AGENDA #1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Development Plan Application (File No. 7.71, 73, 74, 86, 87)
DATE: October 3, 2001
Adoption of the attached Resolution A would approve the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Development Plan with conditions as recommended by the Town Manager.
Resolution B would approve the University’s Development Plan as recommended by the Planning Board. Resolution C would deny the Development Plan.
Resolution D would ask 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, prior to submission of Site Development Permit applications for such facilities.
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolutions A and D.
INTRODUCTION
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has submitted an application for approval of a Development Plan for the main campus. A Public Hearing was held to consider the proposed Development Plan on September 19, 2001. Tonight the Town Council continues the Public Hearing to receive Town staff and University responses to the questions that were raised.
The University’s 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 requests 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, the August 7 Addendum #1, and the September 10 Addendum #2 were previously distributed to Town Council members and Advisory boards. The three documents include hundreds of pages, many printed in color for readability. For purposes of avoiding the cost of unnecessary duplication, those three 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 http://www.townofchapelhill.org/. The University has posted the full Plan on its website: www.fac.unc.edu/DevelopmentPlan.
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.
In a related action, the University has prepared a request that the Town Council authorize abandonment of the Smith Center Special Use Permit. That request is scheduled for Council consideration and potential action at tonight’s meeting, along with consideration of action on the Development Plan application.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows: ¨ Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, highlights key issues, and offers recommendations for Council action. ¨ Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, comments on issues raised during the September 19th Public Hearing, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments. |
The standard for review and approval of a Development Plan application involves consideration of two findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Development Plan approval. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of the required findings for the approval of the plan. The Council must approve a Development Plan unless it finds that the proposed development would not: (1) Maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare; or (b) Maintain the value of adjacent property .
If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that public health, safety, and general welfare would be maintained, and the value of adjacent property would be maintained, the Development Ordinance directs that the Development Plan shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support these conclusions, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.
Both the University and neighbors of the University have offered differing opinions regarding the potential effect of this proposed development on health, safety, and general welfare, and on property values. This memorandum highlights the key issues that have surfaced, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far.
DISCUSSION
Information in September 19 Memorandum
A Staff Report was attached to our September 19 memorandum, describing and evaluating the application. This report was forwarded to Town Advisory Boards for use as they considered the application. (The Staff Report is attached here, as a component of the attached September 19 Public Hearing memorandum.)
In our memorandum on September 19, we highlighted several key issues that had emerged. Most of these focused on development that is proposed on the perimeter of the main campus. We offered a summary of each key issue:
Please see the attached memorandum from September 19 for a discussion of each of these issues.
Summary of Discussion at September 19 Public Hearing
There was considerable discussion about the Development Plan application at the September 19 Public Hearing. The Hearing began with a presentation of the application by University representatives, including a list of nine areas in which the University disagreed with or objected to material in the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation. A summary and response related to those nine areas appears below.
Representatives of four Town Advisory Boards spoke and offered recommendations. Those recommendations are attached. Thirty-six citizens spoke, and offered opinions and suggestions and comments. Those comments are summarized in an attachment.
Council members then offered a series of comments and questions. We transcribed the Council comments the day after the hearing, and on September 21 made copies of the transcript available to University representatives to prepare responses. The comments are summarized in an attachment, along with staff responses to the questions that were directed our way. We have not received a set of responses from the University as of the time of production of this memorandum. We understand that responses may be delivered on Monday. When we receive that document, we will deliver it to the Council.
New Access Road near Mason
Farm Road
Much of the attention, at the Hearing and since, has focused on plans for new buildings, a new access road, and a potential transit corridor in the vicinity of Mason Farm Road. At the Public Hearing, Council members heard comments from neighbors that there had not been dialogue with neighborhood residents about the Development Plan proposals. Council members asked the University to arrange for such discussions.
A series of meetings took place during the week of September 24, involving University representatives and residents in the Mason Farm Road area. Also during the week of September 24, the UNC-CH Board of Trustees met and discussed these issues.
