AGENDA #9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: UNC Office Building on Airport Drive - Application for Special Use Permit
DATE: November 12, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 17, 2001 regarding an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Adoption of Resolutions A, B, C or D would approve the Special Use Permit. Adoption of Resolution E would deny the request.
|
This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
|
On October 17, 2001, a Public Hearing was held for consideration of a Special Use Permit application to authorize construction of a 3-story, 78,000 square foot building and 211-space parking lot on 7.3 acres. The site is located at the southwest corner of the Airport Road/Airport Drive intersection. We note that on October 17, the Council determined that contiguous property would be defined as those properties within 1,000 feet of the site.
This is an application for a Special Use Permit. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Development Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on October 17, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.
The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit.
If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Development Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.
Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based around the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.
|
Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to the October 17 memorandum) provides evidence in supportof Finding #1. We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “A new office building on Airport Drive will promote the public health, safety and general welfare in that it will provide much needed office space for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.” [Applicant Statement]
· “By locating the new office building adjacent to the existing UNC Facilities buildings and parking lots, the amount of area required for parking lots will be minimized.” [Applicant Statement]
· “This location will also allow for taking advantage of the transit system already in place at the University property.” [Applicant Statement]
· “An existing curb-cut off Airport Drive is being utilized to minimize the impact to this infrastructure and, consequently, the wooded area.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The University of North Carolina is the largest employer in Orange County.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition:A citizen spoke at the Public Hearing raising concerns about possible traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. Please see discussion of this issue in Attachment 1.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14 and with all other applicable regulations.
|
We believe that the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to the October 17 memorandum) provides evidence in supportof Finding #2. We note the following key points raised by the applicant:
· “The proposed plans submitted herewith comply with the regulations of the Development Ordinance, including (but not limited to) sections of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18.7.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The number of parking spaces (211) provided at this facility will meet the needs of the University staff located in this building. No specific parking requirements for University employees are outlined in Section 14.6.7 “Minimum Off-Street Parking Space Requirements.” This facility will be located within a campus setting which includes other University buildings parking lots, etc. Existing Town and University transit systems serve the area. The number of parking spaces recommended at this site should be adequate for this facility; however, overflow employees can take either the Town transit route or the University shuttle or they can park at the adjacent University parking facilities.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition:We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #2 for this application raised at the Public Hearing.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #3: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity.
|
At the October 17 hearing, the Council established that, for this application, “contiguous property” means parcels within 1,000 feet of the site.
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s submission at the October 17, 2001 Public Hearing of a property appraisal (Please see Attachment 8) provides evidence in supportof Finding #3.
Evidence in opposition:We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #3 for this application raised at the Public Hearing.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
|
Finding #4: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.
|
We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Evidence in support: The applicant’s Statement of Justification (provided as an attachment to the October 17 memorandum) provides evidence in supportof Finding #4. We note the following point raised by the applicant:
· “In that the subject property is zoned OI-2 for office-institutional and that the use proposed falls within the parameters established in the Ordinance for that zone, the Town's general plan for development anticipated the type of development represented by the new office building on Airport Drive.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The proposed development plan helps achieve the economic diversity goals expressed in the Comprehensive Plan by providing for offices located in conveniently accessible centers and areas served by public utilities, services and transit.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The entranceway plans for Chapel Hill are protected by the use of a large (250') natural buffer from Airport Road (NC 86).” [Applicant Statement]
· “The design of the office building on Airport Drive preserves natural land contours and drainage patterns, utilizing the existing drain across the property to a low point on Airport Drive.” [Applicant Statement]
· “While portions of the wooded areas must be developed, wooded perimeters will be protected as buffers to retain the visual character.” [Applicant Statement]
· Design of new facilities or buildings, with the associated parking located behind the building: The parking for this project is located at the rear of the building and at the farthest point back off Airport Road, a major thoroughfare.” [Applicant Statement]
· “The programmatic requirements for the office building have been met in a compact building form, which utilizes a three-story rectangular shape.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Compatibility with surrounding buildings is achieved through the use of materials such as red brick to relate to the nearby Giles Horney Building.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Site lighting will be contained by means of "cutoff" fixtures to assure that excessive light spillage and glow are not directed toward neighboring areas.” [Applicant Statement]
· “Trees will be retained along the property edges to provide screening and soften the view of the site.” [Applicant Statement]
Evidence in opposition:We have not been able to identify evidence presented in opposition to Finding #4 for this application raised at the Public Hearing.
