AGENDA #1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Development Plan Application (File No. 7.71, 73, 74, 86, 87)
DATE: September 19, 2001
This Public Hearing has been scheduled for the Town Council to consider the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Development Plan.
CONTEXT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THESE MATERIALS
We offer this memorandum, draft resolutions, and attached background material for consideration by the Town Council and the community as discussions continue about the University’s proposed Development Plan.
Staff representatives from the Town and the University have been meeting regularly and working extensively over the past few months to prepare these materials. From the time the Development Plan application was submitted, to and through review by the Planning Board, and in preparation of this packet for this Public Hearing, we have been in regular communication. Several differing points of view have come forward, and we have worked toward finding solutions to concerns and issues that might be acceptable to all parties: community, neighbors, University.
We believe that we have successfully found common ground on most, but not all issues. It is our understanding that University representatives will report to you tonight regarding particular points that they would like to discuss further before action takes place.
As always, our objective has been to place before the Council and community for consideration at Public Hearing a balanced evaluation of proposals. We look forward to discussions tonight, to dialogue between the Town Council, community representatives, and University representatives in the context of this Hearing, and to the Council’s directions to us regarding next steps.
INTRODUCTION
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has submitted an application for approval of a Development Plan for the main campus. The application is comprised of a Development Plan booklet, dated July 3, 2001, and supplemental information (Addendum No. 1 dated August 7, 2001, and Addendum #2 dated September 10, 2001). The August 7 Addendum #1 responds to staff request for additional information based on review of the original submittal. In Addendum #2 the University clarifies its intent regarding a proposed new road immediately north of the existing Mason Farm Road.
The July 3 main application and the August 7 Addendum #1 were previously distributed to Town Council members and Advisory boards. The two documents include hundreds of pages, many printed in color for readability. For purposes of avoiding the cost of unnecessary duplication, those two documents are not attached here again. Copies are available for review in the Town’s Planning Department, the Town Clerk’s office, and the Public Library on Estes Drive. Excerpts from the plan are available on the Town’s website, at www.townofchapelhill.org. The University has posted the full Plan on its website: www.fac.unc.edu/DevelopmentPlan.
Addendum #2 is brief and recent, and is attached.
The submitted Development Plan includes 582 acres of the main campus and proposes new buildings and renovations for academics, research, student life, administration, utility infrastructure, parking, and student housing. New building and renovations for the UNC Health Care System and additions to the Ackland Museum, Morehead Planetarium, and Memorial Hall are also proposed. The Development Plan also includes projects that extend the campus pedestrian and open space network.
The Plan proposes forty-one new buildings, eight parking facilities/decks and new roads. The Plan proposes replacing four existing buildings, expanding six buildings and renovating five other structures. The total square footage for the new construction and other improvements is 5,901,277 square feet.
The Development Plan site is located within the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) zoning district and is identified as parts of Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 71, 73, 74, 86, and 87.
We also understand that, in a related action, the University is preparing a request that the Town Council authorize abandonment of the Smith Center Special Use Permit. That request is expected shortly, and could be scheduled for Council consideration and potential action on October 3, the same date as is being targeted for consideration of action on the Development Plan application.
BACKGROUND
Last fall, discussions began between the Town and University regarding the University’s plans for future facilities and the limitations on future floor area expansion imposed by the Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3) zoning on the University’s main campus.
October 23, 2000 Mayor Waldorf presented a proposed process for discussing issues of mutual concern between the Town and University, and subsequently appointed a Mayor’s Committee to meet with University representatives.
April 23, 2001 Council adopted a resolution endorsing a proposed schedule of action, including setting a date for Public Hearings on a proposed new zoning district and on a proposed rezoning for the main campus. The schedule called for action as follows:
May 31: Draft for OI-4 district completed
June 18: Public Hearing on OI-4 district, rezoning proposal
July 2: Council Action to create OI-4, and rezone Main Campus
July 3: University submits Development Plan
Sept 4: Planning Board reviews Development Plan
Sept 19: Council Public Hearing on Development Plan
Oct 1: Council acts on Development Plan
May 7, 2001 The University submitted a map showing the areas for which the University sought to achieve a rezoning.
June 18, 2001 The Council held a Public Hearing on a Development Ordinance text amendment proposing a new zoning district: Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4). A Public Hearing was also held to consider rezoning a portion of the University of North Carolina central campus to this new OI-4 zoning district.
July 2, 2001 Following considerable work between Town and University staff members, the Council adopted an amendment to the Development Ordinance creating a new office/institutional zoning district (OI-4). The Council endorsed transportation management, stormwater management and noise and lighting guidelines for use by the Town Council with consideration of a Development Plan in the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district.
The Council adopted an Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas to rezone 582 acres of the University of North Carolina main campus to Office/Institutional-4.
July 5, 2001 The University submitted a Development Plan Application for 5,901,277 square feet of building improvements on the main campus. Improvements include new buildings, multi-level parking decks, renovations and additions to existing facilities and extensions to the campus pedestrian and open space network. The submitted Development Plan does not include all of the improvements associated with the University’s Campus Master Plan approved by the University’s Board of Trustees on March 22, 2001.
July 31, 2001 The Development Plan application was presented to members of Town Advisory boards.
August 7, 2001The University submitted material (“Addendum No. 1”) in response to a staff request for additional information.
August 21, 2001 Planning Board review of application.
August 27, 2001 Council adjusts October 1 action date to October 3.
September 4, 2001 Planning Board: Continuation of review and recommendation.
September 10, 2001 University submitted Addendum #2.
September 19, 2001 Public Hearing on Development Plan
PROCESS
Applications for Development Plan approval are to be reviewed by the Planning Board and forwarded to the Town Council for consideration at a Public Hearing. We expect University representatives to make a presentation at the hearing, describing what is being proposed and offering comments on recommendations that are brought for the Council’s consideration.
The Public Hearing is open to the public and all interested persons are to be given the opportunity to present evidence and arguments and to ask questions of persons who testify. The 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 are to be sworn.
The Planning Board considered this application on August 21 and again on September 4. At the September 4 meeting the Board made a recommendation to approve the application with conditions, as described below.
The Town Council must approve a Development Plan unless it finds that the proposed development would not:
a) Maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare; or
b) Maintain the value of adjacentproperty.
Town Council action may be to:
a) Approve;
b) Approve with conditions; or
c) Deny.
The applicant bears the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to establish persuasively that the proposed development will comply with the determinations stated above.
Town Council action on an application for Development Plan approval is to occur within 90 days of the date of submittal of a complete application. We consider this application to be complete as of August 7, 2001, the date of submittal of Addendum #1. Ninety days from that date is November 5, 2001.
Following the Hearing, Town staff will compile comments and prepare additional options for the Council’s consideration on October 3.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
¨ Cover Memorandum: Introduces application, describes process for review, summarizes staff and advisory board comments, and offers recommendations for Council action. ¨ Staff Report: Offers a detailed description of the site and proposed development, and presents an evaluation of the application regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance. ¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, advisory board comments, applicant’s materials, correspondence from citizens, and related information.
|
OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL-4
When the Town Council created a new OI-4 zoning district on July 2, and then rezoned the main campus from OI-3 to OI-4, it created a context for preparation and consideration of long-range plans.
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.
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. 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
Development Plans:Owners of properties zoned OI-4 are able to prepare Development Plans, for review and action by the Town Council. Development Plan application submittal requirements include an analysis of impacts resulting from the proposed development, along with options to mitigate impacts relating to transportation, stormwater, noise and lighting. On July 2, 2001, the Council endorsed guidelines for use when evaluating impacts resulting from proposed development identified on a Development Plan. The guidelines address transportation impact, stormwater management, and noise and light.
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. If the Manager finds that the Site Development Permit application is consistent with the Development Plan, he must approve the application and issue the Site Development Permit within 15 working days of the submittal of a complete application. If the Manager finds that the application is not consistent with the Development Plan he will 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 Article 18. Alternatively, the applicant may revise the Site Development Permit application, or apply for an amendment to the Development Plan.
Site Development Permits for individual buildings are to be issued by the Town Manager, following a determination by the Manager that such individual building plans are generally consistent with the Council-approved Development Plan. No work on a building identified on the Development Plan may begin until a Site Development Permit has been issued. We note that we believe that “generally consistent” does not mean “identical.”
We note that the Office/Institutional-4 provisions allow the Town Manager to approve an increase in floor area of up to 5 percent.
As noted above, one of the purposes of a Site Development Plan application is to demonstrate compliance with an approved Development Plan. Accordingly, we recommend that each application for a Site Development Permit shall include the following information:
a) A Site Plan showing building footprints, access drives, pedestrian circulation (with connections to existing pedestrian networks), parking areas, and clearing limits.
b) A Grading Plan.
c) A Utility Plan showing how all utilities will be provided to buildings.
d) A statement of floor area to be constructed/demolished, and statement of number of parking spaces to be create/lost.
e) The number and location of bicycle storage facilities in the vicinity of each building.
f) A Construction Management Plan.
g) Description of how emergency access to and around buildings will be provided both during and after completion of construction.
Other information determined by the Town Manager to be necessary in order to evaluate compliance with the approved Development Plan.
DISCUSSION
A Staff Report is attached, describing and evaluating the application. This report was forwarded to Town Advisory Boards for use as they considered the application. (The version of the Staff Report attached here differs from the Staff Report presented to the Planning Board on September 4, in that it has been adjusted to delete redundancy with material contained in this cover memorandum.)
In the review of this Development Plan application, a number of key issues have emerged. Most of these address development that is proposed on the perimeter of the main campus. We offer a summary of each key issue as follows, along with comments about how recommended conditions of approval have been adjusted in response to discussions to date.
Level of Information and Detail: Throughout this process of evaluating this application, as well as during the process of developing the OI-4 Zoning District last spring, citizens have expressed concern that the level of detail that would be provided in a Master Plan would not be sufficient to allow full consideration and evaluation. Those comments continue.
We note that the OI-4 district contemplates a Development Plan that is general, followed by Site Development Permit applications that are quite detailed for individual buildings. The OI-4 district calls for a Development Plan to be approved/denied by the Town Council, with Town Manager action on specific Site Development Permit applications (checking for consistency with the Development Plan). In acknowledgement of the particular sensitivity of perimeter areas, the OI-4 district calls for more detail at the Development Plan level in perimeter areas.
Even in the Perimeter Transition Areas, the level of detail for a Development Plan is not as specific as is typical for a Special Use Permit. We believe that the level of detail included in this Development Plan, with its addenda, is consistent with what is required by the OI-4 zoning district.
We believe that neighbors make a reasonable request, asking to be able to discuss specific building plans with University officials for those areas where the proposed buildings are directly adjacent to residential areas. The OI-4 zoning district specifies a 15-working-day time limit for Town Manager action on building-specific Site Development Permit applications. We note that this short time period was purposefully included the OI-4 district so as to allow the University to proceed in a timely way with its development of needed facilities, and that this time period does not allow opportunity for meaningful dialogue with neighbors. Accordingly, we suggest that the Town Council formally request that the University, prior to submitting Site Development Permit applications for buildings in Perimeter Transition Areas, conduct design workshops with neighbors. A separate resolution is attached that would ask the University to do so.
We also note our intention to provide mailed notice to all property owners within 500 feet of a new facility proposed in a Perimeter Transition Area whenever a Site Development Permit application for such a facility is submitted. Such notice would allow opportunity for monitoring the review and approval process, also allowing opportunity for an appeal of any Town Manager decision to be filed in a timely way with the Board of Adjustment
Mason Farm Road: There are multiple related, substantive issues here, all involving the relationship of proposed development to nearby single-family homes: buffers, the Smith Center, a proposed new street, and access to a proposed parking deck.
The existing situation is that residences exist on both the north and south sides of Mason Farm Road, and nearby off of intersecting streets. There is a 200 foot stand of trees and understory vegetation that currently exists on the north side of Mason Farm Road, between the road and the Smith Center. In this 200 foot-wide strip, the University is currently proposing to build a series of 3-story buildings for family housing, shown in the initial application and Addendum #1 as being set back 120 feet from the existing Mason Farm Road. In the future, as shown on the University’s Master Plan and in the recent September 10 Addendum #2, the University describes plans to construct a new 4-lane, median-divided street in this same 200-foot strip, between the new family housing and the existing Mason Farm Road. In Addendum #2, three proposed buildings are moved closer to Mason Farm Road: two at 100 feet back, and another at 50 feet back. In addition, the Master Plan shows a potential future transit corridor to the north of the proposed family housing, between the new housing and the Smith Center. Neighbors have asked for attention to buffers between existing homes and the proposed new development of buildings and streets.
A key factor in this situation is that a Special Use Permit exists for the Smith Center, approved by the Town Council in 1981. A condition of that approval is that the Smith Center be screened from Mason Farm Road, and that a 10-foot tall fence with barbed wire be erected to prohibit pedestrian access between Mason Farm Road and the Smith Center. A screening plan was approved by the Appearance Commission that called for using the existing vegetation in the 200-foot strip (with some supplemental planting) to achieve the required screening. The proposed development of the family housing, the new 4-lane street, and the transit corridor could not proceed unless the existing Special Use Permit is modified or abandoned. An attachment to this memorandum offers additional detail about the Smith Center Special Use Permit. We also are expecting a request from the University, asking the Council to authorize abandonment of the permit. That request would come before the Council on October 3, the same evening as the projected date for Council action on this Development Plan application.
Prior to September 10, the Development Plan did not propose construction of the new 4-lane street within the time frame of this Plan, although the Master Plan (which showed the new street) was included as part of the application. Accordingly, a preliminary staff recommendation that went to the Planning Board on August 21 called for the 120-foot area between the family housing and existing Mason Farm Road to remain as vegetation, with 60 of the 120 feet remaining undisturbed. With the University’s Addendum #2, submitted on September 10, designation of a corridor for the proposed new 4-lane street is now clearly a component of the Development Plan application. The revised plan in Addendum #2 shows removal of all existing vegetation in the area between Mason Farm Road and the proposed new family housing buildings.
In addition, we note that examination of these issues about the proposed new street raises additional issues related to a proposed 1,500 space parking deck. This deck is proposed to have, as a primary point of access, connection to what currently exists as Mason Farm Road. The plan as shown raises concern about ingress/egress from that deck onto the existing Mason Farm Road. Considerations include peak-hour traffic movements and special events at the nearby Smith Center.
We propose that the Council respond to these issues in the following manner:
1. Include the proposed new family housing in the approval of a Development Plan.
We have included language in Resolution A that would accomplish this.
We note that this approach would give options and flexibility to the University. More discussion is needed about the proposed new 4-lane street and options for its configuration. But this proposed language would allow the University to move forward now with construction of the family housing, if it chooses to do so, setting the buildings back and leaving open for further discussion the questions about the new street. Options for the University would be to construct the buildings now with the setback and vegetation, or hold plans for the buildings pending further discussions with the Town Council about the proposed new street. We note that these discussions would not be in the form of quasi-judicial public hearings, but rather in the form of information exchange to achieve mutual agreements. Another possibility, because the University has indicated that it is not likely to pursue construction of this roadway within the next few years, would be to identify and reserve a potential corridor for this roadway now, with determinations about roadway configurations left to be decided at a later time.
Smith Center Special Use Permit: We have attached a copy of the Smith Center Special Use Permit, approved by the Town Council in 1980. This permit is still active, and its conditions still apply. The area encumbered by the permit is entirely contained within the boundary of the Development Plan, mostly within the Mason Farm Road Perimeter Transition Area.
