 The Planning Board reviewed the proposed changes and forwarded a recommendation to the Council.
Oct 18, 2004 The Council opened a Public Hearing to consider adjustment to the OI-4 provisions. At the conclusion of the October 18 Public Hearing, the Council asked the Manager to recommend a process for initiating discussions with University officials.
Dec 6, 2004 The Council requested that the Mayor and Town Manager make arrangements for additional discussions of the proposed changes and initiate a process for additional discussions with University officials and citizens. The Council also endorsed a list of proposed changes to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district (Attachment 2).
Feb 14, 2005 The Council endorsed a process for further discussion through a Community Dialogue event.
April 27, 2005 In a letter to the Town Manager, the University submitted a list of proposed changes to the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District (Attachment 3). The first section of the chart also included the University’s response to the September 14, 2004 recommendation from the Planning Board.
May 5, 2005 The Town Council and University representatives conducted a Community Dialogue to hear citizen comments on provisions of the Town’s Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Town Council referred the item to the Planning Board for a recommendation and recessed the Public Hearing to June 15, 2005.
May 23, 2005 Responding to comments received during the May 5, 2005 Community Dialogue meeting, University Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield submitted a letter to the Town Manager (Attachment 4). The letter amended some of the proposed changes the University presented in the April 27, 2005 letter.
REVIEW OF OI-4 PROVISIONS
The OI-4 zoning district was created following a series of discussions between the Town and the University. The new zoning district was established by the Town Council in July 2001. The result was a negotiated set of regulations that balanced the University’s needs for certainty, timeliness of consideration, and ability to pursue a development program with the Town’s needs for community consideration of and mitigation of impacts of such development.
Key features of the OI-4 District include:
KEY ISSUES
During the May 4, 2005 Community Dialogue, the Town Council and University representatives discussed proposed changes to the OI-4 district and received comments from citizens on proposed changes by both the Town Council and the University. The first list of proposed changes was complied and endorsed by the Town Council on December 6, 2004 (Attachment 2). The second list of changes was proposed by the University. The University’s proposal was outlined in a chart under the heading “UNC Proposed Changes” as attached to the April, 2005 letter from UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield to the Town Manager (Attachment 3). This chart also included the University’s response to changes proposed by the Planning Board.
Key issues discussed at the May 4 meeting concerned ordinance provisions, the Town’s enforcement and oversight of Development Plan and Site Development Permit applications and the protest petition filed by the University.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Following is a list of the proposed amendments from the Council, University and citizen initiatives to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district, as discussed during the May 4, 2005 Community Dialogue meeting. Number 1 through 9 includes the Council’s list of proposed changes. Changes proposed by the University’s are listed as items 10 through 17.
Staff comments are provided regarding each of the proposed changes. The University’s position on each proposed change follows the comment.
Council’s Proposed Changes to the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District
(Including Citizen Initiatives)
1. Require that a Concept Plan be presented for Council consideration prior to submittal of an application for a Development Plan or Modification of a Development Plan.
Comment: We believe that discussion of a Concept Plan at the beginning of the process helps to identify key issues at an early stage of consideration, and allows the Council and the community opportunities to offer early input.
We recommend that the Council adjust the language of the Ordinance to require Town Council consideration of a Concept Plan as a mandatory pre-application step, prior to submittal of a Development Plan or Development Plan Modification. Ordinance A includes this provision. We recommend that Town advisory board members and all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Development Plan be notified and invited to the Concept Plan review.
The University has indicated agreement with the general recommendation though not provided agreement with the 1,000 foot notification provision.
2. Allow more time for Council action on an application for a Development Plan or Modification of a Development Plan. The current requirement is that the Council take action on such an application within 90 days of the date of Town acceptance of a complete application.
Comment: A longer review period would permit additional time for staff, Council and community review and input on a proposed application. We believe the additional time would be helpful. We recommend that the Council adjust the language of the Ordinance to lengthen the Town’s review period for Development Plan or Development Plan Modification from 90 days to 120 days. Ordinance A includes this adjustment.
The University is proposing a change to the Ordinance that would allow the Council 120 days but also provide that the 120 day review period be reduced for certain Development Plan projects that are located internal to the campus. This proposal is discussed below (see #10).
3. Allow more time for Council action on applications that involve a Perimeter Transition Area.
Comment: Recognizing that the interface between the outer boundary of the OI-4 zoning district and neighborhoods adjacent to the University requires particular attention, the Land Use Management Ordinance includes specific standards for areas identified as Perimeter Transition Areas.