We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process.
We believe that the key issues raised at the October 17 hearing focused on:
· Potential traffic impacts on the nearby Barclay Road neighborhood, and the University’s effort to promote carpooling and transit use;
· Planned use of University parking lots on and near this site; and
· Stormwater Management.
We have provided a list of issues raised during the Hearing, followed by responses from the staff, as Attachment #1 to this memorandum. Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the four findings required to approve the Special Use Permit.
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of Board actions and recommendations.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this application on September 4, 2001 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application for a Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Resolutions A, B, C and D include the following three recommended conditions of the Planning Board.
· That the number of bicycle parking spaces accessible to a locker, an individual locked enclosure or supervised area within a building provided protection for bicycle therein from theft, vandalism and weather be increased from 2 to 4 spaces.
Staff Comment: Although all advisory boards did not discuss this issue, this recommendation corrects an error in the staff’s September 4, 2001 Staff Report and is included in Resolution A, B, C and D.
· That the maximum number of parking spaces be increased from 199 to 211.
Staff Comment: At the Planning Board meeting the applicant presented a revised site plan (Sheet C-2, dated September 4, 2001). The revised plan increased the proposed number of parking spaces from 199 to 211. Noting that this proposed change to the original site plan was accomplished without encroaching into the landscape bufferyards, as recommended in the September 4, 2001 Staff Report, the Planning Board recommended the increase in parking spaces.
· That the site plan Sheet C-2, dated July 20, 2001, is superseded by site plan Sheet C-2, dated September 4, 2001.
Staff Comment: As previously stated, the applicant presented a revised site plan to the Planning Board during its’ September 4, 2001 meeting. This revised site plan included several revisions to the site plan originally submitted with the Special Use Permit application on December 19, 2000. Some of the revisions were in response to staff comments and recommendations. Those revisions included:
a) Relocating stormwater facilities outside the southern and northern bufferyard areas;
b) Providing a 50 to 75 foot wide bufferyard along the southern property line; and
c) Incorporating a bio-retention facility within the parking area.
The other revision to the site plan, not in response to staff comment, included:
d) An increase in the number of on-site parking spaces from 199 to 211.
The site plans provided tonight for this application include these revisions. This revised site plan was presented to the Transportation Board at their September 4, 2001 meeting and the Community Design Commission at their September 19, 2001 meeting.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on September 19, 2001 and voted 11-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution B. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board reviewed this application on September 4, 2001, and voted 4-2 to recommend that the Council approve this application for a Special Use Permit with the adoption of Resolution C. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.
Resolutions A, B, C and D include the following recommended condition of the Transportation Board.
· That the maximum number of parking spaces be increased from 199 to 211 (reflecting Applicant’s revised proposal).
Resolutions A, C and D include the following recommended condition of the Transportation Board.
· That the proposed crosswalk between this building and the Giles Horney building should be raised to promote pedestrian safety and slow traffic along Airport Drive.
Staff Comment: Due to increased pedestrian movements across Airport Drive between the Giles Horney Building and the proposed development, we believe that the proposed striped pedestrian crosswalk on Airport Drive, as shown on the submitted site plans, should be slightly elevated. We believe that elevating the proposed striped pedestrian crosswalk several inches above the driving surface of the roadway will increase pedestrian visibility and safety.