A key point is that the University is proposing 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 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, under the typical process for planning and constructing a new street in Chapel Hill, plans would need to come before the Town Council for approval. Accordingly, we believe that it would be reasonable to include conditions of approval for this Development Plan that would set general guidelines but not preclude options for alignment of the new road, acknowledging that this alignment will need to be the topic of additional discussion and subsequent approvals. The attached Resolution A includes such language for the Council’s consideration. Resolution A would require that a housing corridor, 60 feet in width, be established between Mason Farm Road and the Smith Center, in the approximate location shown on Addendum #2 as submitted by the University. Resolution A stipulates that such a housing corridor would need to be flanked on both sides by a reserved transportation corridor, both north and south of the housing corridor, with each transportation corridor being at least 75 feet in width at the eastern end (near the intersection of Mason Farm Road and the entrance to Baity Hill), widening to 90 feet in width at the western end (near the intersection of Mason Farm Road and Otey’s Road). Construction of surface parking would be allowed within either of the transportation corridors. We believe that this condition would allow flexibility such that the new access road, when it comes time for design of that road, could be aligned either north or south of the new family housing buildings.
We also note that in a separate set of meetings in the week of September 24, the Policy Oversight Committee of the 15-501 Major Investment Study agreed on a report that makes it unlikely that heavy rail transit will be proposed or built in the transit corridor that had been designated south of the Smith Center. We believe that this conclusion lends further support to the idea that a 75-to-90-foot transportation corridor, north and/or south of the proposed new family housing, would be sufficient to accommodate all likely future transportation improvements.
We have included an attachment to this memorandum that discusses the various options that have been discussed for this corridor.
Response to University Comments/Objections
On September 19, a University representative presented a statement of objections/concerns regarding recommendations in the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation and information in the accompanying memorandum. Nine points were identified. We list each of these below, with staff comments and descriptions of revisions to the Manager’s recommendation in response.
(1) Demolition/Construction of Parking Lots: Condition #2 in the 9/19 Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation stated that no construction, demolition, or development of certain surface parking lots could commence until the Town Manager issued a Site Development Permit authorizing the work. University officials argued that the Town does not have authority over demolition and surface parking.
Staff Comment: We agree that for State-owned property, in the context of North Carolina General Statutes, only the erection of buildings needs to comply with local zoning regulations. The University has declined to accept the original stipulation. Accordingly we have adjusted Condition #2 in the revised Resolution A to delete references to demolition and surface parking lots.
(2) Workshops with Neighbors: The Town Manager recommended on September 19 that the Town Council adopt a resolution asking 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, prior to submission of Site Development Permit applications for such facilities. University officials felt that mandating the workshops is inappropriate.
Staff Comment: We note that the resolutions proposed on September 19 do not mandate workshops. We agree that the mandating of a meeting is not appropriate. Resolution D, as presented on September 19, asks the University to conduct such workshops. We continue to believe that the workshops would be helpful, and note that on several occasions University representatives have offered to engage in dialogue with neighbors about the design of buildings in Perimeter Transition Areas. We continue to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution D, which would make this request of the University.
(3) Notification of Neighbors: The Town Manager’s 9/19 memorandum stated, “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.” The University representative argued that this proposal goes beyond the intent and language of the OI-4 zoning ordinance, and that the notification would add an extra cost to a process for which an application fee has not yet been established, and saw no need to impose this requirement.
Staff Comment: We note that the language of the September 19 memorandum states the intention of providing mailed notice. There is nothing in the September 19 recommended resolution of approval that would require the University to provide such notice. Rather, it is our intent that the Town staff would mail notices to neighbors. This is not a requirement that we are suggesting be imposed on the University.
(4) Frequency of Future Reports on Signal Timing: Condition #17 of the Town Manager’s 9/19 Preliminary Recommendation calls for Traffic Signal Timing Plan studies to be completed in the spring of 2002, 2005, and 2008. The University representative stated that this schedule would create problems, and suggested that the studies be submitted every two years instead, as part of biennial Transportation Impact Analysis studies, to be submitted in December 2003 and biennially thereafter.
Staff Comment: We believe that the University’s proposal is reasonable, and have included that change in the revised Resolution A.
(5) Plans for Ambulatory Care Center Buffer: Condition #31 as proposed on September 19 focuses on the Ambulatory Care Center Perimeter Transition Area, and calls for the University to submit a plan showing coordinated stormwater management and buffer strategies for the 100-foot setback between proposed development and existing private properties, such plan to be approved by the Town Council. (Absent such a plan, a 50-foot corridor would need to remain undisturbed). The University representative stated objection to stipulations that require the University to submit plans to the Council at a later date, stating, “The whole objective of our coming forward with a Development Plan as provided in the Ordinance is that we wouldn’t need to come back to the Council on individual site plan issues.” The University agrees to a 100-foot setback, but objects to a requirement that any part of that area must remain undisturbed
Staff Comment: We continue to believe that plans need to be carefully drawn in order to address both stormwater management and buffering objectives within this 100-foot corridor. We agree that most design details are appropriately reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. We also believe that it is important for the Town Council, in cases such as this, to be able to state clear intent regarding the design objectives to be met. We suggest addressing this point by including a condition in the resolution of approval about buffering objectives. We believe that stormwater management objectives are well articulated already in the resolution. Accordingly, we have revised Resolution A to include a requirement that a 30-foot, Type D buffer be in place between the new/proposed Ambulatory Care Center buildings, and the private properties to the south, such buffer to be achieved within the 100 building setback that has been proposed in Addendum #1.