We do not recommend further time for action on applications that involve a Perimeter Transition Area. We recommend that the Council amend the Ordinance to lengthen the review period for all Development Plan Applications and Modifications from 90 to 120 days. We believe this extended time period will allow more time for consideration of all applications, including those that involve a Perimeter Transition Area. Ordinance A includes this adjustment.
The University is proposing a change to the Ordinance that would allow the Council 120 days but also provide that the 120 day review period be reduced for certain Development Plan projects that are located internal to the campus. This proposal is discussed below (see #10).
4. Specify that the Planning Board make a recommendation on such (Development Plan) applications, rather than a requirement that the Board review applications; allow time for two Planning Board meetings to consider such applications, similar to what is specified now for Special Use Permit applications.
Comment: We recommend that the Ordinance be amended to include the same provisions for Planning Board review of a Development Plan as required for Special Use Permits. This change would require that the Planning Board make a recommendation, and would give the Planning Board 35 days from receipt of a staff report to make a recommendation. The 35 day period allows time for a minimum of two and possibly three Planning Board meetings. We believe that this time allocation could be accommodated within the proposed 120-day review period. Ordinance A includes this recommendation.
We understand that the University would support an Ordinance change to require a recommendation from the Planning Board as long as the scheduling of Planning Board meetings and the Council’s consideration of their recommendation does not extend the Council’s review period beyond 120 days. We believe that it is reasonable for the Planning Board to conduct a review and forward a recommendation to the Council within the 120 day period, without affecting the time available for Council’s consideration.
5. Establish a system of quarterly meetings with University representatives to review the status of projects in construction, and offer a preview of projects that are planned.
Comment: Currently Town and University staff members meet on a monthly and quarterly basis to discuss current and pending Town and University projects. We believe that similar meetings between Council members and University representatives would help promote communications regarding University development projects.
We recommend that the Council ask University officials, with adoption of Resolution A, to participate in semi-annual meetings, in a work session format, to provide the Town Council with updates on University development activity, including upcoming projects that would require a Development Plan Modification.
The University has not indicated agreement with this recommendation.
6. Add a finding that the Council must make in order to approve a Development Plan or Development Plan Modification: “That the University’s plan/modifications comply with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.”
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan is a general planning tool that outlines a variety of goals and objectives for the Town’s future development. Because the plan is broadly based on a number of community values, some of the objectives and goals in some situations conflict with each other.
We believe that the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives recognize the University as a vital component of the community. The Comprehensive Plan also includes a variety of goals and objectives that encourage conservation of neighborhoods surrounding the campus.
Nearby neighbors of the University have asked that this finding regarding the Comprehensive Plan be include in the OI-4 regulations.
University representatives offered support for this proposed change during the May 4, 2005 Community Dialogue meeting. We recommend that the Council add language to the Ordinance to require that the Town Council make the finding in order to approve a Development Plan or Modification. Ordinance A includes this new language.
7. Add a finding that the Council must make in order to approve a Development Plan or Development Plan Modification: “That the University’s plan/modifications comply with all applicable regulations.”
Comment: We believe that the “applicable regulations” that the University’s Development Plan are subject to are spelled out in the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance. Although we do not believe that it is necessary to include this as a finding, it may be helpful to do so in order to reinforce the applicability of the regulations. Nearby neighbors of the University have asked that this provision be included in the OI-4 regulations.
University representatives supported this proposed change during the May 4, 2005 Community Dialogue meeting. We recommend that the Council add language to the Office/Institutional-4 district regulations that would require the Town Council to make a finding that the Development Plan or Modification complies with all applicable regulations. Ordinance A includes this language.
8. Include a section in OI-4 that would establish public Town reviews of projects to see if the developers are adhering to the standards of the Comprehensive Plan as a way of protecting adjacent and near-by neighborhoods.
Comment: Procedures and requirements are already in place to enforce compliance with conditions of approval for all applications. The Town Manager is responsible for enforcement of zoning regulations and conditions of development approvals. (Exceptions: State agencies are responsible for enforcing requirements related to water quality and soil erosion for State construction projects and the State Department of Insurance issues building permits and authorizes occupancy of structures.) Citizens who believe a project is not in compliance during or after construction may seek Town review by contacting staff or petitioning the Council just like any other project.