We note that the Fire Department has expressed a concern with similar types of elevated street surfaces (i.e. speed bumps) and the potential for damaging low riding fire vehicles. However, we believe that a slight elevation in the roadway, for a pedestrian crosswalk, should be possible without damaging or impeding fire vehicle movements. The Fire Department has agreed with this approach for this street segment, anticipating attention to the final plans to be sure that the designed crosswalk will not impede emergency vehicles.
The Town maintains Airport Drive. The Public Works Department has expressed a concern about elevating the roadway surface of Airport Drive for a raised pedestrian crosswalk because of the difficulty that a raised surface presents during snow removal operations. Elevated roadway surfaces, hidden by snow or ice, can be mistaken by snowplow operators as packed snow or ice. Damage to roadway surface and snow removal equipment is sometimes encountered in these situations. The Public Works Department suggests consideration of an alternative means to slow traffic and aid pedestrians movements such as bumping out curbs at the pedestrian crosswalk to slow vehicles and shorten the distance pedestrians are in the street.
Although we recognize the concerns expressed by the Public Works Department, we believe that the daily safety benefits achieved from a slightly elevated pedestrian crosswalk outweigh the difficulties encountered during infrequent snow removal operations and we recommend requiring the raised crosswalk.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board reviewed this application on October 23, 2001 and voted 6-0 to approve the Special Use Permit with adoption of Resolution D. Please see attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.
Resolutions A, C, and D include the following recommended condition of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
· A raised crosswalk should be provided on Airport Drive.
Resolutions A and D include the following recommended conditions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
· The parking lot layout should be revised to be more pedestrian-friendly. Features, such as islands, should be considered.
Staff Comment: We believe that it may be possible, with some minor modifications, to include some pedestrian-friendly features in the proposed parking area. We believe that design modifications, accommodating pedestrian movements through the parking lot should be investigated. Resolution A, the Manager’s Revised Recommendation, includes a stipulation that requires the applicant to propose revisions to the parking lot design that includes “pedestrian friendly” features.
· The walking trails proposed in the eastern portion of the project area should connect to the sidewalk on Airport Road, if feasible.
Staff Comment: We believe that it is possible to connect the walking trail to the proposed sidewalk on Airport Road but note concerns regarding topography and amount of clearing that would be needed. On balance, we believe that a connection is desirable. Resolution A includes a stipulation that would require the applicant to include a proposed trail connection, in a location to be approved by the Town Manager, in order to minimize clearing associated with the construction of this connection.
Resolution D includes the following recommended conditions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board that are not included in the other resolutions:
· All buildings on the Main Campus of the University should have shower and locker facilities for cyclists.
· The University should compensate those who do not drive to campus as an incentive to use other forms of transportation. Compared to the market rate for parking in the area, the University currently charges too little for parking, effectively subsidizing those who drive to campus.
Staff Comment: Case law has established a principle called “rational nexus” requiring that there be a clear relationship between requirements attached to a development approval, and the needs and impacts that are created by the proposed development. We do not believe that the impact of this proposed development is of a nature that meets the rational nexus or rough proportionality test that must be applied. We do not believe that the nature of this proposal creates any impacts that justify the recommendations listed above.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: Based on the information in the record to date, we believe that the Council could make the four findings required to approve the Special Use Permit.
We note that the purpose of tonight’s hearing is to receive additional information.
We recommend that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions. Based on discussion and evidence presented at the Public Hearing and recommendations from Advisory Boards, Resolution A has been revised to include these additional stipulations:
· That the final plans shall propose a revised parking lot design incorporating “pedestrian friendly” features such as pedestrian islands, and striped crosswalks. The type, location, feasibility and number of these “pedestrian friendly” features shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.
· That the final plans shall proposed a pedestrian connection between the employee walking trails and the proposed public sidewalk on Airport Road. That the Town Manager shall review and approve the location, and design, of the proposed connection in a manner that minimizes the need for removing existing vegetation.