A “Place of Assembly” with more than 2,000 seats requires a Special Use Permit in the OI-3 zoning district, the previous zoning that applied to the main campus. A key component of the new OI-4 district, when it was adopted by the Town Council on July 2, 2001, is that a Place of Assembly does not need a Special Use Permit. The Development Ordinance provides that, when a Special Use Permit that has been approved is for a use that no longer needs a Special Use Permit, and if all the conditions of the permit have been satisfied, the holder of the permit may request that it be abandoned. The Ordinance further provides that, if the Council finds that all conditions have been satisfied, it shall approve the abandonment.
The University’s plans for the area around the Smith Center have changed since the permit was approved in 1980, and accordingly is requesting authorization for abandonment. As the Council considers this request, we anticipate that the following 1980 conditions of approval will be among the key points of focus:
· Condition #10 calls for a screening plan to be approved by the Appearance Commission. Such a plan was subsequently prepared and approved, and is still active in its requirements.
Ambulatory Care Center: The original July 3 Development Plan application proposed a new building next to the existing Ambulatory Care Center, north of existing residential structures that front on Chase Avenue. Responding to neighborhood concerns in the August 7 Addendum #1, the University moved the proposed building back, to achieve a 100 foot setback from the University’s property line.
The issue now is what is to happen within that 100 foot setback. We proposed to the Planning Board on August 21 that 50 feet of the 100, closest to Chase Avenue be left undisturbed as a buffer. Most of the remaining 50 feet would be disturbed and replanted, such that there would be 100 feet of vegetation as a buffer, at least 50 of which would be existing vegetation.
University representatives suggested to the Planning Board that this 100 foot strip is also the most logical place to locate stormwater management facilities, which would preclude leaving 50 feet undisturbed.
We believe that it is important to have a buffer between these residences and the existing/proposed Ambulatory Care Center buildings. We also understand the need for stormwater management. We believe that more study is needed about how to provide for both. Accordingly, we have adjusted our recommended condition of approval to continue to require 50 feet of undisturbed area until the University submits, and the Town Council approves, a conceptual plan for that 100-foot area that addresses stormwater management and buffering.
As in the case of the facilities proposed for the Mason Farm Road area, this language is proposed in a manner that would allow the University to proceed to construction of the proposed facility now, with the 50-foot area remaining undisturbed. Alternatively, the University could choose to hold plans for the facility pending further work on alternatives to address stormwater and buffering issues.
Pittsboro/McCauley Building: A new building is proposed on the southeast corner of the Pittsboro-McCauley Street intersection, adjacent to the existing Tate-Turner-Kuralt Building (housing the UNC School of Social Work). The Development Plan states that the roof line of this new building will be approximately in line with the roof line of the Tate-Turner-Kuralt Building, which is approximately 70 feet tall. A sketch showing this building relationship is included in Addendum #1.
Neighbors have expressed two concerns: First, neighbors have argued that a 70-foot height is too tall for the proposed new building. Second, if the building is constructed as proposed, the top of the building at the Pittsboro-McCauley intersection will be taller than 70 feet, because the ground slopes downhill from the site of the Tate-Turner-Kuralt building to McCauley Street. Our recommendation to the Planning Board on August 21, which is replicated in our recommended Resolution A tonight, would approve the Development Plan with the building cross-section as shown in the application.
Jones Park: The July 3 Development Plan application shows a utility corridor extending south from the main campus, through the Town-owned Jones Park. We reported to the Planning Board on August 21 that a utility corridor in this location would likely damage the park significantly, and that there was no compelling evidence offered about why the corridor was necessary in that location. Our recommendation to the Planning Board was that the corridor as shown on the Plan not be authorized and that a utility corridor through Jones Park explicitly be prohibited.
Prior to entertaining the possibility that Jones Park is the only option to bring utilities to new University facilities, we believe that all available alternatives should be carefully studied and evaluated. Accordingly, we have adjusted the recommended condition of approval on this issue in Resolution A to delete the phrase, “and specifically prohibits” from the condition, which was stated as follows in the Planning Board discussions: “This approval of a Development Plan does not acknowledge nor authorize, and specifically prohibits, development of a Utility Corridor through Chapel Hill’s Jones Park.” This adjusted wording accommodates the possibility of future University study of alternatives that may result in a future request involving Jones Park. We note that no new utility corridor could be established in Jones Park without the Town Council’s explicit approval, except by condemnation, because the Town owns the property.
It is our understanding from OWASA staff that alternative corridors for water and sewer lines are likely available and feasible.
Provision of Park/Ride Lots: In our Staff Report to the Planning Board on August 21, we reported that the University was proposing in the August 7 Addendum #1 that 2,650 park/ride spaces would be needed to mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed development, and that we had accordingly added a condition of approval requiring that 2,650 spaces be provided.
In subsequent discussions, University representatives pointed out that the 2,650 figure, which appears in Table 7b of Addendum #1, is a compilation of all permanent and temporary spaces that would be needed over the course of build-out; that is, some of the spaces will be needed only temporarily (e.g., when a surface parking lot is closed to allow construction of a deck), and that the table indicates that only 1,361 of these space are intended to be permanent additions to the University’s array of parking resources.
Accordingly, we have adjusted our recommended condition of approval, in Resolution A, to refer to 1,361 spaces rather than 2,650.
Paying for Transit: At the Planning Board meeting, University representatives expressed concern about language in a condition of approval that the representatives believed could be construed to mean that the University would be financially responsible for transit funding support beyond that which would be warranted by the new development on campus. We believe that the intent of this condition was to link transit support to University-generated new demand for transit services.
Accordingly, and after subsequent discussion with University representatives, we have agreed that the following language, offered by University representatives as an adjustment to our previous language, states in a clearer manner how this cost-sharing arrangement should be structured. We have included this language in Resolution A:
“The University shall provide in each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis, beginning in 2001, increased public transit service anticipated for the next two years. The University is expected to provide all funding necessary to purchase capital equipment and provide operating funds for additional service primarily benefiting the University (for example, express park-and-ride service) and to provide its pro rata share of funding necessary to purchase capital equipment and provide operating funds for additional service benefiting all transit system partners. Te Town of Chapel Hill shall prepare estimates, in consultation with the University, of anticipated capital and operating needs related to the Development Plan.”
Future Analysis of Traffic Intersections: On July 2, when the Town Council created the new OI-4 zoning district, the Council also adopted a resolution endorsing a set of guidelines for use in preparing and evaluating a Development Plan application. As part of our staff materials for the August 21 Planning Board meeting, we reported that we believed, based on the adopted guidelines, that eleven additional intersections beyond those listed in the Development Plan would need to be analyzed for potential impacts from the proposed University development. At the Planning Board, University representatives stated disagreement with this condition.
In subsequent meetings with University representatives, we believe that we have agreed on the concept that additional intersections may need to be added to the list to be evaluated in the future. (It is also possible that the list of intersections to be periodically evaluated may decrease in number, depending on future traffic counts.) We have also agreed on language that more clearly states this requirement, in a manner that we believe is consistent with the Council-endorsed guidelines. We have included the following adjusted language in Resolution A:
“ Consistent with the application of the approved Guidelines, the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses shall analyze additional intersections for existing, no-build, and build conditions Level of Service (LOS) if the intersections meet the requirements outlined in the Guidelines. Intersections to be considered for possible analysis include:
1. NC 54 and Friday Center
2. NC 54 and Office Drive/Hilltop Collector Road (proposed signal)
3. NC 54 and Burning Tree Drive
4. NC 54 and Hamilton Road
5. Fordham Boulevard and NC 54 Ramp
6. Fordham Boulevard and Estes Drive
7. Fordham Boulevard and Willow Drive
8. Fordham Boulevard and Elliott Road
9. Fordham Boulevard and Ephesus Church Road
10. Airport Road and Hillsborough Street
11. Airport Road and Estes Drive
The number of intersections requiring analysis may increase or decrease depending on whether the intersections meet the analysis criteria established in the Guidelines.”
OWASA Questions: When the Council was considering the OI-4 zoning district on July 2, a Council member asked that OWASA be asked three questions when a Development Plan is submitted. The questions are:
· How would the level of development proposed in the Development Plan, if constructed, affect OWASA’s ability to provide water service to the community (including the new development) in times of severe drought?
· Will the new fee structure that OWASA will administer for providing service to the proposed development cover the costs of providing service to the proposed development?
· How will the construction of facilities proposed in the Development Plan, if all constructed, affect OWASA’s ability to serve other, non-University growth in the community?
We have forwarded these questions to OWASA staff, and a response has been prepared for consideration by the OWASA Board of Directors. A response is attached, indicating that OWASA has the capability to respond to this level of proposed development in its capital facilities planning and fee structures.
Future Adjustments to Requirements: There has been discussion throughout this process (spring, summer, and fall) about how to manage response to inevitable future, unforeseen changes that may occur. In the development of the OI-4 zoning district this spring, University officials repeatedly stressed the need for certainty in plan approvals - - certainty in the form of not needing to go back before a future Town Council in order to accommodate adjustments to the plan over its 6-8 year buildout period. This was one of the reasons for the framework of a Council-approved Development Plan, with subsequent Site Development Permits approvable by the Town Manager. Another feature is the ability of the Town Manager to approve future permits for facilities that may be as high as 5% in floor area or parking spaces over what the Council approved, as long as such facilities remain generally consistent with the Council’s approval of a Development Plan. (E.g.: The Manager would not be authorized to approve a 100,000 square foot building that is not shown on the Development Plan.)
A recent issue that has been the topic of discussion between Town and University officials has been the mechanism for accommodating changes to the transportation improvements required by the Town Council as part of a Development Plan approval, in the event that the required Biennial Traffic counts show that conditions are significantly different in the future from what we now project them to be. In an effort to accommodate the University’s request for flexibility without having to go back to the Planning Board and/or Town Council, we have proposed language that would allow the Town Manager to make such adjustments if future data indicate that adjustments are warranted. Language establishing this process appears at the beginning of the “Required Improvements” section of Resolutions A and B, just prior to condition # 16, as follows:
“Upon review of additional information that will be gathered as outlined below, the University shall propose such adjustments as are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, including or fewer or different improvements needed to mitigate the transportation impacts of growth authorized by this Development Plan. The Town Manager shall approve such adjustments if he determines that the adjustments are reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council. In the event that the Town Manager determines that the adjustments proposed by the University are not reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council no further Site Development Permits shall be approved until acceptable adjustments are proposed by the University and found by the Town Manager to be consistent with the Development Plan.”
Non-severability clause: Finally, there have been some informal discussions regarding the last proposed stipulation (No. 39) which, as currently drafted, would provide: “If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void”. This language is similar to language which the Council typically includes in its resolutions of approval for Special Use Permits. The objective of this clause has been to assure that conditions of approval that are part of what Town Council members are considering, as they vote on an approval, cannot be individually removed.
In conversations with Town staff, University representatives have expressed objections to this language on the basis, in part, of the unique and broad nature of a Development Plan and the potential impact such language could have on multiple building projects.
The clause currently remains in the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation as it typically appears in resolutions of approval. We note that the Council could choose to substitute alternative language. Options could include:
We look forward to the University’s further comments to the Council at the Public Hearing regarding the form of such a servability/non-severability clause, and discussion about which of the possible alternatives is most appropriate in this case. We recommend that the Council consider possible modification of this language after staff and Council have heard further discussion.
Planning Board Recommendations: On September 4 the Planning Board completed its review of the Development Application and made its recommendation to the Council in the form of Resolution B, attached. Resolutions A (Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation) and Resolution B (from Planning Board) are similar, but differ in the following substantive ways:
· Noise and Light Standards on University Property: The Noise and Light guidelines endorsed by the Town Council on July 2 include language that would exempt application of noise and light standards to properties outside the boundaries of the Development Plan, if such properties are owned by the University. In response to suggestions made on September 4, the Planning Board deleted this exemption from its recommendation. We continue to show the exemption in Resolution A, because it was a part of the Council-endorsed guidelines, reflecting an agreement on standards between University representatives and Town representatives. (Conditions # 24 and #25.) We have followed the agreed-upon guidelines throughout our preparation of Resolution A.
· Additional Traffic Analysis and Transit Support: Based on additional discussions with University representatives subsequent to the September 4 Planning Board meeting, and addressing concerns raised by the University on September 4, we have adjusted language in conditions #13, #18, and #21.
· Perimeter Transition Areas: Conditions #31, #32, and #33 address sensitive perimeter issues that impact the interface between the University campus and adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Planning Board suggested that additional information and discussion were warranted. We have received additional information (Addendum #2), and engaged in further discussions with University representatives to clarify intentions and review possible responses to the issues that were raised to the Planning Board. Accordingly, we have prepared language for these three conditions that we have included in Resolution A.
NEXT STEPS
We expect comments and evidence to be presented tonight, arguing for and against Council approval of the proposed Development Plan. The Council has established October 3 as the date for this application to come back to the Council for further consideration and possible action. We will present a report to the Council at that time, summarizing this Public Hearing and offering staff responses to and comments on the information that is presented tonight.
We also expect to bring a report to the Council on October 3, evaluating a request for abandonment of the Smith Center Special Use Permit, with recommendation for Council action. As noted above, we expect that some of the information that accompanies the University’s request for abandonment of this Special Use Permit may be appropriate to include or refer to in a resolution of approval of the Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered this application at meetings on August 21 and September 4, 2001. The Board voted 8-0 to recommend the attached Resolution B. The Board had specific concerns about the Perimeter Transition Areas and recommended changes to items 31, 32, and 33. Please refer to the attached Summary of Planning Board Action. (Please note discussion above.)
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: Our preliminary recommendation is that the Town Council adopt the attached Resolution A, approving the application with conditions.
Resolution C would deny the request.
We also recommend adoption of Resolution D, which would ask the University to conduct design workshops with residential neighbors of Perimeter Transition Areas prior to submitting applications for Site Development Permits in any of these areas.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report (p. 18).
2. Resolutions A, B, C, and D (p. 48).
3. Addendum #2, dated September 10, 2001 (Begin new p. 1).
4. July 2, 2001 Memorandum Creating OI-4 Zoning District, With Guidelines (Begin new p.1).
5. Summary of Planning Board Action (p. 89)
6. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 90)
7. Letters/Statements Received (p. 91)
8. Smith Center Special Use Permit (p. 108)
9. Letter from Orange Water and Sewer Authority (p. (112)
ATTACHMENT 1
Staff Report
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Development Plan Application (File No. 7.73, 74, 86, 87)
DATE: September 19, 2001
INTRODUCTION
This is an application for approval of a Development Plan for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, proposing the construction of 5,901,277 square feet of academic, research, cultural, housing and parking deck structures on a 582-acre site. The site is the main campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The property is located within the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) zoning district and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 71, 73, 74, 86, and 87.
PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
A Development Plan, as provided for in the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district, is to address issues such as general location and size of new facilities, parking, utilities, stormwater management, impervious surface, and access/circulation. A Development Plan must also identify the general location, size, and proposed uses of buildings. The Plan is to project anticipated impacts on streets, water and sewer facilities, stormwater runoff, air quality, noise, and lighting.
A Development Plan is to address the following:
a) Environment: Development should minimize impacts on natural site features, and be accompanied by measures to mitigate those impacts.
b) Transportation: Development should be accompanied by measures to mitigate transportation impacts that are caused by the development.
c) Stormwater Management: Development should be accompanied by measures to mitigate stormwater impacts (quantity and quality) that are caused by the development.
d) Public Utilities: There must be a general demonstration that water, sewer, and other needed utilities can be made available to accommodate development proposed in the Development Plan.
e) Historic Districts: Provisions of Article 6 of the Development Ordinance apply to any development proposed within one of Chapel Hill’s Historic Districts.