We recommend that the Council take no action.
Comment: The OI-4 regulations currently require a Transportation Impact Analysis for development in the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District. In 2001, Guidelines were endorsed to identify the purpose, schedule and methodology of the detailed analysis.
We recommend that the Council amend the July 2, 2001 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Attachment 5) to require the submittal of an Executive Summary Report on a biannual basis beginning in December 2005. The submittal of this report beginning in December 2005 would coincide with the biannual submittal of the Transportation Impact Analysis.
Staff and University officials are currently discussing guidelines for the Executive Summary Report. We anticipate that a copy of the report guidelines will be available for Council consideration at the June 15, 2005 Public Hearing. Resolution B would amend the 2001 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to require a biannual Executive Summary Report. We anticipate that the Reports will be short and focus on key issues using lay language.
University’s Proposed Changes to the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District
Following are suggested changes proposed by University representatives on May 4, followed by staff comments.
10. “Shorten Council review period for projects internal to the campus from 90 to 60 days.”
Comment: We have suggested, above, that the standard time limit for review of applications be specified at 120 days. We believe that in certain situations it may be reasonable for the Council, on a case by case basis, to agree to a shorter review period for internal projects that minimally affect areas outside the OI-4 zoning district. We believe that such determinations could be made by the Council during the Concept Plan Review or referred to the Town Manager for a recommendation before the University formally submits a Development Plan application.
As previously discussed under item #4 above, the University’s proposal to decrease the review period for some projects internal to the campus may limit the Council’s time to consider the Planning Board’s recommendation and comments from other advisory boards (see item #11). We believe that a request to grant a reduced review period for a particular application could be approved by the Council for circumstances that involve minimal or no impact to the surrounding areas.
We do not believe that adjustment to the provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance is necessary for the Council to grant an expedited review. Resolution D would establish a Council policy regarding expedited processing of Development Plan Modification applications.
11. “Require the University to present Development Plan applications to Town review boards during the 60 or 120 day Council review period.”
Comment: We recommend that the offer by the University to voluntarily appear before the Town’s advisory boards during the 120 day review period be accepted. We believe that the review by advisory boards can occur parallel to the Planning Board’s review schedule. Currently the Planning Board and other advisory boards forward recommendations to the Council for Special Use Permit applications. Review by advisory boards, other than the Planning Board, is not presently required by the Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe that a similar review process can be implemented for Development Plan applications. We do not recommend that the Council amend the Ordinance to include this provision.
We recommend that the Council adopt a resolution requesting that University representatives make presentations of the Development Plan application to advisory boards before the application is reviewed by the Council. Resolution C would request presentations to advisory boards.
12. “Spell out the specific criteria to be used by Town staff to declare UNC’s Development Plan submission ‘complete.’”
Comment: Attachment 6 is a copy of a list of submittal criteria that staff created to assist the University in their preparation of the Development Plan. This information was presented to the University prior to the submittal of the first Development Plan. We believe that by referring to Attachment 6, University representatives can determine what information Town staff will require in order to decide if an application is complete.
We recommend that the Council take no action on this issue.
13. “Define in clear terms what constitutes a “minor” modification to the Development Plan.”
Comment: The definition of a minor change to a Development Plan is specified in Section 3.5.2 (i) in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The referenced section from the Land Use Management Ordinance is presented below in italic text. The underlined text specifically addresses criteria the Town Manager shall consider in determining if a proposed change is a minor change or a major modification to the Development Plan
The Town Manager is authorized to approve minor changes and changes in the ordering of phases in an approved Development Plan, as long as such changes continue to be in compliance with the approving action of the Town Council and all other applicable requirements, and result in a configuration of buildings that is generally consistent with the approved Development Plan. The Town Manager shall not have the authority to approve changes that constitute a modification of the Development Plan.
Before making a determination as to whether a proposed action is a minor change or a modification, the Town Manager shall review the record of the proceedings on the original application for the Development Plan and any subsequent applications for modifications of the Development Plan, and shall use the following criteria in making a determination:
(1) A change in the boundaries of the Development Plan approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification;
(2) A substantial change in the floor area or number of parking spaces approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification. (General rule: more than a 5% increase in overall net new floor area or parking in a Development Plan approved by the Town Council would be considered substantial.);
(3) Substantial changes in pedestrian or vehicular access or circulation approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification. (General rule: changes that would affect access or circulation beyond the boundaries of a Development Plan would be considered substantial.); and
(4) Substantial change in the amount or location of open areas approved by the Town Council shall constitute a modification.
