September 19, 2001
· One observation in regard to the addendum map for the overall OI-4. I believe the Coker Pinetum is still included in OI-4, and it is my understanding that that it was withdrawn by the University. If that is the case, that should be clearly identified on a map, and it makes me wonder if there were any other elements of OI-4 that were withdrawn by the University during that discussion that may inadvertently have been included in the maps that are before the Council.
Staff Comment: The portion of the Pinetum that was zoned OI-3 was rezoned to OI-4 on July 2. The Development Plan covers all areas that are zoned OI-4, and therefore a portion of the Pinetum is included in the boundary of the Development Plan. No development is proposed within the Pinetum. We know of no elements that were formerly withdrawn by the University that are included in this application.
· I would like to know what the process would be for bringing the Council a reconfiguration of the family housing with the road pushed behind it the way many of the residents have suggested, because it sounds like a reasonable way to accommodate their concerns. I am not sure where we would go with this. We have heard a lot of things about this and it could be that we would come back on October 3 and nothing has changed. My question is would it be possible to see a reconfiguration like that.
Staff Comment: The main memorandum for tonight’s meeting discusses this point specifically. We recommend that buildings be placed in a manner that can flexibly accommodate several potential road configurations. We believe that a specific design for a new road in Chapel Hill would need to come before the Town Council for approval, which would be at a later date.
· I am having trouble visualizing the building at Pittsboro and McCauley. I am also having trouble visualizing the student family housing buildings. I wonder if it would possible to give us comparable building. If the building at Pittsboro and McCauley is the same size as some other building in town, some office building at Meadowmont or wherever the size comparable is so we can get an idea. I think that might be useful to people.
Staff Comment: We will bring images of existing developments to the October 3 meeting for presentation.
· I want to the ask the question the Sierra Club is asking where will the park and ride lots be located and where will the funding come from. Loren Hintz also brought this up and how are we going to pay for the transportation improvements and how are we going to allocation and to what degree some specificity rather than the vague language. We have an idea of what is going to happen I would just like some assurance from our staff that you are comfortable that the language is specific enough.
Staff Comment: We believe that the language recommended in Resolution A appropriately sets the context for discussions about cost allocation for new transit service. Regarding possible new park and ride facilities, we believe that the language in Resolution A cannot be made more specific, within the context of North Carolina General Statutes, which limit the purview of local government regulations on State-owned land to buildings. If a parking facility is proposed on land that is not owned by the State, typical regulations would apply (probably involving a Special Use Permit application).
· It is clear that UNC is making assumptions based on old data and without the benefit of the TDM coordinator. It is also clear that UNC is not taking into account for potential for increased traffic parking and therefore further degradation of air quality as well as quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods. So when traffic, transportation, traffic congestion with this amount of growth how can the Town rely on assumptions on the amount of traffic and as yet unidentified storage facilities and demand management tactics to reserve any kind of quality of life for Chapel Hill including the University.
Staff Comment: The language in Resolution A is structured so as to establish requirements for transportation improvements based on the best available knowledge now; to require periodic updates of transportation-related information; and to allow for adjustment in required improvements if future data demonstrate that this is needed. We believe that this is a reasonable approach to the circumstances.
· I was very puzzled about the statement that UNC made about to partner with the Town to improve crossings on Fordham Blvd. I would like some response on what the implications on what that statement are as future development in that area.
Staff Comment: There are no plans proposed in this application improve crossings on Fordham Boulevard, and no such requirements are included in the recommended resolution of approval. However, we expect that pedestrian movements in the Fordham Boulevard corridor will continue to be monitored, and it is possible that proposals for crossing improvements may be suggested in the future.
· Has Orange County been consulted and made any calculations about the capacity of the new site relative to the building needs in Orange County and its capability of handling UNC’s waste as well?
Staff Comment: The Orange County Solid Waste Management Department has been contacted and given an opportunity to review these plans. Addendum #1 includes a letter that states that Orange County fully intends to accommodate wastes generated by future developments as well as from existing facilities.