A Development Plan is to also designate Perimeter Transition Areas 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. These standards are to address:
a) Screening mechanical equipment;
b) Exterior lighting;
c) Height limits; and
d) Landscaping.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The University’s Campus Master Plan, adopted by the University’s Board of Trustees, provides the University and UNC Health Care System with a framework for planned growth. The University’s application indicates that a Development Plan is the first step in the implementation of the Campus Master Plan. The University’s submitted Development Plan proposes the construction of 5,901,277 square feet of buildings and structures over the next 8 to 10 years. The Plan also proposes demolition of 235,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed construction includes building for academics, cultural, housing, office, research, and student life. The Plan also includes new building construction for the UNC Health Care complex, several parking decks and new and upgraded infrastructure facilities.
A summary of the square footage by type of use is outlined below:
Classification Square Footage Parking Spaces
Academic 1,383,090
Cultural 102,725
Housing 635,612
Infrastructure 135,600
Office 163,200
Parking 1,885,000 5,330
Research 457,400
Student Life 307,300
UNC-Health Care 831,350
Totals 5,901,227 5,330
As noted earlier, the provisions of the Office/Institional-4 district allow the Town Manager to approve up to a 5 percent increase in floor area. The Development Plan, as proposed, indicates 4,016,277 square feet of new floor area. This figure subtracts parking deck “floor area” from the University total because Chapel Hill Development Ordinance does not define parking structures as having “floor area.” We believe the Development Ordinance authorizes the Town Manager to approve up to a 5 percent increase of the 4,016,277-floor area figure to accommodate changes or adjustments to the main campus that may be needed in the future.
The submitted Development Plan and Addendum include additional specific information on the location, size, and specific use of each individual building. Please refer to Addendum-Map 2 “Development Plan” for the location of each building and parking structure. The Plan and Addendum also include a supplemental document entitled “Area Calculations for Proposed Buildings.” This spreadsheet includes a listing of each building and parking lot, and notes the total square footage, number of floors, anticipated construction start date and anticipated construction completion date.
In addition to the above information, the Development Plan includes supplemental information for seven “Perimeter Transition Areas” that are located on the perimeter of the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. Please refer to Addendum Map 10 “Perimeter Transition Areas” for locations.
As required by the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district (see discussion above under Office/Institutional-4 Development Plan Requirements), the Development Plan application includes a description of proposed standards for the six transition areas. These standards address screening of mechanical equipment, exterior lighting, building height limits, and landscaping. The most current proposals for these areas are contained in the Development Plan Addendum after the tab titled “Revised Maps.” Each of these perimeter transition areas is discussed in greater detail in this report under the section titled Perimeter Transition Areas.
In addition to an introductory chapter and a separate section on Perimeter Transitions Areas, the Development Plan also includes sections on: Noise and Light, Environment, Transportation, Stormwater Management, Public Utilities, and Historic Districts.
We also note that on September 10, the University submitted “Addendum #2,” which clarifies the University’s intent with respect to the proposed new 4-lane median-divided street directly to the north of existing Mason Farm Road. Addendum #2 states,
“We submit this addendum to facilitate discussion on the design of the student family housing and the access road, but in full recognition that there remain many questions, both immediate and longer term, to be addressed. This submission presents our current thinking about the road, and it clearly recognizes that there are choices to be made. Together we will address these choices as we work with the Town and the neighbors on the design of the student family housing. We strongly urge that the Town Council, in its action on the Development Plan, not preclude options or impose conditions which limit the flexibility of the University, its neighbors, and the Town to work together toward solutions that address the needs of all.”
EVALUATION
We have reviewed this application for compliance with the standards of Office/Institutional-4 zoning district and the Council-endorsed guidelines that set forth of transportation, stormwater management, noise, and light standards. We offer the following evaluation.
As noted earlier, there are a few occasions within these hundreds of pages of information provided where information doesn’t match. In cases involving conflicting information in the Development Plan or the Addendum, we are recommending that the controlling component of the Development Plan be the map called “Addendum Map 2.” We recommend that the controlling maps for the Perimeter Transition Areas be Addendum Maps 11-17. Further, for purposes of staff evaluation, Addendum Map 7 has been considered to indicate approximate areas of pervious and impervious surfaces that will exist within the area covered by this Development Plan after full development has been complete. We are interpreting Addendum Map 7, which shows “Wooded Areas” and “Pervious Surfaces” to identify generally areas we expect to be pervious surfaces after full development, either with existing vegetation or with new vegetation planted.
NOISE AND LIGHT
The recently adopted Ordinance creating the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district requires that the submission of a Development Plan application include an analysis of impacts resulting from the proposed development. One of several impacts an applicant must address is noise and light. On July 2, 2001 the Council endorsed guidelines for use by the Town Council in evaluating impacts resulting from proposed development identified on a Development Plan. These guidelines included a set of performance standards for noise and light. The University Development Plan includes a section on noise and light. The Development Plan application submitted by the University states that each Site Development Plan for buildings within the approved Development Plan, will conform to the noise and light performance standards adopted by the Town Council on July 2, 2001.
As provided for by the Council endorsed guidelines, information and compliance with the noise and light performance standards must be submitted with each application for a Site Development Permit. As restated below, we recommend that the submission of a Site Development Permit Application comply with the Noise and Light Performance Standards for development and redevelopment in the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) Zoning District as noted below:
· Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include a lighting plan, sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina and with demonstrable expertise in lighting design and mitigation strategies, that shows existing and proposed lighting fixture types and locations, and indicating by isolux contour diagram and grid points the measured and calculated pre-development and post-development foot-candles at grade on property* where lighting impacts are expected.
The following standards apply to new lighting associated with an approved Development Plan.
a) All lighting, including that used in and around buildings, recreation areas, parking areas, walkways, roadways, and signs, shall be designed to minimize spillover light onto property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.
b) All lighting shall be designed to prevent glare that could impair vision and/or otherwise deteriorate normally accepted qualities and uses of property* outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.
c) Outdoor lighting, except sports and athletic field lighting, shall be mounted at heights no greater than fifteen (15) feet for non-cutoff lights; and no greater than thirty-five (35) feet for cutoff lights.
d) Lighting for sports and athletic fields must include glare control features and must be designed so that the primary illumination is directed onto the play area and immediate surroundings, and such that offsite illumination/glare is restricted.
e) Increases in illumination on property* outside of the OI-4 Zoning District shall not result in lighting levels in excess of 0.3 foot-candles, measured at ground level.
f) No increase in measurable lighting levels shall occur on property outside the OI-4 Zoning District where existing ambient lighting levels are in excess of 0.3 foot-candles.
*These Noise and Light Standards shall not be enforced and need not be met on property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District that is in the same ownership as property within the OI-4 Zoning District.
To that effect, we have included language in Resolution A that requires each development proposed by a Site Development Permit Application to comply with the Town’s Noise Ordinance that is in effect at the time the Site Development Permit receives final Town approval.
Lighting: The Development Plan application states that each Site Development Plan for buildings within the approved Development Plan will confirm to the Noise and Light Performance Standards endorsed by the Council. We have included language in Resolution A that requires this conformance.
ENVIRONMENT
The Environment section of the University Development Plan identifies principles from the University Environmental Master Plan adopted as part of the Campus Master Plan by the Board of Trustees in March 2001. These principles involve issues of land and water resource management and guide the development of the land to sustain the quality of those resources.
The Office/Institutional-4 zoning (Section 16.5) requires that:
“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 regarding environment, development proposed with a Development Plan is to minimize impacts on natural site features and is to be accompanied by measures to mitigate those impacts.
The University’s application materials indicate that individual Site Development Permit applications, submitted pursuant to an approved Development Plan, will be prepared in accordance with the UNC-Chapel Hill Construction Guidelines. The materials indicate that these University Construction Guidelines will incorporate the principles of the Environmental Master Plan and include site development requirements for site design, trees, streams and archeological sites. These items are described in greater detail in the University Development Plan.
TRANSPORTATION
A comprehensive set of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines was developed by Town and University staff and was approved by the Town Council on July 2, 2001. These guidelines established criteria for data collection, analysis, and mitigation of the transportation impacts expected to result from the University Development Plan proposed for the main campus area.
The proposed Development Plan is expected to add approximately 10,000 trips per day at build-out (after considering trip reduction strategies) to the existing traffic throughout Town. An initial Transportation Impact Analysis provided by the University indicated several existing and potential transportation related issues in the main campus area, including pedestrian safety and mobility problems, traffic volumes in excess of available capacity at signalized intersections, increasing air pollution, and the need for additional transit service to accommodate the proposed growth in students and employees.
Updated Transportation Impact Analyses are to be submitted in December 2001 and biennially thereafter until construction of the buildings included in the Main Campus Development Plan is substantially completed or until a new development Plan is approved. Additionally, updated Transportation Management Plans will be submitted in December 2001 and every three years thereafter. These updated Transportation Impact Analysis’s and Transportation Management Plan’s will allow both the Town and the University to continuously monitor and identify transportation related changes and impacts resulting from the Development Plan and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures in response to these identified changes and impacts.
Based on our review and analysis of the proposed Development Plan and associated data provided by the University, and in accordance with the approved Guidelines, we believe that the following improvements, mitigation measures, and information must be provided by the University to maintain acceptable levels of safety and service from the community transportation facilities. These stipulated improvements apply the approved Guidelines, based on our evaluation of the data presented and the resultant impacts that can reasonably be expected.
1) The Guidelines establish the following criteria for identification of intersections requiring Level of Service analysis (A17 and B19):
· Traffic increase of 10% or more during AM/PM peak period for intersections presently operating at Level of Service C or better.
· Traffic increase of 5% or more during AM/PM peak period for intersections presently operating at Level of Service D or worse.
After evaluation of data provided by the University in relation to the Guideline criteria, we determined that additional intersections, in addition to those listed in the Guidelines (A5 and B5), may need to be analyzed as to projected Level of Service for existing, no-build, and build conditions. Those intersections are:
1) NC 54 and Friday Center Drive
2) NC 54 and Hilltop Collector (proposed signal)
3) NC 54 and Burning Tree Drive
4) NC 54 and Hamilton Road
5) Fordham Boulevard and NC 54
6) Fordham Boulevard and Estes Drive
7) Fordham Boulevard and Willow Drive
8) Fordham Boulevard and Elliot Road
9) Fordham Boulevard and Ephesus Church Road
10) Airport Road and Hillsborough Street
11) Airport Road and Estes Drive
2) The Development Plan presented by the University suggests that three unsignalized intersections may require the installation of traffic signals in the future to optimize function and safety. We agree, and believe that two additional intersections are also potential candidates for signalization at some time in the future as a result of increased traffic associated with the Development Plan We think that the traffic generated by the proposed Development Plan can reasonably be expected to warrant the installation of future traffic signals at some or all of the following locations:
a) Mason Farm Road and East Drive
b) Mason Farm Road and West Drive
c) Manning Drive and Skipper Bowles Drive
d) Mason Farm Road and Oteys Road
e) Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road
We are suggesting that the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses include traffic signal warrant analyses for these five locations.
3) The traffic increases projected to result from the proposed Development Plan will affect the service of many intersections throughout the community. One method of mitigating the impacts of the expected increase in traffic volume is to revise traffic signal timing plans in accordance with changes in traffic volume to provide the best possible coordination and efficiency of key travel corridors. We believe it is a reasonable mitigation measure to require that the University periodically study and revise (if necessary) traffic signal timing plans at the same key intersections where Level of Service analyses are being required (presently 36 intersections). We are suggesting that the signal timing plan studies occur every three years starting in the Spring of 2002.
4) Several signalized intersections which will be significantly impacted by traffic generated by the proposed Development Plan are currently equipped with substandard traffic signal heads. While these intersection are performing adequately now, we think that the increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic resulting from the Development Plan will require that the traffic signals be upgraded from the existing 8” signal heads to larger 12” signal heads to provide reasonable levels of safety and performance for the higher volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic which is expected to occur at the following intersections as a result of the proposed Development Plan:
a) Cameron Avenue and Pittsboro Street
b) Cameron Avenue and South Columbia Street
c) South Columbia Street and Mason Farm Road
d) Pittsboro Street and McCauley Street
5) The University has identified several roadway and intersection improvements as measures to mitigate traffic impacts of the proposed Development Plan and to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety conditions. We agree that most of the proposed improvements should be pursued, with the exception of the following:
a) The Development Plan proposes widening McCauley Street in the vicinity of South Columbia Street. We believe that the existing right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate the proposed widening, and that adjacent private property would need to be disturbed for construction. We also note that McCauley Street is in the Town’s Historic District and any changes to the street would require a Certificate of Appropriateness. On balance, we do not recommend widening McCauley Street.
b) The Development Plan proposes either restricting access to Cameron Avenue between South Columbia Street and Raleigh Road or making this segment of Cameron Avenue one-way westbound. We are concerned that diverting traffic from Cameron Avenue could adversely affect traffic conditions on surrounding streets and at nearby intersections. We think that this proposal needs further study and we do not recommend implementing these changes at this time. The University also suggested certain traffic calming measures and pedestrian safety improvements for Cameron Avenue, which we think could be effective, subject to review and approval by the Town Manager for installation on a public street.
We have also identified an additional roadway improvement which was not listed in the University’s Development Plan materials:
a) We believe that the proposed Development Plan will significantly increase both construction and routine traffic volumes on Mason Farm Road, which serves an established residential area of the community. No sidewalk exists along Mason Farm Road between Hibbard Drive and Fordham Boulevard. We think it is necessary for the safety of both drivers and pedestrians that the University construct sidewalk with curb-and-gutter along the north side of Mason Farm Road extending from the vicinity of Fordham Boulevard to the existing sidewalk at East Drive. This sidewalk would provide separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, which we expect will include increased volumes of construction vehicles and associated equipment.
6) The University makes reference in the Development Plan materials to isolated traffic calming measures. We believe that traffic calming should be looked at comprehensively throughout the Development Plan area. Some measures are presently being considered by the University Pedestrian Safety Committee. We believe that the University should prepare a comprehensive plan for proposed traffic calming measures, including discussion of when these measures are proposed for implementation. Most of these measures will require the approval of the Town Manager and/or the NCDOT, and most of them will affect vehicular and pedestrian movement. Therefore, to properly evaluate the proposed measures and potential collective impacts, a plan is needed showing all that is proposed and when different elements of the plan might be implemented. We recommend that a traffic calming plan and implementation schedule be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to occupancy of the first Site Development Permit structure submitted under the proposed Development Plan.
7) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic is expected to increase within and around the Development Plan area. We have identified four intersections that presently have high pedestrian volumes which will increase as a result of the Development Plan. Our experience with the “count down” pedestrian signal heads recently installed downtown suggests that they are effective in managing pedestrian activity at busy intersections. Because of Development Plan related increases in pedestrian and vehicular activity at the following key intersections, we think that the University should install “count down” pedestrian signal heads at these locations by the end of calendar year 2005 to accommodate the increasing numbers of pedestrians as safely as possible.
a) Cameron Avenue and South Columbia Street
b) South Road and Raleigh Road
c) Manning Drive and Ridge Road
d) South Columbia Street and McCauley Street
8) Although Battle Branch is outside of the Development Plan area per se, it is an important pedestrian corridor serving the University main campus. Because the proposed Development Plan can be expected to increase pedestrian traffic in this corridor, and because pedestrian facility improvements can significantly reduce vehicular trips, we think that the University should improve and maintain a pedestrian trail through the University-owned portions of Battle Park, for use as a pedestrian corridor to access the campus.