Resolution B would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Planning Board and Community Design Commission.
Resolution C would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Transportation Board.
Resolution D would approve the application based on the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Resolution E would deny the application.
UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRIVE
|
ISSUE
|
Resolution AManager’s Revised Recommendation |
Resolution BPlanning Board and Community Design Commission’s Recommendation |
Resolution CTransportation Board’s Recommendation |
Resolution DBicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s Recommendation |
|
Increase number
of parking spaces to 211 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Raised pedestrian crosswalk on Airport Drive |
Yes |
* |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Increase locked bicycle parking to 4 spaces |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Approved Revised Site Plan C-2 dated September 4, 2001 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Pedestrian- Friendly Parking Lot Improvements |
Yes
|
* |
* |
Yes
|
|
Walking Trail Connection to Airport Road |
Yes
|
* |
* |
Yes
|
|
Showers/Locker Facilities on Main Campus |
No |
* |
* |
Yes |
|
Discourage automobiles on Main Campus |
No |
* |
* |
Yes |
*Issue was not discussed at this particular advisory board’s meeting and is therefore not included in this Resolution
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Issues Raised at October 17, 2001 Public Hearing (p. 12)
2. Resolution A – Approving the Application (p. 14).
3. Resolution B – Approving the Application (p. 20).
4. Resolution C- Approving the Application (p. 21)
5. Resolution D – Approving the Application (p. 22).
6. Resolution E– Denying the Application (p. 23).
7. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 24)
8. Property Appraisal provided by applicant (p. 25)
9. October 17, 2001 Public Hearing Memorandum and Related Attachments (begin new page one).
ATTACHMENT 1
UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRIVE
Issues Raised at the October 17, 2001 Public Hearing
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
A property owner living on Barclay Road expressed a concern about the traffic generated by this proposed development and its impact on Barclay Road.
Staff Comment: During the October 17, 2001 Public Hearing the applicant’s traffic engineer, George Alexiou, responded to this question. Mr. Alexiou stated that, based on the traffic impact study, it is unlikely that the traffic generated by this proposed development will use Barclay Road. Mr. Alexiou believes that the traffic associated with the proposed building will travel to and from the site by way of Airport Road and Estes Drive. Drivers using Barclay Road, as a perceived short cut, will likely experience an increase in travel time. Mr. Alexiou also noted that an increase in traffic on Barclay Road would occur regardless of whether or not this development is approved. He associated the additional future traffic on Barclay Road with an increase in background traffic.
PARKING
Several Council members asked about University plans for a Transportation Management Plan for this facility and if the details of such a plan had been worked out. Another Council member, expressing concern for employees arriving and leaving during peak travel hours, suggested that the University consider staggering employee work hours.
Staff Comment: We have included our standard stipulation recommending that the applicant submit a Transportation Management Plan for this project as part of the Final Plan review process.
We also note that the applicant’s Statement of Justification includes the following statement:
“This facility will be located within a campus setting which includes other University buildings parking lots, etc. Existing Town and University transit systems serve the area. The number of parking spaces recommended at this site should be adequate for this facility; however, overflow employees can take either the Town transit route or the University shuttle or they can park at the adjacent University parking facilities.” [Applicant Statement]
We understand that additional information concerning the University’s proposal for transportation management at this site may be presented by the applicant at tonight’s continuation of the Public Hearing.
BIO-RETENTION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed plan includes two bio-retention facilities. One facility is proposed to be constructed within a landscaped island inside the proposed on-site parking lot. A second facility is planned in the existing stormwater drainage basin on the north side of Airport Drive. We note that the applicant’s proposed stormwater management plans include the continued use of the existing basin for stormwater detention and for a new bio-retention facility. Several Council members wondered how the stormwater detention area on the north side of Airport Drive could serve as a location for a bio-retention facility and also control the rate of stormwater runoff.