· The off campus parking is a mitigation strategy. My understanding is that the Town does not have zoning authority or review of surface parking lots, we only review structures. There is the possibility for significant parking lots in and around Town that we would not have. I would like to ask our staff to put on the table that we would have some review and some regulation of the location and design of those lots. I think that it is a dangler, that is directly precipitated by the 6 million square feet in the plan, and it’s important to neighbors and to the Town in general.
Staff Comment: Regarding possible new park and ride facilities, we believe that the language in Resolution A cannot be made more specific, within the context of North Carolina General Statutes, which limit the purview of local government regulations on State-owned land to buildings. If a parking facility is proposed on land that is not owned by the State, typical regulations would apply (probably involving a Special Use Permit application).
· There was conversation about the Board of Trustees authorizing the purchase of land in the triangle. I want our staff to be very specific about where we are in the conversation about buying land west of Columbia Street in the other neighborhoods. This is a huge factor and part of my going along on the process was the Chancellor’s process that they were defining the boundaries of the University by creating the master plan. I think that this is not a small point that cannot be ignored at this juncture. I want to understand where we are in the conversation and I would hope that the Town would be advocating for a clear understanding of what the final boundaries of what the University will be.
Staff Comment: There is no information in this Development Plan about properties as described above. At present, there is no formal agreement or commitment regarding restrictions on University purchase of land.
· I want to ask to Ralph to answer this question: Do we enough detail here to legitimately understand and make a reasonable judgment on property values and health safety and general welfare.
Comment from the Town Attorney: As discussed in the Manager’s Memorandum of September 19, 2001, the Town Council is required, under the OI-4 zoning when it considers a Development Plan, to approve the 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 adjacent property.
Under the Ordinance, the applicant bears the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to establish persuasively that the proposed development will comply with the determinations stated above.
On September 19th, the Council recessed the public hearing on the Development Plan application until October 3rd. Thus, there is additional opportunity for the University, as applicant, as well as other interested persons, to submit evidence pertaining to the two findings required by the Ordinance, in addition to what has been submitted into the record of this quasi-judicial proceeding thus far. Based on the evidence that has been submitted thus far, as well as any additional evidence that may be submitted prior to the Council’s taking action to close the pubic hearing, it will be up to the Council, as provided in the Ordinance, to determine if there exists sufficient evidence in the record on which to base a decision.
A similar question related to sufficiency of evidence to support a Council finding on maintenance of property values was a key issue in the judicial review of the Meadowmont special use permits in 1997-98. The Council may recall that, in July, 1997, following numerous public hearings and staff review, the Town Council approved five separate special use permit applications for the Meadowmont development after making the finding that the proposed development would maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property (the standard for special use permits similar to the standard for Development Plans). In an appeal of two of those permits to Orange County Superior Court, Petitioners, including property owners near Meadowmont, contended, among other things, that there was not competent evidence to support the Council’s property values finding as to one of the permits.
In that case the Court initially determined that there was not evidence in the record to have allowed the Council to issue the permit. The matter was remanded to the Council for the receipt of additional evidence and further consideration. The Council conducted further hearings, received additional evidence on the property values issue and found that the development would maintain the value of contiguous property. On the basis of that renewed finding and the Council’s previous findings, the Council again adopted a resolution issuing the contested permit. Judicial review of the Council’s decisions was sought again. The Superior Court affirmed the Council. Following negotiations and mediation involving the Petitioners, the Developer and the Town, the matter was settled.
Note: A number of questions asked by Council members were directed to University representatives. We have forwarded a transcript of the Council’s questions, and understand that the University will offer written response prior to the Public Hearing. The response is not available as of the date of distribution of this memorandum.
Compiled by Chapel Hill Planning Department
September 28, 2001
As discussions have continued about the University’s application for approval of a Development Plan, attention has focused on the Mason Farm Road Corridor. The Development Plan proposes to construct three buildings of family housing north of Mason Farm Road, in the vicinity of the Smith Center, and a fourth building further to the west.