(6) Plans for Mason Farm Road: Conditions #32 and #33, as proposed on September 19, call for new buildings to be set back 120 feet from Mason Farm Road, with landscaping between the buildings and Mason Farm Road, unless the Town Council approves a plan for a new street in the Mason Farm Road corridor. The University representative stated objection to setback and buffer specifications, suggesting that buffer dimensions would be established as part of the design process for the Family Student Housing. The University representative stated a commitment to a design process that includes the residents of the Mason Farm neighborhood, and stated that no building would be located closer than 50 from the southern OI-4 lot line.
Staff Comment: As noted above, we believe that it would be reasonable to allow flexibility in possible future designs for the alignment of the new access road. We have revised Resolution A to include the language about the housing corridor and the two transportation corridors that are described at the beginning of this report. On the basis of current transportation planning policy at the State level, we believe that any proposal for a new road, if one is proposed in the future, will need to come before the Town Council for consideration.
(7) Non-severability Clause: The Town Manager’s September 19 memorandum discussed a University concern about Condition #36, which states, “If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.” The 9/19 memorandum suggested three possible alternatives to the language that was included in Condition #36. The University representative asked that the Council substitute the first alternative, which would read, “If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, all other conditions shall remain valid and this approval shall remain intact.”
Staff Comment: We believe that the circumstances of this Development Plan application differ in significant ways from a typical Special Use Permit application. In the typical Special Use Permit context, we have considered (and continue to consider) the non-severability clause to be an important component to any approval, especially considering the possibility of potential litigation. In the current case, the Development Plan covers a much broader area and more extensive proposed development of a variety of facilities than an individual Special Use Permit. We agree that many components of the proposed development plan are only loosely related to some other components, and that it would be reasonable to alter the standard Special Use Permit language so as to allow development in one part of the plan to go forward in the event that a condition related to another part is held to be invalid. We have revised Resolution A accordingly.
(8) Reference to Addendum #2: The University representative noted that the September 19 Preliminary Recommendation did not incorporate Addendum #2 to the Development Plan.
Staff Comment: We have revised Resolution A to make this reference.
(9) Parking Deck in the Ambulatory Care Center: The University representative noted that the September 19 memorandum stated that the parking deck for the Ambulatory Care Center was proposed to be 3 stories, but that the University’s Addendum #1 corrected that and identifies that parking deck as being one story.
Staff Comment: Page 39 of the our September 19 memorandum refers to a “3 level parking deck.” This information came from the University’s original July 3 application. We agree that the information was corrected in the University’s August 7 Addendum to indicate that there would be one level of parking. We failed to make the adjustment in our descriptive narrative in the September 19 memorandum, and apologize for that oversight.
SUMMARY
We have reviewed the University’s application of July 3, 2001, the University’s two Addendum dated August 7, 2001 and September 10, 2001, recommendations from Town Advisory Boards, and the evidence that has been submitted in support of and in opposition to approval of the application. Based on our review of that information, we believe that the Council, in the context of conditions of approval recommended in Resolution A, may make the findings required in order to approve the application.
We note that additional evidence is likely to be offered at tonight’s continuation of this Public Hearing.
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 Summary of Planning Board Action attached to the September 19 Public Hearing item.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Our revised recommendation is that the Town Council adopt the attached Resolution A, approving the application with conditions. Revisions since September 19 are described above and noted with strike-through and underline in the attached Resolution A.
Resolution C would deny the request.
Resolution D would ask 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, prior to submission of Site Development Permit applications for such facilities.
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolutions A and D.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolutions A, B, C and D (p. 10).
2. Questions/Issues Raised at the September 19 Public Hearing (p.45).
3. Summary of Proposals Discussed for the Mason Farm Road Corridor (p. 49).
4. Letters/Statements Received at and following the September 19 Hearing (p. 53).
5. Staff Response to Council Questions from September 19.
6. September 19 Memorandum (begin new page 1)