Staff Comment: On the north side of Airport Drive, in addition to the installation of a bio-retention facility, the applicant is proposing to make improvements to the current water storage capacity of the existing drainage basin. Upon completion of these improvements, the basin will be divided into three functional levels. The lowest level, elevation 430 feet is proposed to function as an area for stormwater runoff storage from a 50-year storm event. Above this storage area, between elevations 435 to 440 feet, the next level is the proposed location for a bio-retention facility. Above the bio-retention facility, between 440 and 460 feet, is an area that includes landscaping and will permit overflow stormwater storage capacity.
We believe that it is possible to design and locate a bio-retention facility within the existing stormwater basin area on the north side of Airport Drive. We believe that in this situation, the installation of a bio-retention facility, adjacent to and above an area designed to accommodate a 50-year storm event, will not negatively impact the functionality of the stormwater basin and stormwater management.
OLD LANDFILL AND PROPOSED LAND DISTURBANCE
A Council member expressed a concern about land disturbance proposed within the existing drainage basin area. The Council member noted the existence of a nearby landfill in the general vicinity of the University’s satellite parking lot (Lot P) and wondered if improvements proposed for the drainage basin might impact or be impacted by the presence of the old landfill.
Staff Comment: Based on recent discussions with the applicant, we believe that proposed improvements and construction activity within the existing stormwater drainage area will not disturb the area of the old landfill. We understand that the outer boundary of the landfill is located at least 200 feet away and possibly 300 feet away from the drainage basin. We also note, based on past staff experiences with construction activities in the vicinity of this landfill, that we do not anticipate water quality problems related to the landfill.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION A
(Manager’s Revised Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRIVE (2001-11-12/R-15a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application, as proposed by Ron Strom for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 29, part of Lot 1A, if developed according to the site plans dated July 20, 2001, revised September 4, 2001, and the conditions listed below:
1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18, and with all other applicable regulations (with the exceptions listed below);
3. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building on Airport Drive in accordance with the plans listed above and with conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
5. That construction begins by November 12, 2003 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by November 12, 2005 (four years from the date of Council approval).
6. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes construction of 1 office building, consisting of a total of 78,000 square feet of floor area, specified as follows:
· Total # of Buildings: 1
· Maximum Floor Area Total: 78,000 square feet
· Maximum # of Parking Spaces: 211
· Minimum # of Bicycle Parking Spaces: 22
· Minimum Outdoor Space: 292,261 square feet
· Minimum Livability Space: 216,796 square feet
7. Land Use: That this Special Use Permit authorizes the construction of a three-story structure for University use only.
8. Airport Drive Improvements: That prior to occupancy, the applicant makes the following improvements to Airport Drive:
a) Five-foot wide concrete sidewalk, three foot wide planting strip and curb and gutter along the frontage of the site;
b) Construction of an exclusive right-turn lane with 100 feet of storage at the Airport Road intersection;
c) Pavement striping for exclusive right-turn and left-turn lanes onto Airport Road at the Airport Road intersection;
d) Pavement striping for a double yellow line from Airport Road to Estes Drive; and
e) A raised pedestrian crosswalk between the Giles Horney Building and the proposed building.
The design and location of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
9. Airport Drive Right-Of-Way: That the University seek authorization from the Council of State to dedicate a 50-foot wide public right-of-way along Airport Drive, between Estes Drive and Airport Road. In the vicinity of the existing Giles F. Horney Building, the placement of the right-of-way shall be located adjacent to this building, and shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to occupancy. The plat and dedication shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation with the Orange County.
10.Airport Road Improvements: That prior to occupancy, the applicant construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk, with a three-foot wide planting strip, along Airport Road between Airport Drive and Barclay Road, with the typical three-foot grass strip between the sidewalk and back of curb reduced to one-foot where necessary in the vicinity of utility poles, and for the Airport Road frontage between this property and Barclay Road.
