ATTACHMENT 1
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 (2001-10-03/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 the public health, safety, and general welfare; and
2. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain the value of adjacent 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 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.
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.
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: [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: [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: [PENDING SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY THE UNIVERSITY AND FURTHER DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS NEIGHBORS.]
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 3rd day of October, 2001.
RESOLUTION C
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL (2001-10-03/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 3rd day of October, 2001.
RESOLUTION D
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL TO CONDUCT DESIGN WORKSHOPS (2001-10-03/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 3rd day of October, 2001.
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.