A key point is that the University’s Master Plan proposes a new access road, connecting the Health Affairs area and Fordham Boulevard. This new road is shown on the University’s Master Plan as a four-lane, median-divided road, located between Mason Farm Road and the proposed new family housing buildings (i.e., south of the new buildings). A proposed transit corridor is located north of the proposed family housing buildings. Neighbors have asked that plans be adjusted such that the new 4-lane road would be north of the new buildings.
During several meetings between neighbors and University staff in the week of September 24, discussions focused on language that might be included in a condition of approval of the Development Plan, language which would require the road to be north of the buildings, as requested by neighbors. Upon review of the situation on September 27, the UNC-CH Board of Trustees reaffirmed its intent that the road be aligned as shown on the Master Plan, which is to the south of the new buildings.
We note that a number of alternative options have been developed. We describe them as follows:
Option 1: Approve the Development Plan as proposed by the University in Addendum #2, dated September 10, 2001. This site plan sets the buildings back from Mason Farm Road, and leaves room for a new road between the buildings and Mason Farm Road.
Option 2: Approve the Development Plan with conditions contained in the Town Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation of September 19. Those conditions were as follows:
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.
1. The configuration of streets and buildings will be as follows:
a. A corridor shall be reserved for a new street, connecting the Health Affairs area to Fordham Boulevard, in an alignment to the north of proposed new family housing buildings.
b. Plans shall be drawn for the new street in the alignment of a proposed transit corridor that is shown on the UNC Master Plan, with the intention that, if the road is built in that corridor and future plans for transit become imminent, the road would be shifted to the south to allow construction of transit facilities.
c. The cross-section for the new road is anticipated to be a four-lane, median divided road; however, the median may be eliminated in the portion of the new road immediately south of the Smith Center, for purposes of narrowing required right-of-way in this location.
d. Simultaneous with completion of the proposed new access road between the Health Affairs area and Fordham Boulevard, the University shall construct a physical barrier, in a form approved by the Town Manager, at the intersection of the new road and Mason Farm Road, which restricts access to Mason Farm Road west of the new road. The barrier shall be designed in a manner such that it can be quickly removed in event of emergency.
e. No access from the proposed new parking deck (P-7 on the Development Plan) shall be permitted to the proposed new family housing area on Baity Hill (which has access onto Mason Farm Road), until the new access road connecting the Health Affairs area to Fordham Boulevard is constructed and access to the west to Mason Farm Road is closed, as required above.
f. New family housing buildings shall be oriented such that either building fronts or building sides face Mason Farm Road.
g. Parking lots for the proposed new family housing shall not have direct access onto Mason Farm Road, once the new access road between the Health Affairs area and Fordham Boulevard is constructed.
2. The portion of required sidewalk on the north side of Mason Farm Road that is west of Otey’s Road shall be constructed and available prior to the occupancy of any of the proposed new family housing buildings.
3. The University shall prepare a construction traffic management plan, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit for this Perimeter Transition Area. Staging areas and access points shall be to the north of the building sites for the proposed new family housing so that construction traffic on Mason Farm Road can be minimized.
Option 4: Approve the Development Plan with more flexibility built into the conditions, to allow the new access road potentially to be constructed either north or south of the proposed buildings. This is the language contained in the Manager’s Revised Recommendation going before the Town Council on October 3, and reads as follows:
a) A Housing Corridor, 60-feet wide, shall be established parallel to Mason Farm Road. The new buildings shall be located within this corridor. Two parallel Transportation Corridors, one immediately to the north and one immediately to the south of the Housing Corridor, both of identical width, shall be established and reserved, each 75 feet wide at the eastern edge of the proposed building area (adjacent to the entrance to Baity Hill), widening to the west to the greatest extent practicable up to a width of 90 feet. Use of the Transportation Corridors shall be reserved for a possible new street, but may be used initially for parking, play areas, walkways, and landscaping.
b) Buildings shall be located as described in (a) above, 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.