9) We anticipate that the impacts of the proposed development plan, with its projected growth in students and employees, limited addition of parking and emphasis on expanded public transit services, (particularly park ride facilities), will have a significant impact on the Town’s public transit system. Increased demand for transit services, particularly expanded park and ride facilities and increased service during peak morning and evening period, will require additional financial support to purchase capital equipment, provide support facilities, and provide operating assistance. These needs should be evaluated on a regular basis to ensure that the public transit system can meet the anticipated demand for service. Accordingly, we have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring attention to funding for expanded transit service.
10) The Development Plan assumes extensive use of park/ride facilities to provide access to public transit services for students and employees unable to park in the main campus area. The estimates of needed park/ride spaces (1,361 spaces) included in the Development Plan application are based on assumptions about future travel behavior. These assumptions and the success of efforts to encourage the use of park/ride should be assessed on a regular basis. If this analysis indicates that park ride service is more attractive than originally anticipated additional park ride spaces may needed to meet employee and student demand. Accordingly, we have included a stipulation in Resolution A requiring that the question of how many park-ride spaces are needed be examined as part of each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis, with provision for adjustment of the number of spaces if data determine that adjustment is needed.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The Office/Institutional-4 zoning district requires that the submission of a Development Plan application include a Stormwater Management Analysis (quantity and quality). In addition the regulations require that development proposed with a Development Plan be accompanied by measures to mitigate stormwater impacts (quantity and quality) that are caused by the development.
On July 2, 2001, the Town Council endorsed Stormwater Management Performance Standards (attached). These performance standards require the following management practices for land area in the Development Plan:
(i) TREATMENT:
(a) Stormwater treatment shall be designed to remove 85% of Total Suspended Solids.
(b) Stormwater treatment shall occur on the volume of post-construction runoff resulting from the first 1 inch of precipitation.
(c) Post-development runoff conditions shall be such that either the runoff volume draws down to the pre-storm design stage within 5 days but not less than 2 days; or, the post-development discharge rate shall be no larger than the predevelopment discharge rate for the 1-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (3.00 inches).
(d) Stormwater treatment shall occur prior to entering the Waters of the State.
(ii) RATE:
The discharge rate of post-construction runoff, at all locations where stormwater runoff exits the land area in the development plan, shall not exceed the pre-development or existing conditions discharge rate for the local 2-year (3.60 inches), 10-year (5.38 inches), 25-year (6.41 inches), and 50-year (7.21 inches) frequency, 24 hour duration storm event.
(iii) VOLUME:
(a) Based on the USDA, Soil Conservation Service methodology for runoff depth, the post-construction volume of stormwater runoff shall not exceed the pre-development (existing conditions) volume of runoff for the 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (or 96% of the rainfall that statistically would occur in a 100-year period based on the record data) at locations where stormwater exits the OI-4 Zoning District. This may be achieved by hydrologic abstraction, recycling and/or reuse, or any other accepted scientific method. All new development will conform with these criteria.
(b) The University is currently undertaking a stormwater improvement plan that is intended to implement projects that reduce the volume and rate of runoff from existing campus development. This plan will assure that no increase in volume will be generated from the University main campus following new development.
We note that stormwater management and treatment practices need to comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations, and revisions thereof.
In addition, the Performance Standards require the following Best Management Practices Standards:
1. Best Management Practices Standards
(i) At a minimum, any structural best management practice(s) for sedimentation and erosion control, post-construction stormwater treatment, and discharge rate control shall be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable federal and state design, construction and maintenance requirements.
(ii) The Development Plan may implement any structural or non-structural best management practice to manage stormwater runoff in accordance with the post-construction runoff control criteria.
(iii) These standards are subject to any applicable revision(s) to Federal or State regulations.
The University Development Plan includes a section on Stormwater Management which indicates that development proposed with the Development Plan will be accompanied by measures to mitigate stormwater impacts (quantity and quality) during construction and resulting from the development. The University Plan states that each Site Development Plan will conform to the attached Stormwater Management Performance Standards.
We have included language in Resolution A which requires this compliance.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
This section of the University Development Plan includes a discussion on new and expanded utility infrastructure. A discussion on solid waste management is also included.
Infrastructure: The Development Plan includes improvements to the utility systems that the University currently owns and operates, as well as upgrades to and expansion of other utility infrastructure.
Proposed improvements include:
· Chilled water plant (Building I-1: west side Mason Farm Road across from Health Affairs parking decks; 20,000 square foot single-story structure; anticipated beginning construction date 7/03; anticipated completion date 12/04)
The University has been in contact with the local utility providers. All have provided documentation that they are able to accommodate the University’s planned growth. Letters from OWASA, PSNC Energy, Duke Power Company and Bell South are included in the July 3, 2001 Development Plan Appendix.
There are several issues related to the proposed off-campus utility infrastructure improvements. We note that the Development Plan proposes a new “public utility” corridor through Jones Park. We also note the possible impacts associated with “expanding” the existing utility corridors along Cameron Avenue, McCauley Street, Ransom Street and the University steam tunnel as shown on Map 8 from the Addendum No. 1. Several concerns have been raised about these proposals, and are discussed further in the Town Manager’s main memorandum for tonight under “Discussion.”
The Development Plan also notes that infrastructure projects to improve the steam and electric distribution from the site of the Cogeneration Facility and the Duke Power substation on Cameron Avenue are required. Currently the steam is routed in an existing utility right-of-way and the existing electric lines are in the right-of-way and in Cameron Avenue, McCauley Street, Pittsboro Street, and Ransom Street. Map 8 notes that these existing utility corridors may be expanded.
Accordingly, we have included a stipulation in Resolution A that any future requests by the University for solid waste services from the Town of Chapel Hill be deemed a modification to the approved Development Plan and require the filing of an application for approval of the modification, following procedures outlined in the Council adopted Article for initial approval of a Development Plan. Resolution A includes this stipulation.
HISTORIC DISTRICT
Portions of this Development Plan are located in a Chapel Hill Local Historic District and a National Register Historic District. These areas are identified on Addendum Map 9.
Development Plan improvements, located within a Local Historic District, must comply with Article 6 (Historic Districts) of the Development Ordinance. The University’s Development Plan improvements, located within a National Register District, are subject to review by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
Chapel Hill Historic District: A small portion of the Development Plan is located within a Chapel Hill Local Historic District. The area of McCauley Street, between Pittsboro Street and the Phi Delta Fraternity, is located within the Cameron-McCauley Local Historic District. As indicated on Addendum Map 9, the district boundary encumbers the physical street right-of way of McCauley Street.
The Development Plan notes that there are no buildings proposed in this area of the local historic district. However, the Development Plan identifies sidewalk and roadway improvements for this portion of McCauley Street. Article 6 of the Development Ordinance requires that improvements receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District Commission.
To that effect, we have included language in Resolution A that requires improvements within a local Historic District, to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to construction of the improvements.
National Register Historic District: Several proposed buildings are within the Chapel Hill National Register Historic District. Those buildings are: C-2, C-3, C-4, H-1, H-2 and A-2. As previously stated all campus development in the Chapel Hill Historic District is subject to review by the NC Department of Cultural Resources.
PERIMETER TRANSITION AREAS
The University’s Addendum Map 10 identifies seven Perimeter Transition Areas. The Office/Institutional-4 district requires that a Development Plan submittal designate Perimeter Transition Areas with appropriate standards at borders of the Development Plan necessary to minimize impacts of development proposed in the Development Plan on adjacent property. These Perimeter Transition Areas and associated standards are to be approved by the Town Council as part of the Development Plan. The seven areas proposed include:
· Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area (Addendum Maps 11)
In the Battle Lane perimeter transition area, the Development Plan proposes additions to existing residence halls. The adjacent property is zoned Residential-1.
· East Franklin Street Perimeter Transition Area (Addendum Maps 12)
In the East Franklin Street perimeter transition area, the Development Plan proposes two buildings; one is designated for cultural use and the other for academic. The adjacent property is zoned Town Center-1.
· South Columbia Street Perimeter Transition Area (Addendum Maps 13)
In the South Columbia Street perimeter transition area, the Development Plan proposes two buildings and an underground parking structure. The adjacent property on the west side of South Columbia Street is zoned Office/Institutional-1.
· McCauley/Pittsboro Street Perimeter Transition Area (Addendum Maps 14)
In the McCauley/Pittsboro Street perimeter transition area, the Development Plan proposes an academic building with one level of parking structure. The adjacent property on the west side of Pittsboro Street is zoned Office/Institutional-1.
· ACC Site Perimeter Transition Area (Addendum Maps 15)
In the ACC Site perimeter transition area, the Development Plan proposes an addition to the ACC for the University Health Care System and a parking structure. The adjacent property is zoned Residential-2.
· Student Family Housing West Perimeter Transition Area (Addendum Maps 16)
In the Student Family Housing perimeter transition area, the Development Plan proposes new buildings along Mason Farm Road. The adjacent property is zoned Residential-1.
· Student Family Housing East Perimeter Transition Area (Addendum Maps 17)
In the Student Family Housing perimeter transition area, the Development Plan proposes new buildings along Mason Farm Road. The adjacent property is zoned Residential-1.
We recommend that Resolution A identify each of the Perimeter Transition Areas as the entire area identified on the two Addendum maps provided for each of the seven areas (Addendum Maps 11-17). The buildings/structures and parking areas are the primary focal points in these Perimeter Transition Areas. However, areas of concern will differ for each map. The Development Ordinance requires that standards be provided for each area to minimize impacts of the proposed development on adjacent properties and specifically addressing:
1. Screening mechanical equipment;
2. Exterior lighting;
3. Height limits; and
4. Landscaping.
Each area is described below and specific standards are proposed:
Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area- Perimeter Transition Addendum Maps 11
This area includes proposed buildings H-1 and H-2: Student Housing.
This Perimeter Transition Area is located on the west side of Battle Lane, south of Hooper Lane and across from Senlac Road. Proposed construction includes two 13,500 square foot 3-story additions (H-1, H-2) to the Alderman, Kenan, McIver Hall student-housing complex. Construction is proposed along Battle Lane, at both ends of Kenan Hall to connect to Alderman and McIver Halls. Currently, the area proposed for this construction is landscaped or has other incidental uses associated with student housing.
Anticipated construction start date for this improvement is May 2003. Anticipated completion is July 2004.
The following is a list of standards that the University is proposing for this Perimeter Transition Area:
Details will be provided in the Site Development Plan.”
The design strategy will provide pedestrian flow through these facilities to create a transparent access onto the campus.”
Except for the Residential-2 zoning district on the opposite side of Battle Lane, this site is surrounded on three sides by University owned property that is zoned Office/Instutional-4.
Because of the residential zoning district on the opposite side of Battle Lane, we believe additional standards are warranted for this perimeter transition area in order to minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property. We believe that these additional standards should address building placement and landscaping features.
We recommend the following additional stipulations for this transition area:
· New construction shall be designed to maintain the existing setback line separating the existing building from Battle Lane;
· No surface stormwater management facilities shall be placed between the new/existing buildings and Battle Lane.
We believe that for the Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area, the standards proposed by the University, the previously noted general standards that apply to all perimeter transition areas, and the two above recommend stipulations will minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property. These stipulations have been included in Resolution A.
East Franklin Street Perimeter Transition Area- Perimeter Transition Addendum Maps 12
This area includes proposed building C-1: Cultural and building A-1: Academic.
This proposed Perimeter Transition Area is located in a space behind the Ackland Art Museum, the Hanes Art Center and several commercial establishments that line the south side of the 100 block of East Franklin Street. The area is accessible by driving into Porthole Alley from Franklin Street at the pedestrian crossing signal. Currently, the area includes a residential type building occupied by Hill Annex several small parking lots, some landscape and pedestrian areas.
Proposed construction includes replacing Hill Annex with a 3-story, 31,800 square foot academic building (A-1). A 3-story 36,000 square foot addition (C-1) is proposed for the back of the Ackland Art Museum.
The University is proposing to convert approximately 2,500 square feet of the existing parking lot, adjacent to the northeast quadrant of Building A-1, to a pervious surface.
Anticipated construction start date for building C-1 is December 2002. Construction starting date for building A-1 is March 2005. Anticipated completion dates for building C-1 is May 2004 and February 2007 for building A-1.
The following is a list of standards that the University is proposing for this Perimeter Transition Area:
1. Minimize spillover onto property outside of the OI-4 zoning district.
2. Prevent glare on property outside of the OI-4 zoning district.
Details will be provided in the Site Development Plan.”
The adjacent University Presbyterian Church property is zoned Office/Institutional-3. The commercial area on East Franklin Street is zoned Town Center-1. The remaining property surrounding the two construction sites is owned by the University and zoned OI-4.
We believe that for the East Franklin Street Perimeter Transition Area, the standards proposed by the University, and the previously noted general standards that apply to all perimeter transition areas, will minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property.
South Columbia Street Perimeter Transition Area- Perimeter Transition Addendum Maps 13
This area includes proposed buildings A-4, A-5: Academic.
This area is located on the east side of South Columbia Street, and includes Abernathy Hall and the west portion of the Swain Hall parking lot. Proposed construction along South Columbia would replace Abernathy Hall with a 4-story, 55,200 square foot academic building (A-5). Between this new structure and the Hanes Art Center, a second academic building, 4-story 20,000 square foot (A-4) is proposed.
Anticipated construction start date for both buildings is March 2005. Construction completion is planned for February 2007.
The following is a list of standards that the University is proposing for this development site:
1. Minimize spillover onto property outside of the OI-4 zoning district
2. Prevent glare on property outside of the OI-4 zoning district.
Details will be provided in the Site Development Plan.”
The fraternity properties, located on the west side of South Columbia Street, are in the Office/Institutional-1 zoning district. The remaining property surrounding this site, to the north, south and east, is owned by the University and is zoned OI-4.
We note that the University is proposing that the campus landscape buffer of the Ackland Art Museum be maintained. This standard includes street trees, shrubbery, brick sidewalks and stonewalls. We believe that in order to achieve this landscape standard, surface stormwater features should be prohibited from the perimeter transition area.
We recommend the following additional stipulations for this transition area:
· The landscaping between the new buildings and the street shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Ackland Museum and South Columbia Street.
· No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new buildings and South Columbia Street.
· Any access to the proposed new parking deck from South Columbia Street shall be designed to limit access to right-in, right-out.
We believe that for the South Columbia Street Perimeter Transition Area, the standards proposed by the University, the previously noted general standards that apply to all perimeter transition areas, and the above recommended stipulations will minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property. Resolution A includes these stipulations.
McCauley Street /Pittsboro Street- Perimeter Transition Area Addendum Maps 14
This area includes proposed building A-11: Academic and Parking Deck P-8.
This proposed Perimeter Transition Area is located at the southeast corner of McCauley and Pittsboro Streets. Currently, this area includes the 154-space McCauley Street parking lot. Adjacent to the east are two fraternities. To the south is the Tate Turner Kuralt Building and to the southeast is Beard Hall. Across McCauley Street to the north are Miller and Whitehead Halls. Directly across Pittsboro Street is the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. Diagonally across Pittsboro Street, to the northwest is a multi-family structure.
Proposed construction would replace the existing McCauley Street parking lot with a 3-story, 82,000 square foot academic building (A-11) and a two-level, 120 space parking deck. Although this project includes a parking deck, there will be a net loss of 34 parking spaces with this proposed construction. The University’s submission notes that access to the proposed parking deck will be from McCauley Street.
We note the University’s proposed standards for building height indicate that the dominant building mass for this proposed improvement will be consistent with the Tate Turner Kuralt Building. The University’s standards also note that the tallest roof elevation with the Tate Turner Kuralt Building is 70 feet.
In response to staff request for additional information, the University submitted an elevation detail (Addendum Map 14 - Longitudinal Section) comparing the height of this proposed development with the adjacent Tate Turner Kuralt Building and Miller Hall.