If the proposed action is determined to be a modification, the Town Manager shall require the filing of an application for approval of the modification, following procedures outlined in this Section for initial approval of a Development Plan.
We believe that the existing Ordinance provides sufficient guidelines for determining whether a proposed change is minor or major. We recommend that the Council take no action on this issue.
14. “Limit questions for which a formal University response is required to matters relevant to protection of community property values and health, safety and welfare.”
Comment: In order for the Council to approve a Development Plan, the Land Use Management Ordinance presently requires that the Council find that the development would:
· Maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare; or
· Maintain the value of adjacent property.
If the Council is to review a Development Plan application and determine if the proposed plan complies with the required findings, the Council may need to ask questions of the applicant, and we do not believe that it is possible or desirable to prescribe ahead of time a limited purview for inquiry. If the University believes in any particular case that questions are raised which are not germane to the issues, it can respond as it determines appropriate.
We recommend that the Council take no action on this issue.
15. “Stipulate that minor modifications of projects located in the Perimeter Transition Area are subject to the same requirements as minor modifications in other areas of OI-4.”
Comment: We believe that the Perimeter Transition Area is subject to the same standards described in # 13 above regarding minor and major changes.
We recommend that the Council take no action on this issue.
16. “Allow minor modifications to be submitted simultaneously with the Site Development Permit (SDP) request.”
Comment: The current Ordinance does not prohibit the simultaneous submittal of a request for a minor change with a Site Development Permit application. The staff review period for Site Development Permits is limited to 15 working days. If the minor change was not authorized during the limited review period, the Site Development Permit would have to be denied. Therefore, we believe it is better to submit requests for minor changes separate from Site Development Permit applications.
We recommend that the Council take no action on this issue.
17. “Require UNC to involve neighbors in Perimeter Transition Areas throughout project development (versus one meeting).”
Comment: In 2001 the Council approved a Resolution (Attachment 7) requesting that the University conduct a workshop for projects located within a Perimeter Transition Area. We believe that this process is working. We do not recommend that the Council amend the Ordinance. The University is not precluded from holding additional meetings with the neighbors and has held additional meetings to good effect.
We believe that it is not necessary for the Council to take any action.
TOWN ENFORCEMENT
In addition to the proposed changes to the OI-4 zoning district, one issue discussed at the May 4th meeting concerned the Town’s enforcement and oversight of Development Plan and Site Development Permit applications.
Comment: During the past three years, Town staff has responded to a number of complaints involving University projects. Citizens who believe a project is not in compliance during or after construction may seek Town review by contacting staff or petitioning the Council. The majority of complaints involve construction traffic on town streets. Because of the working relationship between Town staff and University representatives, most of these complaints were resolved within 24 hours or less. The Town also received several complaints associated with the Mason Farm Road Student Family House projects. In response, Town staff conducted inspections, including on-site meetings with neighbors and University representatives to ensure compliance with conditions of approval.
We believe that procedures are already in place to enforce compliance with conditions of approval for all applications. The Town Manager is responsible for enforcement of zoning regulations and conditions of development approvals. (Exceptions: State agencies are responsible for enforcing requirements related to water quality and soil erosion for State construction projects and the State Department of Insurance issues building permits and authorizes occupancy of structures.)
PROTEST PETITION
University officials have filed a valid and sufficient Protest Petition regarding the Town’s proposed amendments to the OI-4 zoning district. Accordingly a three-fourths vote by the Council would be required to enact those text amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Council enact Ordinance A and adopt Resolutions A, B, C and D.
Ordinance A would amend the Land Use Management Ordinance as discussed in this Staff Report.
Resolution A would ask the University to participate in semi-annual meetings between the Town Council and University representatives to provide the Town Council with updates on University development activity, including upcoming projects that would require a Development Plan Modification.
Resolution B would amend the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines from 2001 to include a provision for submittal of an Executive Summary Report on a biannual basis beginning in December of this year.
Resolution C would request that University representatives present a Development Plan or Modification to specific advisory boards prior to Town Council review.
Resolution D would establish a policy to allow the Town Council to grant expedited processing of a Development Plan Modification, at the conclusion of a Concept Plan Review, should the Council determine that the particular proposal involves minimal or no impact to the surrounding areas.