11.Pedestrian Connection to Airport Road: That the final plans shall proposed a pedestrian connection between the employee walking trails and the proposed public sidewalk on Airport Road. That the Town Manager shall review and approve the location, and design, of the proposed connection in a manner that minimizes the need for removing existing vegetation.
12.Traffic Signal Timing Improvements: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide a payment of $5,000.00 for traffic signal timing improvements at the Airport Road/Estes Drive intersection, to the Town of Chapel Hill.
13.Traffic Calming: That a $5,000 payment in lieu of traffic calming devices on Branch Street, including its intersections with Barclay and Justice and approaches thereto, be made prior to the issuance of a certificate of Occupancy. The Town Manager shall monitor traffic movements in this area following occupancy of the building and, if deemed necessary by the Town Manager, construct traffic calming improvements. If the improvements have not been made within 5 years of the occupancy of the building, the payment shall be returned to the applicant upon request by the applicant.
14.Bus Shelter: That prior to occupancy, the existing bus stop on the south side of Airport Drive shall be improved to include a bus shelter, bench and pad, subject to Town Manager approval.
15.Bicycle Parking: That the development comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards for an office development. The applicant must provide a minimum of parking for 22 bicycles. At least 4 bicycle parking spaces shall have accessibility to a locker, an individually locked enclosure or supervised area within a building providing protection for bicycles therein from theft, vandalism and weather. Shower and locker facilities shall be provided within the new building.
16.Parking Lot Design: That the final plans include a revised parking lot design incorporating “pedestrian friendly” features such as pedestrian islands, and striped crosswalks. The type, location and number of these “pedestrian friendly” features shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.
a) Provision for the designation of a Transportation Coordinator;
b) Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;
c) Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;
d) Ridesharing incentives; and
e) Public transit incentives.
18.Required Buffers: That the following landscape bufferyards be provided; and if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, the vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction.
· Type B landscape bufferyard (minimum width 30 feet) along the northern property line adjacent to Airport Drive;
· Type C landscape bufferyard (minimum width 50 feet) along the southern property line between the western edge of the site and the southeast corner of the building;
· Type C landscape bufferyard (minimum width 75 feet) along the southern property line between the southeast corner of the building and the western edge of the University property located in the Residential-2 zoning district;
· Type C landscape bufferyard (minimum width 130 feet) along the eastern property line not adjacent to Airport Road. The eastern 120 feet of this bufferyard shall remain undisturbed; and.
· Type D landscape bufferyard (minimum width 200 feet) along the eastern property line abutting Airport Road. The eastern 190 feet of this bufferyard shall remain undisturbed.
The landscape bufferyards shall not include areas within 15 feet of existing or proposed utilities lines or easements.
19.Employee Nature Trail: That the applicant may construct a “nature trail” within the area designated as a Type D landscape bufferyard (minimum width 200 feet) along the eastern property line abutting Airport Road. Any trees to be removed within this area, in association with the design of the “nature trail” shall not be done without the approval of the Town’s Urban Forester.
20.Parking Lot Landscaping: That the planting plan demonstrates compliance with Parking Landscaping Standards of the Development Ordinance including but not limited to shading and screen requirements.
21.Parking Lot Plantings: That all parking lot shade trees used to demonstrate compliance with the 35% parking lot shading requirement, shall be a minimum of 2” – 2˝“ in caliper when installed.
22.Landscape Protection Plan: That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The plan shall include tree protection and/or clearing limit lines for the proposed land disturbance associated with the stormwater basin at the northwest corner of Airport Road and Airport Drive.