The anticipated construction start date for both structures is March 2004. The construction completion date for Building A-11 is February 2006. The anticipated completion date for the parking deck is July 2006.
The following is a list of standards that the University is proposing for this development site:
Details will be provided in the Site Development Plan.”
The neighboring properties across Pittsboro Street are located in the Office/Institutional-1 zoning district. The fraternities to the east are located in an Office/Institutional-3 zoning district. The remaining properties surrounding this area, to the north, south and southeast, are owned by the University and zoned OI-4.
We believe, that in order to minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property, additional standards are warranted for this perimeter transition area. We believe that these additional standards should address building placement, landscaping features, and access to the parking deck.
We recommend the following additional stipulations for this transition area:
· The new building shall be set back at least 100 feet from the centerline of Pittsboro Street.
· Landscaping between the new building and Pittsboro and McCauley Streets shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Tate Kuralt Building and Pittsboro Street.
· No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new building and Pittsboro Street.
We believe that for the McCauley Street/Pittsboro Street Perimeter Transition Area, the standards proposed by the University, the previously noted general standards that apply to all perimeter transition areas, and the above recommend stipulations will minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property. Resolution A includes these stipulations.
Ambulatory Care Center- Perimeter Transition Area Addendum Maps 15
This area includes proposed building UNCH-1: Health Care and Parking Deck P-6.
This Perimeter Transition Area is located behind the Ambulatory Care Center, south of the EPA building, Housing Support and Grounds Building, west of the Southside Chiller Annex and north of Chase Avenue. Existing conditions on this proposed development site include a portion of the Ambulatory Care Center parking lot (152 parking spaces), the ACC Express building and a wooded area north of Chase Avenue.
Proposed construction includes a 196,280 square foot, 3-story expansion to the Ambulatory Care Center (UNCH-1). A 3 level parking deck with 350 parking spaces is also proposed. The construction of this parking lot will result in net increase of 198 parking spaces for the Ambulatory Care facility.
We note that in response to comments and concerns expressed to this University on the placement of this development near the Chase Avenue neighborhood, the revised building footprint submitted with the Addendum has been adjusted to the north. This adjusted building footprint increases the distance between the ACC addition and the existing homes on Chase Avenue.
The following is a list of standards that the University is proposing for this development site:
The ACC-II project is an expansion of the existing Ambulatory Care Center on three levels with one level of parking below grade. The primary use will be outpatient clinical services with supporting diagnostic and treatment areas that include: Radiology, laboratory, pharmacy and outpatient surgical services with extended stay capacity. There will be administrative offices to support the facility, conference rooms for education and training, storage and other support required for such a facility. There are no licensed inpatient beds in the ACC-II project.
Pedestrian access enters at the second floor of the facility or through elevators that run to the parking area below. The pedestrian access also blends with a walkway from the EPA building to the north. Bicycles can access the building from Mason Farm Road as well as other vehicles.”
The Chase Avenue properties are located in a Residential-2 zoning district. The remaining properties surrounding this development site are owned by the University and zoned Office/Institutional-4.
We believe, that in order to minimize the impact of this development on adjacent residential properties along Chase Avenue, additional standards are warranted for this perimeter transition area. We believe that these additional standards should address building placement, and retention of existing vegetation.
We recommend the following additional stipulations for this transition area:
We believe that for the Ambulatory Care Center Perimeter Transition Area, the standards proposed by the University, the previously noted general standards that apply to all perimeter transition areas, and the above recommend stipulations will minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property. These recommendations have been stipulated in Resolution A.
Student Housing West- Perimeter Transition Area Addendum Maps 16
This area includes proposed building H-21: Housing.
This Perimeter Transition Area is located on the eastside of Mason Farm Road at the intersection of Purefoy Road. Student housing is located to the west and north of the site. A residential dwelling is located to the east and the Chapel Hill Kehillah is to the south across Mason Farm Road. Existing conditions on this proposed development site include a wooded area between the proposed development, Mason Farm Road and the adjacent residence. A small portion of the north as east edge of the site includes parking and gravel areas.
Proposed construction includes a 24,300 square foot, 3-story student/family-housing building.
We note that in response to comments and concerns expressed to this University on the placement of this development near adjoining properties along Mason Farm Road, the revised building footprint, submitted with the Addendum, has been adjusted. This adjusted building foot-print increased the distance between the proposed building and the adjacent residence to the east.
The following is a list of standards that the University is proposing for this development site:
1. Minimize spillover onto property outside of the OI-4 zoning district
2. Prevent glare on property outside of the OI-4 zoning district.
Details will be provided in the Site Development Plan.”
We note that the day care property to the east is located in a Residential-2 zoning district. The property across Mason Farm Road is located in a Residential –4 zoning district. The remaining properties surrounding this area are owned by the University and zoned Office/Institutional-4.
We believe, that in order to minimize the impact of this development on adjacent residential properties along Mason Farm Road, additional standards are warranted for this perimeter transition area. We believe that these additional standards should address building placement, and retention of existing vegetation.
We recommend the following additional stipulations for this transition area:
We believe that for the Student Family Housing – West Perimeter Transition Area, the standards proposed by the University, the previously noted general standards that apply to all perimeter transition areas, and the above recommend stipulations will minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property.
Student Housing East- Perimeter Transition Area Addendum Maps 17
This area includes proposed buildings H-13, H-14, H-15, H-16, H-17, H-18, H-19, H-20: Housing.
The development proposed for this area includes eight structures for student family housing. All buildings are proposed as 3-story structures and will range in size from 31,500 square feet to 19, 500 square feet.
Three of the eight structures, H-18, H-19, and H-20 are sited parallel to Mason Farm Road. These building are located just east of the Oteys Road intersection, and back up to the Smith Center and the Kenan Business School. Parking for this development is proposed between the back of the structures and the Smith Center and Business School. Access for this parking area is proposed from Mason Farm Road, along the north edge of the development, near the Oteys Road intersection. The total square footage for these three building is 74,400 square feet.
Properties across Mason Farm Road from this site are zoned Residential-2. There are several residential structures on the opposite side of Mason Farm Road, on Oteys Road and at the north edge of the perimeter transition area.
The remaining five student housing facilities H-13, H-14, H-15, H-16 and H-17 are proposed as part of a larger student-housing complex circling Baity Hill. Three of the five structures will back up to Fordham Boulevard. The fourth structure will back up to the Aycock Family Medical building and the fifth structure is proposed at the existing Baity Hill driveway. The total square footage proposed for these five building is 130,500 square feet.
Two points of access are proposed for this development. The first access point involves realigning the Baity Hill driveway northward on Mason Farm Road. The second access point involves a new curb cut on Mason Farm Road, close to the Fordham Boulevard intersection. Both access drives connect to the loop drive. This roadway extends around the outside edge of the student family housing complex and includes parking.
We also note that these two access points provide vehicular connections to the 1,500 space parking deck, P-7, proposed between this student family housing complex and Manning Drive.
The following is a list of standards that the University is proposing for this development site:
Details will be provided in the Site Development Plan.”
We believe that in order to minimize the impact of this development on adjacent residential properties along Mason Farm Road, Oteys Road and views from Fordham Boulevard, additional standards are warranted for this perimeter transition area. We believe that these additional standards should address access and circulation, building placement, retention of existing vegetation, and the management of construction traffic.
We recommend the following additional stipulations for this transition area:
We also note that a portion of this proposed development site is encumbered by the Special Use Permit for the Smith Center. The Smith Center Special Use Permit requires a landscape buffer between the Smith Center and Mason Farm Road. Site elements of this student family housing project are proposed within that required landscape buffer area. In order for this student family housing project to begin, it will be necessary for the University to either modify or abandon the Smith Center Special Use Permit.
We recommend an additional stipulation which requires:
We believe that for the Student Family Housing – East Perimeter Transition Area, the standards proposed by the University, the previously noted general standards that apply to all perimeter transition areas, and the above recommend stipulations will minimize the impact of this development on adjacent property.
OTHER ISSUES
In addition to the board categories noted above, several related issues have arisen:
Smith Center Special Use Permit: An area surrounding the Smith Center is encumbered by a Special Use Permit. The Development Plan proposes a new building next to the Smith Center in an area encumbered by the existing Special Use Permit. The Development Plan also proposes student family housing structures within an area identified as an off-site buffer area in the Smith Center Special Use Permit.
A key provision of the Smith Center Special Use Permit was that the Appearance Commission approve a Screening Plan to address views of the arena from Mason Farm Road. In 1981, the University proposed, and the Appearance Commission approved, a landscaping and screening plan that showed a 200-foot corridor of existing vegetation that would provide the required the screening function. As a result, the 200-foot wide corridor immediately north of Mason Farm Road, while not within the boundary of the Smith Center Special Use Permit, has constraints on its use created as a result of the Special Use Permit. The Development Plan proposes Family Housing within this corridor. Final approvals cannot be granted for these buildings unless and until the Smith Center Special Use Permit is modified or abandoned. Other key requirements of the Smith Center Special Use Permit include a required 10-foot fence with barbed wire (to discourage pedestrian movements between Mason Farm Road and the arena), and required traffic plans for special events at the arena. These requirements would need consideration by the Council in entertaining an expected upcoming request to modify or abandon the Special Use Permit.
Attached is an item-by-item report on the Smith Center Special Use Permit as an attachment for the Town Council’s September 19 Public Hearing. We believe it will be important for the Council to be able to hear from citizens about which requirements continue to be important.
We note that the Development Ordinance includes provisions that would allow either abandonment or modification of the Smith Center Special Use Permit (and the Health Affairs Parking Deck and Kenan Stadium Special Use Permits) with the new Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. We have included a stipulation in Resolution A, which would require the abandonment or modification of the Smith Center Special Use Permit prior to the submittal of a Site Development Permit application.
Telecommunication Antenna: While the University Main Campus was zoned Office/Institutional-3, the Town staff administratively approved accessory antennas as administrative Zoning Compliance Permits if the proposed antenna was within the Council adopted antenna guidelines. We expect requests for accessory antennas to continue and therefore, recommend inclusion in Resolution A of a stipulation that would authorize installation of accessory antennas on buildings/structures within the boundary of the Development Plan provided that any visible portion of such device and associated facilities does not extend more than 10 feet above the roof of any building/structure. No portion of the antenna or associated facilities may be located on any building/structure within a Perimeter Transition Area in a manner that is visible from any ground-level vantage point outside the boundaries of the Development Plan.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS
For approval of a Development Plan in the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district, the Council must make the following findings, as set forth in Section 16.7.3 of the Development Ordinance:
a) That the development would maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
b) That the development would maintain the value of adjacentproperty.
Upon review of the application and information that has been submitted to date, our preliminary recommendation is that these findings can be made.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
We believe that the proposed Development Plan addresses the required issues that are spelled out in the OI-4 Zoning District. We have identified improvements and mitigation measures that we believe are necessary in order to accommodate the proposed development.
Resolution A represents the Preliminary Recommendation of the Town Manager, and would approve the application with conditions.
Resolution B would approve the application with conditions as recommended by the Planning Board.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION A
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL (2001-09-19/R-1a)
WHEREAS the Town of Chapel Hill and the University of North Carolina are bound by a shared history and desire a unified vision for the future and;
WHEREAS the University serves as the economic mainstay of the Town while offering a wealth of services from cultural amenities to quality medical care and;
WHEREAS the Town serves as an attractive and desirable home for faculty, staff and students while offering valued services to the University and;
WHEREAS the University and Town recognize the need to allow for growth while mitigating transportation, environmental, noise, light, and other impacts and;
WHEREAS the Chapel Hill Town Council enacted a new zoning district on July 2, 2001 to address the need to allow for growth while mitigating impacts, and applied this zoning district to the University’s Main Campus and;
WHEREAS the University submitted a Development Plan to the Town that maps out a decade of campus growth and addresses mitigation of impacts;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that development proposed by the Development Plan application of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for property identified as parts of Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps numbered 71, 73, 74, 86, and 87, if developed according to the Development Plan dated July 3, 2001, modified as indicated in an Addendum dated August 7, 2001, consistent with materials included in the July 3, 2001 and August 7, 2001 documents, and in compliance with the conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
2. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Development Plan in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
General Stipulations
1. Level of Development: This Development Plan approval represents preliminary authorization for demolition and construction of facilities as shown on Addendum Map 2, and Addendum Maps 11 through 17, from the “Addendum #1” dated August 7, 2001. Additional information is included in the July 3, 2001 “Development Plan” and the August 7, 2001 “Addendum #1” that describes detail about facilities proposed on these maps, and which is hereby incorporated into this approval, except as noted below. In any case involving conflicting information, the controlling component of this Development Plan shall be the Map called “Addendum Map 2.” The controlling maps for Perimeter Transition Areas shall be Addendum Maps 11-17. The Development Plan proposes new floor area of 4,016,227 square feet; and a net increase of 1,550 parking spaces. (Note: In the Development Plan application, the proposed new floor area is 5,901,277 square feet. However, 1,885,000 square feet of that amount is proposed as parking deck, which does not count as floor area under the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, and is therefore excluded here, resulting in the proposed amount of new floor area being 4,016,227 square feet.)
2. Site Development Permit Required: No construction/demolition activity related to any facilities proposed in this approved Development Plan,including temporary or permanent surface parking lots in excess of 3,000 square feet, or any parking lot within 100 feet of the outer perimeter of the Development Plan, may commence until the Town Manager has issued a Site Development Permit authorizing construction/demolition.
3. Consistency of Site Development Permit Application with Development Plan: No application for a Site Development Permit for areas within the boundary of this Development Plan, as shown on the attached Addendum Map 2, shall be approved unless such application is consistent with the Council-approved Development Plan. Consistent does not mean identical; building footprints and landscaped areas shown on the Council approved Development Plan, except as otherwise noted below for certain Perimeter Transition Areas, shall be considered to indicate approximate size and location.
4. Interpretation of Map 7: Addendum Map 7 shall be considered to indicate, approximately, areas of pervious and impervious surface that will exist within the area covered by this Development Plan after full development has been completed. Except for incidental paving for walkways and fire lanes, areas shown as “Wooded Areas” and “Pervious Surfaces” will be expected to be pervious surface after full development, either with existing vegetation left undisturbed or with new vegetation planted and maintained, unless further specified by stipulations below.
5. Approvals Required for Street Improvements: All public street improvements within the area covered by this Development Plan and/or proposed as part of this Development Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to commencement of construction. Any structure (including masonry walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and pavement) or other appurtenant fixtures proposed within one of Chapel Hill’s local Historic Districts must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to construction of the improvement. All new streets created pursuant to this Development Plan shall be owned and maintained by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, or the NC Department of Transportation.
6. Utility Lines: All utility, service, and communication lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground with the exception of (1) utility, service, and communication lines that are directly attached to specific structures such as roadway and pedestrian bridges; and (2) above-ground steam/chilled water lines for which the Town Manager has approved a plan that specifically shows enclosure structures and accompanying landscaping designed to provide screening and buffering.
7. No Utility Line Through Jones Park: This approval of a Development Plan does not acknowledge nor authorize development of a Utility Corridor through Chapel Hill’s Jones Park, shown on Addendum Map 8 as a line extending to the southeast outside the boundaries of the Development Plan.
8. Telecommunications Antennas Permitted: Accessory antennas, defined as facilities customarily incidental to a building for the above-ground transmission and/or reception of airborne signals, are hereby authorized for installation on buildings/structures within the boundary of this Development Plan provided that (a) Any existing accessory antenna may remain and/or be replaced in a form generally consistent with the existing form; (b) No portion of any new accessory Telecommunications Antenna or associated facilities shall be located on any building within Perimeter Transition Areas in a manner that is visible from any ground-level vantage point outside the boundaries of the Development Plan; and (c) No portion of any new accessory Telecommunications Antenna on a structure not in a Perimeter Transition Area may extend more than 25 feet above the roof of the building to which it is attached.
