ATTACHMENT 4

 

RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED IN

3/7/01 LETTER FROM CHANCELLOR MOESER

TO MAYOR WALDORF

 

The Chapel Hill Town Council offers the following comments in response to specific issues raised in a letter from Chancellor James Moeser to Mayor Rosemary Waldorf, dated March 7, 2001.

 

•  The letter describes well the extensive internal review process for proposed University facilities.  These reviews are related to funding, building location, building design, immediate infrastructure needs, and relation to the University’s mission and services.  There is little consideration of community impacts built into any of the review processes that are listed.  The Town Council has previously discussed, for example, the limited extent of environmental review that is built into the State Clearinghouse requirements. 

 

• Regarding the request for relief from Floor Area Ratio limits:  The letter correctly describes the limitations on University development that are imposed by the Floor Area Ratios for the OI-3 zoning district.  These existing ratios would limit additional building on the main campus to approximately 300,000 net additional square feet.  The University has plans to increase floor area over the next 7-10 years by much more than that.

 

•  Regarding the request for relief from the ZCP process:  The letter states that planning for “campus-wide systems such as storm water management and parking and transportation issues” is best done on a campus-wide basis, rather than building-by-building.  There is logic and merit in this argument.  However, there is currently no process by which the Town can review and approve plans on a campus-wide basis.  If such a process were in place, with a mechanism for periodic review and update, it could obviate the need for building-by-building reviews.  A good example of this is the storm water management issue referred to on page 4 of the letter.  It is stated that there is $10 million earmarked for storm water management study and improvements, and this is noteworthy.  But until a plan is prepared and facilities are put in place, attention to building-by-building stormwater impacts is warranted. 

 

• Regarding concern that the current administrative Zoning Compliance Permit review process is “cumbersome and frustrating”:  We note that this process carries with it a statutory time limit for review of 15 working days from application to action.  Often the action will be “approval with conditions,” which requires the applicant to furnish additional information.  Following are 2 examples to illustrate typical time frames:

 

1. Graham Memorial Addition:  $125 fee.  Application submitted April 29, 1998.  Application approved with conditions May 15, 1998.  Information resubmitted by University to address conditions June 12, 1998.  Zoning Compliance Permit issued June 19, 1998.

 

2. Biomolecular Research Building:  $125 fee.  Application submitted March 26, 1999.  Application approved with conditions April 9, 1999.  Information resubmitted by University to address conditions May 24, 1999.  Zoning Compliance Permit issued June 4, 1999.

 

• Regarding the request for relief from the Site Plan Review (Planning Board) requirement:  We agree that the 15% rule is less than ideal, and can result in a situation where a building of insignificant impact triggers Planning Board review.  However, there is logic in the requirement in that it makes sense to periodically have a check-in mechanism to monitor University growth and impacts, beyond simply staff review.  Perhaps another such mechanism would be better than the simple 15% rule.  Recent experience has been that there is a long time period between the events that trigger this review by the Planning Board.  The most recent review was triggered by the Bioinformatics building in December, 2000.  The last review before that was Lineberger Cancer Institute in 1990.

 

• Regarding the concerns about the Bioinformatics Building:  We note that, upon request by the University, the Planning Board review of this application was expedited due to action by the Town Council.  The Site Plan Review application was accepted by the Town on October 30, 2000.  The Planning Board approved the application on December 5, 2000.  Final plans were submitted (to demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval) on December 11.  A Zoning Compliance Permit was issued on December 21.  Two Town issues remain outstanding for this project.  Additional right-of-way is to be dedicated, which requires State action.  And an encroachment agreement will be needed for work in Town right-of-way for construction of a pedestrian bridge.  That encroachment agreement, when it is requested, will need to be approved by the Town Council.  The letter states that the cost of Town review was $41,378.  Our records confirm this.  All other University applications over that past ten years have paid only an administrative application fee (currently set at $125). 

 

• Regarding the proposed Courtesy Review Process:  The letter proposes that building-by-building review take the form of a courtesy review to be performed by Town staff, to look at details of projects such as required work in the right-of-way of Town streets and traffic control plans during construction.  This kind of detail is appropriately proposed to be a staff-only function.  We believe that there also needs to be an accompanying proposed process for policy-level discussion about community impacts that result from adding several million square feet of facilities.

 

• Regarding the Horace Williams tract:  The letter proposes that this entire tract, 900+ acres in Chapel Hill’s jurisdiction, much of which is currently zoned Residential-1, be zoned to a new zoning district - - which would have no floor area limits and no Town approvals required.   We suggest first designing a new zoning district for application to the main campus, and then examining possibilities for application to the Horace Williams tract.  Some issues are similar; some are quite different.

 

• Regarding other outlying properties:  The letter requests that there be a blanket “Expedited Processing” status granted for all UNC and UNC Health Care System projects.  The Town’s current system involves specific requests being made to the Town Council, with reasons provided about why special treatment is necessary.  This same process applies to other public bodies as well:  Orange County government and Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools, for example.  The Town Council has not previously granted a blanket status to all applications from any of these institutions.  This proposal merits further discussion.

 

• Regarding the Smith Center Special Use Permit:  The letter states that housing needs to be built on land encumbered by the Smith Center Special Use permit, partly in order to “delay as long as possible the acquisition of private property along Mason Farm Road.”  The connection between these two ideas is not explained.  Note that the process for modifying the Smith Center Special Use Permit is already established:  The University would need to prepare and submit an application showing what it wants to do, and the application would be considered by advisory boards and at a Public Hearing.  The letter states that building housing on the Smith Center site would require removal of the fence that separates the Smith Center from the adjacent residential neighborhood.  This fence was a key point of the agreement to build the Smith Center.  The letter does not explain why removal of the fence would be necessary.

 

• Regarding New Access to Fordham Boulevard:  The letter describes a new access point to the campus from Fordham Boulevard as “an obvious need.”  The case for this new access has not been persuasively made to the Town Council, and we believe that there is lack of agreement that the need for this additional access is obvious.   The letter notes that construction of this road would require removal of the fence that separates the Smith Center from the adjacent residential neighborhood, but does not explain why.

 

• The letter offers to provide the Town with annual updates of project construction schedules.  Some of this information is currently provided on a quarterly basis through the Coordination and Consultation Committee, and is very helpful.

 

Finally, we add a note about an issue not mentioned in the Chancellor’s letter, but discussed at the February 22 meeting of the University Board of Trustees. 

 

Dr. Jeffrey L. Houpt, Dean of the Medical School, suggested that the configuration of South Columbia Street between the Ambulatory Care Center and Fordham Boulevard should be reconsidered.  More specifically, he suggested that it should be widened beyond the two-lane configuration now envisioned by the Council.  In following discussion, it was suggested that the possible widening of South Columbia Street be considered as a separate issue.

 

The Council reached agreement with the University and the Department of Transportation about the improvement of South Columbia Street between Manning Drive and Fordham Boulevard.  That agreement calls for improvements that we continue to believe are adequate.  Those improvements are programmed in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program for completion in 2005.  If the University wishes to discuss the configuration of South Columbia Street, we believe such a discussion must be in the context of all the issues now under consideration between the Town and the University.