23.Planting Plan: That a detailed Planting Plan, identifying the additional plantings needed to comply with the Town’s landscape bufferyard requirements along the northern and southern property lines. That the plan includes the installation of evergreen shrubs to supplement the retained vegetation in the northern and southern buffers and a mix of canopy trees in the parking lot islands. The plan shall also provide information on whether planting can be incorporated into the design of the stormwater detention basin at the northwest corner of Airport Road and Airport Drive. That the eastern most 30 feet of this stormwater detention basin shall remain generally undisturbed. The plan must be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
24.Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed landscape plan, landscape maintenance plan, and lighting plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
25.Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations, lighting plans and all proposed alternative landscape bufferyards for the site, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
26.Stormwater Management Plan: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant submits a Stormwater Management Plan with an engineered stormwater facility. The facility design shall be based on the 1-year and 50-year frequency, 24-hour duration storms, where the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. That the engineered stormwater facility shall also be designed to remove 85% total suspended solids and treat the first inch of precipitation.
27.Stormwater Detention Pond: That the stormwater detention facility, to accommodate stormwater run-off from this proposed development, located as proposed by the applicant in the area between the Giles F. Horney Building and Airport Road, be designed and developed in a manner that provides additional landscape bufferyard material to enhance both the foreground and background bufferyard areas adjoining any detention facility.
28.Best Management Practices: That the applicant provided bio-retention or best management practices (BMP’s) features to intercept and treat stormwater runoff from the developed areas. Final design and locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. That the percentage of stormwater runoff from the development site, subject to treatment by best management practice features, shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. BMP’s shall note be located within a required bufferyard area.
29.Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources and a copy of the approval be submitted to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
30.Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
31.Utility Lines: That all overhead utility lines along Airport Drive shall be relocated underground, unless the lines include three-phase electric power distribution lines. If three-phase utility lines exist, these lines shall be raised to a minimum height of 14 feet 6 inches to allow service vehicle access, if determined to be necessary by the Town Manager.
32. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by OWASA, Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
33.Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
34.Fire Hydrant: That a fire hydrant be located within 50 feet of the automatic sprinkler system connection to this development.
35.State Permits/Agreements: That any required State permits or encroachment agreements be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
36.Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plan, Stormwater Management Plan (with hydraulic calculations), and landscape plans be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual.
37. Construction Sign: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 16 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
38.Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
39.Non-severability: If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building on Airport Drive in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 12th day of November, 2001
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION B
(Planning Board’s and
Community Design Commission’s Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRIVE (2001-11-12/R-15b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application, as proposed by Ron Strom for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 29, part of Lot 1A, if developed according to the site plans dated July 20, 2001, revised September 4, 2001, and the conditions listed below:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building On Airport Drive in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
1. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
2. Deleted Stipulation: Stipulations 4 e), 7, and 11.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building on Airport Drive.
This the 12th day of November, 2001.
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION C
(Transportation Board’s Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRIVE (2001-11-12/R-15c)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application, as proposed by Ron Strom for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 29, part of Lot 1A, if developed according to the site plans dated July 20, 2001, revised September 4, 2001, and the conditions listed below:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building On Airport Drive in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
3. Resolution A: That all of the stipulations in Resolution A shall apply to the proposed development, unless modified or superseded by those stipulations below.
4. Deleted Stipulation: Stipulations 7 and 11.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building on Airport Drive.
This the 12th day of November, 2001.
ATTACHMENT 5
RESOLUTION D
(Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Board’s Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRIVE (2001-11-12/R-15d)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application, as proposed by Ron Strom for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 29, part of Lot 1A, if developed according to the site plans dated July 20, 2001, revised September 4, 2001, and the conditions listed below:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building On Airport Drive in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the UNC Office Building on Airport Drive.
This the 12th day of November, 2001.
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION E
(Denying the Special Use Permit Application)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE UNC OFFICE BUILDING ON AIRPORT DRIVE (2001-11-12/R-15e)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by the Ron Strom for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 29, part of Lot 1A, if developed according to the site plan dated July 20, 2001, revised September 4, 2001 and the conditions listed below, would not:
Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;
Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity;
Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
(INSERT ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR DENIAL)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application for the UNC Office Building on Airport Drive as proposed by Ron Strom for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
This the 12th day of November, 2001.