9. Fire Protection Requirements: Hydrant spacing (distance from one hydrant to another) may not exceed 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. The maximum distance from a fire department connection to a fire hydrant may not exceed 50 feet, unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. Fire Department connections must be located on the street side of each new building. Arrangements shall be made with all new buildings that activation of the sprinkler system shall activate both a local building alarm and a supervisory alarm at a twenty-four hour service. For all new construction, once the building is above the foundation level, an operable hydrant must be available within 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. There shall be fire lanes that are maintained and meet the N.C. Fire Code definition of a fire lane. Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, with adequate roadway turning radius capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and having a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. During construction, when combustibles are brought onto the site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire official, access roads and a suitable supply of water acceptable to the Fire Department shall be provided and maintained. To ensure an adequate supply of water for fire protection a minimum of 2,500 gallons of water per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi shall be available at all fire hydrants necessary to meet the fire protection requirements for this development. This fire flow requirement shall be certified by an engineer licensed by the State of North Carolina.
10. Smith Center Special Use Permit: No Site Development Permit application may be submitted for a location within the area encumbered and constrained by the existing Special Use Permit for the Dean Smith Student Activity Center until the Special Use Permit for the Smith Center is either modified or abandoned in a way that permits this proposed construction.
11. Stormwater Management Standards:
Post-construction Stormwater Runoff Volume shall:
a) Based on the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service methodology for runoff depth, not exceed the pre-development (existing conditions) volume of runoff for the 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (or 96% of the rainfall that statistically would occur in a 100-year period based on the record data) at locations where stormwater exits the OI-4 Zoning District. This may be achieved by hydrologic abstraction, recycling and/or reuse, or any other accepted scientific method. All new development and re-development shall conform with these criteria; and
b) Be included in a stormwater improvement plan that the University is currently undertaking that is intended to implement projects that reduce the volume and rate of runoff from existing campus development. This plan will assure that no increase in volume will be generated from the University main campus following new development.
Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Rate shall:
Be controlled such that the discharge rate of post-construction runoff, at all locations where stormwater runoff exits the land area in the Development Plan, shall not exceed the pre-development or existing conditions discharge rate for the local 2-year (3.60 inches), 10-year (5.38 inches), 25-year (6.41 inches), and 50-year (7.21 inches) frequency, 24 hour duration storm event.
Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Treatment shall:
a) Be designed to remove 85% of Total Suspended Solids;
b) Occur on the volume of stormwater runoff resulting from the first 1 inch of precipitation;
c) Be such that either the post-development runoff volume draws down to the pre-storm design stage within 5 days but not less than 2 days; or, the post-development discharge rate shall be no larger than the pre-development discharge rate for the 1-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (3.00 inches); and
d) Occur prior to entering the Waters of the State.
Stormwater Management Standards described above are subject to revision as necessary to conform with any applicable revision(s) to Federal or State regulations where such revisions would establish a stricter standard.
As called for in Stormwater and Traffic Management Guidelines, ongoing data collection and analysis shall be performed as described below:
12. Outfall Monitoring: Outfall monitoring shall occur periodically as described below and, following each monitoring period, copies of all data shall be submitted to the Town. The types of monitoring are to include stream gauge or stream flow data collection, visual inspection, and/or benthic sampling depending on the location.
a) Meeting of the Waters outfall: A stream/rain gauge shall be installed and operated to collect and measure precipitation, stream flow, selected ambient water chemistry and stormwater data. Benthic sampling shall be conducted at a minimum every 6 months based on appropriate scientific methodologies. Visual inspections shall occur quarterly within the floodplain of the boundaries of the North Carolina Botanical Garden or south of Fordham Boulevard, to monitor and report physical conditions including channel stability, scour, sedimentation, or any other physical characteristics associated with stormwater runoff exiting the tract.
b) Morgan Creek outfall: Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at the outfall behind the south chiller. These inspections shall monitor and report physical conditions including channel stability, scour, sedimentation, or any other physical characteristics associated with stormwater runoff exiting the tract.
c) Battle Branch outfall: Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at a selected location where the stream becomes clearly defined below the confluence with its tributaries. The same visual monitoring methodology shall be used as described for the Morgan Creek outfall above.
d) Bolin Creek outfall(s): Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at appropriate inlet locations along the tract boundary and Franklin Street. The inspections shall monitor for sedimentation and/or debris buildup.
13. Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses: An Updated Transportation Impact Analysis and subsequent Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses shall be submitted in accordance with the Guidelines approved for the OI-4 Zoning District, as follows:
a) An Updated Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted in December 2001. Subsequent updates shall be submitted in December 2003 and biennially thereafter (referred to as Biennial Updates) until construction of the buildings included in the Main Campus Development Plan is substantially complete or until a new Development Plan is approved.
b) Collection of new data (as described under the Methodology section of the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for development and redevelopment in the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) Zoning District, adopted by the Town Council on July 2, 2001) shall be undertaken for the December 2001 submission of the Updated Transportation Impact Analysis and subsequent Biennial Updates. This data shall be collected in September/October of the applicable year.
c) Consistent with application of the approved Guidelines, the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses shall analyze additional intersections for existing, no-build, and build conditions Level of Service (LOS) if the intersections meet the requirements outlined in the Guidelines. Intersections to be considered for possible analysis include:
1. NC 54 and Friday Center
2. NC 54 and Office Drive/Hilltop Collector Road (proposed signal)
3. NC 54 and Burning Tree Drive
4. NC 54 and Hamilton Road
5. Fordham Boulevard and NC 54 Ramp
6. Fordham Boulevard and Estes Drive
7. Fordham Boulevard and Willow Drive
8. Fordham Boulevard and Elliott Road
9. Fordham Boulevard and Ephesus Church Road
10. Airport Road and Hillsboro Street
11. Airport Road and Estes Drive
The number of intersections requiring analysis may increase or decrease depending on whether the intersections meet the analysis criteria established in the Guidelines.
d) Traffic signal warrant analyses at the following locations, to include peak hour volume warrant and accident warrant, shall be submitted as part of the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses:
1. Mason Farm Road and East Drive
2. Mason Farm Road and West Drive
3. Mason Farm Road and Oteys Road
4. Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road
5. Manning Drive and Skipper Bowles Drive
Traffic signal warrant analyses must include projected traffic associated with the approved Development Plan. If either the Peak Hour Warrant or Accident Warrant is satisfied at a location, then the University shall conduct a full warrant analysis at that location. The University will be responsible for installing warranted traffic signal(s) within eighteen months after fulfillment of the associated warrant(s), subject to approval by the Town Manager and the NCDOT.
14. Transportation Management Plan: A Transportation Management Plan shall be prepared every three years. The first Transportation Management Plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager in December 2001. Subsequent updates shall be submitted in December 2004 and every three years thereafter until construction of the buildings included in the Development Plan is substantially complete or until a new Development Plan is approved.
The Transportation Management Plans will be reviewed by the Town Manager, who may suggest changes to existing and proposed programs or may suggest additional programs. The Plans may also be amended to reflect the development of alternative transportation programs.
Each Transportation Management Plan shall include:
a) Designation of a Transportation Coordinator for each department.
b) Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives.
c) Provisions for disseminating transit and ridesharing information.
d) Descriptions of programs designed to encourage greater use of alternative modes of transportation and an assessment of the anticipated impact of these programs.
e) A mode split survey of employees of the University and UNC Hospitals and UNC students
15. Refuse: As stated in the Development Plan, refuse collection shall be by a means other than Town collection.
Required Improvements
Transportation conditions shall be measured, monitored, and analyzed on an ongoing basis, as articulated in the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines endorsed by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 2, 2001 and as described above. Based on the best data available at this time, improvements and requirements related to transportation are specified below.
The Guidelines establish procedures, processes, and measures for identifying impacts and mitigation relevant to local transportation systems(s). As further information is obtained and analyzed, and as conditions change, it is possible that currently identified mitigation measures will need to be modified; that new and/or different measures will become necessary; and that previously identified measures will no longer be appropriate or necessary.
Upon review of additional information that will be gathered as outlined below, the University shall propose such adjustments as are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, including additional or fewer or different improvements needed to mitigate the transportation impacts of growth authorized by this Development Plan. The Town Manager shall approve such adjustments if he determines that the adjustments are reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council In the event that the Town Manager determines that the adjustments proposed by the University are not reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council, no further Site Development Permits shall be approved until acceptable adjustments are proposed by the University and found by the Town Manager to be consistent with the Development Plan.
The following improvements shall accompany construction of facilities approved in this Development Plan:
16. Provision of Park/Ride Spaces : The University shall arrange for provision of 1,361 parking spaces in park/ride lots to accompany construction of new facilities as proposed in the Development Plan. No application for Site Development Permit may be submitted in a given fiscal year, unless it is demonstrated that the number of park/ride parking spaces shown as being available in the previous fiscal year, as shown on Table 7b in the August 7, 2001 Addendum, have been made available, or unless documentation is submitted to and approved by the Town Manager demonstrating that facilities proposed in a particular Site Development Permit application will not generate demand for park/ride spaces. Each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis, beginning with the 2001 submission, shall provide information on the status of providing the park/ride spaces as outlined in Table 7b of the August 7, 2001 Addendum. This analysis shall also include information on park/ride spaces to be provided during the next two years, including the number and probable location of anticipated facilities. The total number of park/ride spaces to be provided as part of this Development Plan shall be evaluated based on an assessment of future employee and student growth and a review of mode split information gathered from the Transportation Management Plan survey of employees and students. In the event that the Biennial Updates and/or Transportation Management Plan Updates indicate that assumptions about travel behavior that contributed to the calculations in Table 7b prove to be inaccurate, the University shall propose corrective measures, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to approval of any subsequent Site Development Permits.
17. Traffic Signal System Improvements: The University shall be responsible for the following traffic signal system improvements:
a) Traffic signal timing plans shall be studied and revised as necessary at all intersections that are analyzed for LOS criteria (presently 36 intersections). Signal timing plan studies shall be completed in Spring 2002, Spring 2005, and Spring 2008.
b) The following signalized intersections shall be upgraded by replacing the existing 8” signal heads with 12” signal heads:
1. Cameron Avenue and Pittsboro Street
2. Cameron Avenue and Columbia Street
3. South Columbia Street and Mason Farm Road
4. Pittsboro Street and McCauley Street
The upgrades must be approved by the Town Manager and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and construction must be completed prior to the end of calendar year 2005.
18. Road Improvements: The University shall be responsible for constructing and implementing the following roadway and intersection improvements or their equivalent prior to the end of the calendar year 2005, provided that the results of the 2001 traffic study demonstrate that these are desirable and that approval is obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation:
The following items a) through d) as proposed by the University:
a) Columbia Street and South Road
Ø Reconstruct the separate right-turn slip lane from South Columbia Street onto South Road to provide a tighter urban-type intersection
b) South Road and Country Club Road
Ø Widen the north side of Country Club Road to provide a double left-turn lane.
Ø Widen the south side Country Club Road to provide a separate right-turn lane.
c) South Columbia Street (Between Manning Drive and South Road)
Ø Narrow the street to three lanes (two 11-foot traffic lanes and one 14-foot bus/bicycle lane on the east side).
Ø Widen the eastern sidewalk by four feet to narrow the pavement to the required dimensions noted above.
Ø At the southern end of the street section, eliminate the excess pavement on the west side by extending the curb out to achieve a symmetrical section.
d) Ridge Road (At Rams Head Lot)
Ø Eliminate last parking space on the right side of the drive at Ridge Road.
Ø Eliminate last two parking spaces in the curve on the left (north) side of Ridge Road approach to the drive.
Ø Eliminate parking spaces between the gate to the hockey field and the drive on north side of Ridge Road.
Ø Move the sign 20 feet back from Ridge Road.
In addition:
e) Mason Farm Road
Ø Construct a sidewalk with curb and gutter on the north side of Mason Farm Road, from the Purefoy Road intersection to new Student Family Housing intersection closest to Fordham Boulevard, provided public right-of-way is available. This sidewalk section shall be installed prior to occupancy of the Family Housing units proposed as part of the “Student Family Housing-East” Perimeter Transition Area.
19. Traffic Calming Improvements: A proposed traffic-calming plan and implementation schedule for the Development Plan shall be prepared by the University for review and approval by the Town Manager and the North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to occupancy of the first Site Development Permit structure submitted under the Development Plan. Traffic Calming measures may include speed tables, round-abouts, rumble strips, median improvements, and other measures as appropriate for specific applications.
20. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvements:
a) Signalized Intersections: The following signalized intersections shall be upgraded with pedestrian “count down” heads and remarked crosswalks prior to the end of calendar year 2005:
1. Cameron Avenue and South Columbia Street
2. South Road and Raleigh Road
3. Manning Drive and Ridge Road
4. South Columbia Street and McCauley Street
b) Battle Branch Trail: The University shall improve and maintain a pedestrian trail through the University-owned portions of Battle Park, for use as a pedestrian corridor to access the campus.
21. Public Transportation System
The University shall provide in each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis, beginning in 2001, estimates of increased public transit service anticipated for the next two years. The University is expected to provide all funding necessary to purchase capital equipment and provide operating funds for additional service primarily benefiting the University (for example, express park-and-ride service) and to provide its pro rata share of funding necessary to purchase capital equipment and provide operating funds for additional service benefiting all transit system partners. The Town of Chapel Hill shall prepare estimates, in consultation with the University, of anticipated capital and operating needs related to the Development Plan.
Information Requirements for Site Development Permit Applications
22. Site Development Permits-General Information: Each application for a Site Development Permit shall include the following information, in a format specified by the Town Manager:
a) A Site Plan showing building footprints, access drives, pedestrian circulation (with connections to existing pedestrian networks), parking areas, and clearing limits.
b) A Grading Plan.
c) A Utility Plan showing how all utilities will be provided to buildings, and approval from the applicable utility.
d) A statement of floor area to be constructed/demolished, and statement of number of parking spaces to be created/lost.
e) The number and location of bicycle storage facilities in the vicinity of each building.
f) A Construction Management Plan, consistent with the University’s “Construction Management Guidelines” contained in the August 7, 2001 Addendum, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to commencement of construction, indicating measures to be taken during construction in the following areas: Traffic Management Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public streets (maintained and operated by the Town or the NCDOT) that will be disrupted during construction, including detour information; Pedestrian Management Plan indicating how pedestrian movements on or adjacent to public rights-of-way will be safely maintained; a Construction Traffic Management Plan, indicating routes for construction-related traffic and including parking arrangements for construction workers.
g) Description of how emergency access to and around buildings will be provided both during and after completion of construction (note standards for access described previously).
h) Other information determined by the Town Manager to be reasonably necessary in order to evaluate consistency with this approved Development Plan.
23. Stormwater Management: Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include:
a) A signed and sealed letter from a Professional Engineer indicating the locations in the drainage area and the methodologies of how stormwater management measures associated with Site Development Permit application will meet or exceed the approved Stormwater Management Performance Standards, as approved by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 2, 2001. Stormwater management and treatment practices shall comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations, and revisions thereof.
b) A sub-basin map indicating locations within the sub-basin(s) of the stormwater runoff control measures associated with each development activity.
c) A table indicating stormwater runoff volume and discharge generated by and mitigated by each development activity, in accordance with the approved performance criteria.
d) Plans indicating grading, plantings, erosion control and stormwater runoff control best management practice(s) design and details, in accordance with the performance criteria.
24. Noise Ordinance: Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include a signed and sealed letter from a Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of North Carolina and with demonstrable expertise in acoustical design and attenuation practices, certifying that any increase in measurable noise above existing pre-Development Plan noise levels on property outside the OI-4 Zoning District will not exceed the levels allowed in the Town Noise Ordinance as established at the time each Site Development Permit application is approved by the Town. This noise restriction shall not apply to property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District that is in the same ownership as property within the OI-4 Zoning District.
25. Lighting Plan: Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include a lighting plan, sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina and with demonstrable expertise in lighting design and mitigation strategies, that shows existing and proposed lighting fixture types and locations, and indicating by isolux contour diagram and grid points the measured and calculated pre-development and post-development foot-candles at grade on property where lighting impacts are expected.
The following standards apply to new lighting associated with an approved Development Plan.
a) All lighting, including that used in and around buildings, recreation areas, parking areas, walkways, roadways, and signs, shall be designed to minimize spillover light onto property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.
b) All lighting shall be designed to prevent glare that could impair vision and/or otherwise deteriorate normally accepted qualities and uses of property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.
c) Outdoor lighting, except sports and athletic field lighting, shall be mounted at heights no greater than fifteen (15) feet for non-cutoff lights; and no greater than thirty-five (35) feet for cutoff lights.
d) Lighting for sports and athletic fields must include glare control features and must be designed so that the primary illumination is directed onto the play area and immediate surroundings, and such that offsite illumination/glare is restricted.
e) Increases in illumination on property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District shall not result in lighting levels in excess of 0.3 foot-candles, measured at ground level.
f) No increase in measurable lighting levels shall occur on property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District where existing ambient lighting levels are in excess of 0.3 foot-candles.
g) These lighting restrictions shall not apply to property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District that is in the same ownership as property within the OI-4 Zoning District.
Requirements for Perimeter Transition Areas
26. Perimeter Transition Areas-General Information: All areas shown on Addendum Maps 11-17 shall be considered Perimeter Transition Areas. In addition to the information noted above that is required for all Site Development Permit applications, all applications for Site Development Permits in Perimeter Transition Areas, as shown on Addendum Maps 11-17, shall include the following information:
a) A description of any demolition to take place, along with description of proposed new buildings and parking areas.
b) A Construction Management Plan that will include, in addition to the information noted above, indication of construction staging areas.
c) A site plan showing what areas are to be left undisturbed by construction activity, and what areas will remain otherwise as vegetated open space.
d) All points of vehicular access to and around buildings.
e) The number and location of parking spaces in the vicinity of each building.
f) Building elevations, showing heights of all structures.
g) Landscaping Plan, including the view of each building from all adjacent streets.
h) Demonstration of compliance with statements included in Maps 11-17 of Addendum #1.
In addition, the following information shall be required for the following specific Perimeter Transition Areas:
27. Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area: For the Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:
a) New construction shall be designed to maintain the existing setback line separating the existing building from Battle Lane.
b) No surface stormwater management facilities shall be placed between the new/existing buildings and Battle Lane.
28. East Franklin Street Perimeter Transition Area: No additional stipulations shall apply for the East Franklin Street Perimeter Transition Area.
29. South Columbia Street Perimeter Transition Area: For the South Columbia Street Perimeter Area, the following additional stipulations shall apply:
a) Landscaping between the new buildings and the street shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Ackland Museum and South Columbia Street.
b) No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new buildings and South Columbia Street.
c) Any access to the proposed new parking deck from South Columbia Street shall be designed to limit access to right-in, right-out.
30. McCauley/Pittsboro Perimeter Transition Area: For the McCauley/Pittsboro Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:
a) The new building shall be set back at least 100 feet from the centerline of Pittsboro Street.
b) Landscaping between the new building and the streets (Pittsboro and McCauley) shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Tate Kuralt Building and Pittsboro Street.
c) No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new building and Pittsboro Street.
31. Ambulatory Care Center Perimeter Transition Area: For the Ambulatory Care Center Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:
b) The new building shall be set back 100 feet from the University property line.
c) The University shall submit a plan showing coordinated stormwater management and buffer strategies for the entire length of the 100-foot setback shown between the existing and proposed Ambulatory Care Center buildings and private properties to the south, demonstrating how a buffer can be provided between the University development and the private properties.
Untilsuch a plan is submitted by the University and approved by the Town Council, at least 50 feet of that 100 foot-wide corridor shall remain undisturbed, except for supplementary plantings, with existing vegetation to remain; disturbed areas, except for paved driving areas, shall be re-vegetated; and the plan for supplementary plantings and re-vegetation shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to approval of a Site Development Permit.
32. Student Family Housing-West Perimeter Transition Area: For the Student Family Housing-West Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:
a) The new building shall be set back 120 feet from Mason Farm Road, and setback 60 feet from the private property to the east, as shown on Map 2 in Addendum #2, with landscaping to be provided within the setback areas, unless the Town Council approves a plan for a new street in the Mason Farm Road corridor (as described in item b) below).
b) The new building may be sited and landscaped in a manner that varies from item a) above if the Town Council approves a plan for the Mason Farm Road corridor that addresses building, street, and buffer configurations in a different manner.
c) Sidewalk, along with curb and gutter, shall be installed along the north side of Mason Farm Road, from the Purefoy Road intersection to the Oteys Road intersection.
33. Student Family Housing –East Perimeter Transition Area: For the Student Family Housing-East Perimeter Transition Area: The following additional stipulations shall apply:
a) Access drives and parking area shall be configured as shown on Addendum Map 17.
b) Buildings shall be located as shown on Map 17 on Addendum #1, set back 120 feet from Mason Farm Road, with landscaping to be provided within the setback areas, unless the Town Council approves a plan for a new street in the Mason Farm Road corridor (as described in item c) below). Buildings shall be designed in a manner such that the elevations facing Mason Farm Road shall include main entrances served by walkways; no refuse collection or other service-related areas may be located between the buildings and Mason Farm road.
c) The new buildings may be sited and landscaped in a manner that varies from item b) above if the Town Council approves a plan for the Mason Farm Road corridor that addresses building, street, and buffer configurations in a different manner.
d) In addition to Construction Management information described above, the Construction Management Plan for this Perimeter Transition Area shall include measures that will minimize construction vehicle travel on Mason Farm road. (Construction Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to start of construction.)
e) Sidewalk, along with curb and gutter, shall be installed along the north side of Mason Farm Road, from Oteys Road to the eastern-most road segment that leads into the Baity Hill housing area.
f) A Site Development Permit application for the new 1,500 space parking deck shown as facility P-7 may not be approved until an access plan for the deck, addressing access issues on Mason Farm Road overall and particularly for peak-hour and special event times is approved by the Town Manager.
34. As-built Drawings: The University shall provide as-built site plans for buildings, parking lots, public utilities, storm water drainage systems, street and sidewalk improvements, and new and existing impervious surfaces associated with each Site Development Permit. The as-builts shall be on a compact disk in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates.
35. Continued Validity: Continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
36. Non-severability: If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Development Plan by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
This the 19th day of September, 2001.
RESOLUTION B
Planning Board’s Recommendation
(As recommended by the Planning Board on 9/4/01)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL (2001-09-19/R-1b)
WHEREAS the Town of Chapel Hill and the University of North Carolina are bound by a shared history and desire a unified vision for the future; and
WHEREAS the University serves as the economic mainstay of the Town while offering a wealth of services from cultural amenities to quality medical care; and
WHEREAS the Town serves as an attractive and desirable home for faculty, staff and students while offering valued services to the University; and
WHEREAS The University and Town recognize the need to allow for growth while mitigating transportation, environmental, noise, light, and other impacts; and
WHEREAS the Chapel Hill Town Council enacted a new zoning district on July 2, 2001 to address the need to allow for growth while mitigating impacts, and applied this zoning district to the University’s Main Campus; and
WHEREAS the University submitted a Development Plan to the Town that maps out a decade of campus growth and addresses mitigation of impacts;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that development proposed by the Development Plan application of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for property identified as parts of Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps numbered 71, 73, 74, 86, and 87, if developed according to the Development Plan dated July 3, 2001, modified as indicated in an Addendum dated August 7, 2001, consistent with materials included in the July 3, 2001 and August 7, 2001 documents, and in compliance with the conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
2. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Development Plan in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
General Stipulations
1. Level of Development: This Development Plan approval represents preliminary authorization for demolition and construction of facilities as shown on Addendum Map 2, and Addendum Maps 11 through 17, from the “Addendum #1” dated August 7, 2001. Additional information is included in the July 3, 2001 “Development Plan” and the August 7, 2001 “Addendum #1” that describes detail about facilities proposed on these maps, and which is hereby incorporated into this approval, except as noted below. In any case involving conflicting information, the controlling component of this Development Plan shall be the Map called “Addendum Map 2.” The controlling maps for Perimeter Transition Areas shall be Addendum Maps 11-17. The Development Plan proposes demolition of 235,000 square feet of floor area and elimination of 3,780 existing parking spaces. The levels of new development authorized by this approval are as follows: New floor area of 4,016,227 square feet; and 5,330 new parking spaces, for a net increase of 3,781,227 square feet of floor area and 1,550 parking spaces. (Note: In the Development Plan application, the proposed new floor area is 5,901,277 square feet. However, 1,885,000 square feet of that amount is proposed as parking deck, which does not count as floor area under the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, and is therefore excluded here, resulting in the proposed amount of new floor area being 4,016,227 square feet.)
2. Site Development Permit Required: No construction/demolition activity related to any facilities proposed in this approved Development Plan,including temporary or permanent surface parking lots in excess of 3,000 square feet, or any parking lot within 200 feet of the perimeter of the Development Plan, may commence until the Town Manager has issued a Site Development Permit authorizing construction.
3. Consistency of Site Development Permit Application with Development Plan: No application for a Site Development Permit for areas within the boundary of this Development Plan, as shown on the attached Addendum Map 2, shall be approved unless such application is consistent with the Council-approved Development Plan. Consistent does not mean identical; building footprints and landscaped areas shown on the Council approved Development Plan, except as otherwise noted below for certain Perimeter Transition Areas, shall be considered to indicate approximate size and location.
4. Interpretation of Map 7: Addendum Map 7 shall be considered to indicate, approximately, areas of pervious and impervious surface that will exist within the area covered by this Development Plan after full development has been completed. Areas shown as “Wooded Areas” and “Pervious Surfaces” will be expected to be pervious surface after full development, either with existing vegetation left undisturbed or with new vegetation planted and maintained, unless further specified by stipulations below.
5. Approvals Required for Street Improvements: All public street improvements within the area covered by this Development Plan and/or proposed as part of this Development Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to commencement of construction. Any structure (including masonry walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and pavement) or other appurtenant fixtures proposed within one of Chapel Hill’s local Historic Districts must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to construction of the improvement. All new streets created pursuant to this Development Plan shall be owned and maintained by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, or the NC Department of Transportation.
6. Utility Lines: All utility, service, and communication lines, other than 3-phase electric power distribution lines, shall be underground with the exception of utility, service, and communication lines that are directly attached to specific structures such as roadway and pedestrian bridges..
7. No Utility Line Through Jones Park: This approval of a Development Plan does not acknowledge nor authorize, and specifically prohibits, development of a Utility Corridor through Chapel Hill’s Jones Park, shown on Addendum Map 8 as a line extending to the southeast outside the boundaries of the Development Plan.
8.
Telecommunications Antennas Permitted: Accessory antennas, defined as facilities
customarily incidental to a building for the above-ground transmission and/or
reception of airborne signals, are hereby authorized for installation on
buildings/structures within the boundary of this Development Plan provided that
(a) Any existing accessory antenna may remain and/or be replaced in a form
generally consistent with the existing form;
(b) No portion of any new accessory Telecommunications Antenna or
associated facilities shall be visibly
located on any building within Perimeter Transition Areas in a manner that is
visible from any vantage
point outside the boundaries of the Development Plan; and (c) No portion of any new accessory
Telecommunications Antenna on a structure not in a Perimeter Transition Area
may extend more than 25 feet above the roof of the building to which it is
attached.
9. Fire Protection Requirements: Hydrant spacing (distance from one hydrant to another) may not exceed 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. The maximum distance from a fire department connection to a fire hydrant may not exceed 50 feet, unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. Fire Department connections must be located on the street side of each new building. Arrangements shall be made with all new buildings that activation of the sprinkler system shall activate both a local building alarm and a supervisory alarm at a twenty-four hour service. For all new construction, once the building is above the foundation level, an operable hydrant must be available within 500 feet unless otherwise approved by the Town Manager. There shall be fire lanes that are maintained and meet the N.C. Fire Code definition of a fire lane. Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, with adequate roadway turning radius capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and having a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. During construction, when combustibles are brought onto the site in such quantities as deemed hazardous by the fire official, access roads and a suitable supply of water acceptable to the Fire Department shall be provided and maintained. To ensure an adequate supply of water for fire protection a minimum of 2,500 gallons of water per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi shall be available at all fire hydrants necessary to meet the fire protection requirements for this development. This fire flow requirement shall be certified by an engineer licensed by the State of North Carolina.
10. Smith Center Special Use Permit: No Site Development Permit application may be submitted for a location within the area encumbered and constrained by the existing Special Use Permit for the Dean Smith Student Activity Center until the Special Use Permit for the Smith Center is either modified or abandoned in a way that permits this proposed construction.
11. Stormwater Management Standards:
Post-construction Stormwater Runoff Volume shall:
a) Based on the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service methodology for runoff depth, not exceed the pre-development (existing conditions) volume of runoff for the 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (or 96% of the rainfall that statistically would occur in a 100-year period based on the record data) at locations where stormwater exits the OI-4 Zoning District. This may be achieved by hydrologic abstraction, recycling and/or reuse, or any other accepted scientific method. All new development and re-development shall conform with these criteria and;
b) Be included in a stormwater improvement plan that the University is currently undertaking that is intended to implement projects that reduce the volume and rate of runoff from existing campus development. This plan will assure that no increase in volume will be generated from the University main campus following new development.
Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Rate shall:
Be controlled such that the discharge rate of post-construction runoff, at all locations where stormwater runoff exits the land area in the Development Plan, shall not exceed the pre-development or existing conditions discharge rate for the local 2-year (3.60 inches), 10-year (5.38 inches), 25-year (6.41 inches), and 50-year (7.21 inches) frequency, 24 hour duration storm event.
Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Treatment shall:
a) Be designed to remove 85% of Total Suspended Solids;
b) Occur on the volume of stormwater runoff resulting from the first 1 inch of precipitation;
c)Be such that either the post-development runoff volume draws down to the pre-storm design stage within 5 days but not less than 2 days; or, the post-development discharge rate shall be no larger than the pre-development discharge rate for the 1-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event (3.00 inches); and
d) Occur prior to entering the Waters of the State.
Stormwater Management Standards described above are subject to revision as necessary to conform with any applicable revision(s) to Federal or State regulations where such revisions would establish a stricter standard.
As called for in Stormwater and Traffic Management Guidelines, ongoing data collection and analysis shall be performed as described below:
a) Meeting of the Waters outfall: A stream/rain gauge shall be installed and operated to collect and measure precipitation, stream flow, selected ambient water chemistry and stormwater data. Benthic sampling shall be conducted at a minimum every 6 months based on appropriate scientific methodologies. Visual inspections shall occur quarterly within the floodplain of the boundaries of the North Carolina Botanical Garden or south of Fordham Boulevard, to monitor and report physical conditions including channel stability, scour, sedimentation, or any other physical characteristics associated with stormwater runoff exiting the tract.
b) Morgan Creek outfall: Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at the outfall behind the south chiller. These inspections shall monitor and report physical conditions including channel stability, scour, sedimentation, or any other physical characteristics associated with stormwater runoff exiting the tract.
c) Battle Branch outfall: Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at a selected location where the stream becomes clearly defined below the confluence with its tributaries. The same visual monitoring methodology shall be used as described for the Morgan Creek outfall above.
d) Bolin Creek outfall(s): Visual inspections shall occur quarterly at appropriate inlet locations along the tract boundary and Franklin Street. The inspections shall monitor for sedimentation and/or debris buildup.
13. Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses: An Updated Transportation Impact Analysis and subsequent Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses shall be submitted in accordance with the Guidelines approved for the OI-4 Zoning District, as follows:
a) An Updated Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted in December 2001. Subsequent updates shall be submitted in December 2003 and biennially thereafter (referred to as Biennial Updates) until construction of the buildings included in the Main Campus Development Plan is substantially complete or until a new Development Plan is approved.
b) Collection of new data (as described under the Methodology section of the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for development and redevelopment in the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) Zoning District, adopted by the Town Council on July 2, 2001) shall be undertaken for the December 2001 submission of the Updated Transportation Impact Analysis and subsequent Biennial Updates. This data shall be collected in September/October of the applicable year.
c) Consistent with application of the approved Guidelines, the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses shall identify and analyze at the following additional intersections for existing, no-build, and build conditions Level of Service (LOS):
1. NC 54 and Friday Center
2. NC 54 and Office Drive/Hilltop Collector Road (proposed signal)
3. NC 54 and Burning Tree Drive
4. NC 54 and Hamilton Road
5. Fordham Boulevard and NC 54 Ramp
6. Fordham Boulevard and Estes Drive
7. Fordham Boulevard and Willow Drive
8. Fordham Boulevard and Elliott Road
9. Fordham Boulevard and Ephesus Church Road
10. Airport Road and Hillsboro Street
11. Airport Road and Estes Drive
The number of intersections requiring analyses may be increased or decreased depending on the traffic distribution information provided in the Updated and Biennial Traffic Impact Analysis.
d) Traffic signal warrant analyses at the following locations, to include peak hour volume warrant and accident warrant, shall be submitted as part of the Updated and Biennial Transportation Impact Analyses:
6. Mason Farm Road and East Drive
7. Mason Farm Road and West Drive
8. Mason Farm Road and Oteys Road
9. Mason Farm Road and Purefoy Road
10. Manning Drive and Skipper Bowles Drive
Traffic signal warrant analyses must include projected traffic associated with the approved Development Plan. If either the Peak Hour Warrant or Accident Warrant is satisfied at a location, then the University shall conduct a full warrant analysis at that location. The University will be responsible for installing warranted traffic signal(s) within eighteen months after fulfillment of the associated warrant(s), subject to approval by the Town Manager and the NCDOT.
14. Transportation Management Plan: A Transportation Management Plan shall be prepared every three years. The first Transportation Management Plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager in December 2001. Subsequent updates shall be submitted in December 2004 and every three years thereafter until construction of the buildings included in the Development Plan is substantially complete or until a new Development Plan is approved.
The Transportation Management Plans will be reviewed by the Town Manager, who may suggest changes to existing and proposed programs or may suggest additional programs. The Plans may also be amended to reflect the development of alternative transportation programs.
Each Transportation Management Plan shall include:
a) Designation of a Transportation Coordinator for each department.
b) Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives.
c) Provisions for disseminating transit and ridesharing information.
d) Descriptions of programs designed to encourage greater use of alternative modes of transportation and an assessment of the anticipated impact of these programs.
e) A mode split survey of employees of the University and UNC Hospitals and UNC students
Required Improvements
Transportation conditions shall be measured, monitored, and analyzed on an ongoing basis, as articulated in the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines endorsed by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 2, 2001 and as described above. Based on the best data available at this time, improvements and requirements related to transportation are specified below.
The Guidelines establish procedures, processes, and measures for identifying impacts and mitigation relevant to local transportation systems(s). As further information is obtained and analyzed, and as conditions change, it is possible that currently identified mitigation measures will need to be modified; that new and/or different measures will become necessary; and that previously identified measures will no longer be appropriate or necessary.
Upon review of additional information that will be gathered as outlined below, the University shall propose such adjustments as are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, including additional or fewer or different improvements needed to mitigate the transportation impacts of growth authorized by this Development Plan. The Town Manager shall approve such adjustments if he determines that the adjustments are reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council In the event that the Town Manager determines that the adjustments proposed by the University are not reasonably consistent with the Development Plan approved by the Council, no further Site Development Permits shall be approved until acceptable adjustments area proposed by the University and found by the Town Manager to be consistent with the Development Plan.
The following improvements shall accompany construction of facilities approved in this Development Plan:
a) Traffic signal timing plans shall be studied and revised as necessary at all intersections that are analyzed for LOS criteria (presently 36 intersections). Signal timing plan studies shall be completed in Spring 2002, Spring 2005, and Spring 2008.
b) The following signalized intersections shall be upgraded by replacing the existing 8” signal heads with 12” signal heads:
1. Cameron Avenue and Pittsboro Street
2. Cameron Avenue and Columbia Street
3. South Columbia Street and Mason Farm Road
4. Pittsboro Street and McCauley Street
The upgrades must be approved by the Town Manager and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and construction must be completed prior to the end of calendar year 2005.
The following items a) through d) as proposed by the University:
a) Columbia Street and South Road
Ø Reconstruct the separate right-turn slip lane from South Columbia Street onto South Road to provide a tighter urban-type intersection
b) South Road and Country Club Road
Ø Widen the north side of Country Club Road to provide a double left-turn lane.
Ø Widen the south side Country Club Road to provide a separate right-turn lane.
c) South Columbia Street (Between Manning Drive and South Road)
Ø Narrow the street to three lanes (two 11-foot traffic lanes and one 14-foot bus/bicycle lane on the east side).
Ø Widen the eastern sidewalk by four feet to narrow the pavement to the required dimensions noted above.
Ø At the southern end of the street section, eliminate the excess pavement on the west side by extending the curb out to achieve a symmetrical section.
d) Ridge Road (At Rams Head Lot)
Ø Eliminate last parking space on the right side of the drive at Ridge Road.
Ø Eliminate last two parking spaces in the curve on the left (north) side of Ridge Road approach to the drive.
Ø Eliminate parking spaces between the gate to the hockey field and the drive on north side of Ridge Road.
Ø Move the sign 20 feet back from Ridge Road.
In addition:
e) Mason Farm Road
Ø Construct a sidewalk with curb and gutter on the north side of Mason Farm Road, from the Purefoy Road intersection to new Student Family Housing intersection closest to Fordham Boulevard, provided public right-of-way is available. This sidewalk section shall be installed prior to occupancy of the Family Housing units proposed as part of the “Student Family Housing-East” Perimeter Transition Area.
a) Signalized Intersections: The following signalized intersections shall be upgraded with pedestrian “count down” heads and remarked crosswalks prior to the end of calendar year 2005:
1. Cameron Avenue and South Columbia Street
2. South Road and Raleigh Road
3. Manning Drive and Ridge Road
4. South Columbia Street and McCauley Street
b) Battle Branch Trail: The University shall improve and maintain a pedestrian trail through the University-owned portions of Battle Park, for use as a pedestrian corridor to access the campus.
21. Public Transportation System
The University shall provide information in each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis, beginning in 2001, on the funding of public transportation improvements. Each Biennial Transportation Impact Analysis shall include estimates of anticipated public transit services for the next two years. The University is expected to provide funding necessary to purchase capital equipment, provide operating costs and purchase or construct support facilities as necessary to provide the additional public transit services for which the need is generated by this Development Plan. The Town of Chapel Hill shall prepare estimates, in consultation with the University, of anticipated capital and operating needs related to the Development Plan.
Information Requirements for Site Development Permit Applications
22. Site Development Permits-General Information: Each application for a Site Development Permit shall include the following information, in a format specified by the Town Manager:
a) A Site Plan showing building footprints, access drives, pedestrian circulation (with connections to existing pedestrian networks), parking areas, and clearing limits.
b) A Grading Plan.
c) A Utility Plan showing how all utilities will be provided to buildings, and approval from the applicable utility.
d) A statement of floor area to be constructed/demolished, and statement of number of parking spaces to be created/lost.
e) The number and location of bicycle storage facilities in the vicinity of each building.
f) A Construction Management Plan, consistent with the University’s “Construction Management Guidelines” contained in the August 7, 2001 Addendum, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to commencement of construction, indicating measures to be taken during construction in the following areas: Traffic Management Plan for movement of motorized and non-motorized vehicles on any public streets (maintained and operated by the Town or the NCDOT) that will be disrupted during construction, including detour information; Pedestrian Management Plan indicating how pedestrian movements on or adjacent to public rights-of-way will be safely maintained; a Construction Traffic Management Plan, indicating routes for construction-related traffic and including parking arrangements for construction workers.
g) Description of how emergency access to and around buildings will be provided both during and after completion of construction (note standards for access described previously).
h) Other information determined by the Town Manager to be reasonably necessary in order to evaluate consistency with this approved Development Plan.
23. Stormwater Management: Every application for a Site Development Permit shall include:
a) A signed and sealed letter from a Professional Engineer indicating the locations in the drainage area and the methodologies of how stormwater management measures associated with Site Development Permit application will meet or exceed the approved Stormwater Management Performance Standards, as approved by the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 2, 2001. Stormwater management and treatment practices shall comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations, and revisions thereof.
b) sub-basin map indicating locations within the sub-basin(s) of the stormwater runoff control measures associated with each development activity.
c) A table indicating stormwater runoff volume and discharge generated by and mitigated by each development activity, in accordance with the approved performance criteria.
d) Plans indicating grading, plantings, erosion control and stormwater runoff control best management practice(s) design and details, in accordance with the performance criteria.
The following standards apply to new lighting associated with an approved Development Plan.
a) All lighting, including that used in and around buildings, recreation areas, parking areas, walkways, roadways, and signs, shall be designed to minimize spillover light onto property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.
b) All lighting shall be designed to prevent glare that could impair vision and/or otherwise deteriorate normally accepted qualities and uses of property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District.
c) Outdoor lighting, except sports and athletic field lighting, shall be mounted at heights no greater than fifteen (15) feet for non-cutoff lights; and no greater than thirty-five (35) feet for cutoff lights.
d) Lighting for sports and athletic fields must include glare control features and must be designed so that the primary illumination is directed onto the play area and immediate surroundings, and such that offsite illumination/glare is restricted.
e) Increases in illumination on property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District shall not result in lighting levels in excess of 0.3 foot-candles, measured at ground level.
f) No increase in measurable lighting levels shall occur on property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District where existing ambient lighting levels are in excess of 0.3 foot-candles.
g)
These lighting
restrictions shall not apply to property outside of the OI-4 Zoning District
that is in the same ownership as property within the OI-4 Zoning District.
Requirements for Perimeter Transition Areas
26. Perimeter Transition Areas-General Information: All areas shown on Addendum Maps 11-17 shall be considered Perimeter Transition Areas. In addition to the information noted above that is required for all Site Development Permit applications, all applications for Site Development Permits in Perimeter Transition Areas, as shown on Addendum Maps 11-17, shall include the following information:
h. Demonstration of compliance with statements included in Maps 11-17 of Addendum #1.
In addition, the following information shall be required for the following specific Perimeter Transition Areas:
27. Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area: For the Battle Lane Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:
a) New construction shall be designed to maintain the existing setback line separating the existing building from Battle Lane.
b) No surface stormwater management facilities shall be placed between the new/existing buildings and Battle Lane.
a) Landscaping between the new buildings and the street shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Ackland Museum and South Columbia Street.
b) No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new buildings and South Columbia Street.
c) Any access to the proposed new parking deck from South Columbia Street shall be designed to limit access to right-in, right-out.
30.McCauley/Pittsboro Perimeter Transition Area: For the McCauley/Pittsboro Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply:
a) The new building shall be set back at least 100 feet from the centerline of Pittsboro Street.
b) Landscaping between the new building and the streets (Pittsboro and McCauley) shall be similar to existing street/sidewalk areas between the existing Tate Kuralt Building and Pittsboro Street.
c) No surface stormwater facilities shall be placed between the new building and Pittsboro Street.
31. Ambulatory
Care Center Perimeter Transition Area: For the Ambulatory Care Center
Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply: [PENDING SUBMISSION
OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY THE UNIVERSITY AND FURTHER
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS NEIGHBORS.]
32. Student Family
Housing-West Perimeter Transition Area: For the Student Family Housing-West
Perimeter Transition Area the following additional stipulations shall apply: [PENDING SUBMISSION
OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY THE UNIVERSITY AND FURTHER
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS NEIGHBORS.]
33. Student
Family Housing –East Perimeter Transition Area: For the Student Family
Housing-East Perimeter Transition Area: The following additional stipulations shall
apply: [PENDING SUBMISSION
OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY THE UNIVERSITY AND FURTHER
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS NEIGHBORS.]
f)Access drives and
parking area shall be configured as shown on Addendum Map 17.
f)Buildings shall be
located as shown on Addendum Map 17. A
corridor 120 feet wide shall be established along Mason Farm Road and along
this Perimeter Transition Area’s frontage on Fordham Boulevard, 60 feet of
which shall remain undisturbed with existing vegetation remaining, the other 60
feet to be permanent pervious surface, either with existing vegetation
remaining or new vegetation planted and maintained. No structures shall be located within this
corridor.
f)Buildings shall be
designed in a manner such that the elevations facing Mason Farm Road shall
include main entrances served by walkways;
no refuse collection or other service-related areas may be located
between the buildings and Mason Farm road.
f)In addition to
Construction Management information described above, the Construction
Management Plan for this Perimeter Transition Area shall include measures that
will minimize construction vehicle travel on Mason Farm road. (Construction
Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to start of
construction.)
f)Sidewalk, along with
curb and gutter, shall be installed along the north side of Mason Farm Road, from
Oteys Road to the eastern-most road segment that leads into the Baity Hill
housing area.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
34. As-built Drawings: The University shall provide as-built site plans for buildings, parking lots, public utilities, storm water drainage systems, street and sidewalk improvements, and new and existing impervious surfaces associated with each Site Development Permit. The as-builts shall be on a compact disk in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates.
a) Continued Validity: Continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
b) Non-severability: If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Development Plan by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
This the 19th day of September, 2001.
RESOLUTION C
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL (2001-09-19/R-1c)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it fails to find that development proposed by the Development Plan application of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for property identified as parts of Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps numbered 71, 73, 74, 86, and 87, if developed according to the Development Plan dated July 3, 2001, modified as indicated in an Addendum dated August 7, 2001, consistent with materials included in the July 3, 2001 and August 7, 2001 documents, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
2. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby denies the application for a Development Plan.
This the 19th day of September, 2001.
Resolution D
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL TO CONDUCT DESIGN WORKSHOPS (2001-09-19/R-1d)
WHEREAS the Town Council has approved a Development Plan application submitted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, proposing new facilities on the University’s main campus and;
WHEREAS some of those facilities are located in Perimeter Transition Areas, as defined in the resolution approving the Development Plan application and;
WHEREAS neighbors of those Perimeter Transition Areas have expressed interest in participating in discussions about how facilities in those areas will be designed and;
WHEREAS the University has expressed interest in and willingness to engage in dialogue with neighbors about the design of Perimeter Area facilities;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council asks the University to conduct design workshops, with opportunity for citizen participation, for the purpose of discussing possible design features of new facilities in designated Perimeter Transition Areas as described above, prior to submission of Site Development Permit applications for such facilities.
This the 19th day of September, 2001.