ATTACHMENT 2

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

FROM:            Roger S. Waldon, Planning Director

SUBJECT:       Follow-up from January 23, 2002 Work Session

DATE:             January 25, 2002

This memorandum responds to issues and questions raised during a Council Work Session on January 23, 2002.  Given the limited amount of time between the Work Session and generation of this report, we have not been able to give as full a response to all items as would typically be the case.  However, we believe that the following information may be helpful as discussions about the Northeast Area and townwide regulatory changes continue.

We note that several questions raised on January 23 were directed to the Town Attorney for information and opinion related to enacting a moratorium.  We will not include those questions in this response.

ISSUES/QUESTIONS RAISED ON JANUARY 23

We list below the key points raised during the Work Session, and offer a comment on each, to the extent possible at this time.

• Cedar Terrace Bottoms, in the vicinity of Erwin Road and Interstate 40, is fragile;  with a new Development Ordinance we could protect that area better.

Staff Comment:  Much of the area is in the regulatory floodplain and Resource Conservation District.  We have not yet evaluated the extent to which proposed regulations would have an impact on this area. 

• Is Cedar Terrace Bottoms currently within Town limits?

Staff Comment:   Yes.

• Could we ask Orange County for help in acquiring land for preservation in Cedar Terrace Bottoms?

Staff Comment:   The Council could initiate a dialogue with the Orange County Commissioners to investigate possibilities for land acquisition with County funds.  We do not know at this time how the Cedar Terrace Bottoms area would fit with County priorities for land acquisition.

• Regarding the proposed Superstreet proposal at the intersection of US 15-501 and Erwin Road:  Please provide information about how it would perform, funding, and timing.

Staff Comment: The proposed Superstreet improvement project is identified on the State Transportation Improvement Program, and would be fully funded by the State.  We do not anticipate that any direct Town (local) cost share will be required for this project.  The project is currently scheduled for construction in 2004.  State computer modeling, based on a projected 5% annual increases in traffic volume, predicts that the Superstreet proposal will improve the intersection Level of Service from E to C, if implemented in 2004-2005.  We have attached a table which identifies intersection Levels of Service for the following scenarios:  “No Build”, “Limited Improvements” (dual left-turn lanes), and “Superstreet.”

• Does the analysis of the Superstreet proposal contemplate the levels of development that are proposed with the applications currently being submitted to the Town?

Staff Comment: Yes, the Superstreet proposal was modeled based upon known development proposals and predicted development of undeveloped land.   We note that historically, traffic has generally increased in Chapel Hill at an annual rate of 2%-4%.  Based on existing data and traffic impact study data from known development proposals in the area of the Superstreet proposal, it appears that traffic increases in this area of Town would be in the 3%-4% range if currently proposed developments were to be approved.  This is consistent with historic traffic growth in Chapel Hill.

To be conservative and to provide a factor of safety in the modeling of the Superstreet proposal, the State used a 5% factor for annual traffic volume increases.  The improvements in the intersection Level of Service, as shown on the attached table, include this 5% annual traffic increase factor which we believe accounts for predictable annual increases in traffic in the Superstreet intersection area under expected development conditions.  

• What does the Comprehensive Plan call for in the Northeast Area of Chapel Hill that was identified as the study area for the January 23 Work Session?

Staff Comment:   A map was included in the January 23 Work Session packet that shows Land Use designations for this area.  The Land Use Plan calls for a combination of Mixed Use (Office Emphasis), High-density Residential, Commercial, Institutional, Medium-density Residential, Low-density Residential, and Open Space uses.

• Currently the Town establishes Level of Service D as an acceptable level of service for street intersections;  we may receive citizen comment to raise the standard for acceptable level of service.

Staff Comment:   Level of Service “D” was established as part of the Thoroughfare Plan in the early 1980’s as the acceptable level of service for Chapel Hill intersections.  That policy has remained in place townwide since that time.  During the Comprehensive Plan, there was discussion of selectively establishing a lower level of service (e.g., “E”) in parts of Town where it may be more desirable to tolerate higher levels of traffic congestion than to widen streets and intersections.  An example of this might be the downtown area.  Setting a higher standard for acceptable level of service (e.g., raising to “C”) would imply a more aggressive widening of streets and intersections in order to achieve that level.

• Of the development proposals that are currently under consideration, how would they be different under the proposed new Development Ordinance?

Staff Comment:  As part of a workshop on January 11, we studied how the changes proposed in the 2^nd Draft of the Development Ordinance revision might affect four existing developments.  We have not studied the proposed projects in the Northeast Area to determine how they might be differently designed under proposed regulations.

• Could the Council now deny a development proposal because of a nearby intersection that is functioning at Level of Service E or F?

Staff Comment:   In a rezoning proposal, the Council could take into account a variety of factors, including the levels of service of nearby intersections, in making a decision.  For a Special Use Permit application, the level of service of nearby intersections would typically be part of the Council’s consideration of whether or not the application would “maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.”  In a subdivision application, the link to levels of service of nearby streets is less direct.

• Are the traffic signals along US 15-501 coordinated?

Staff Comment: Yes, the traffic signals in the US 15-501 zone are coordinated.  However, since our signal system equipment is aging, we have been experiencing increasing numbers of system component failures that often result in temporary loss of coordination in this zone until repairs are made.  We plan to reanalyze the signal timing plans in the US 15-501 zone this spring, and try to improve the signal coordination based on recent traffic count data.

• Would the extension of Sage Road as part of the Weaver Dairy Road improvements help alleviate congestion at the Erwin/15-501 intersection, and improve level of service for that intersection?

Staff Comment:   We expect that the Sage Road Extension, coupled with Weaver Dairy Road improvements, will result in improved levels of service for the Erwin/15-501 intersection.

• How would the proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance affect projects that are currently being reviewed?

Staff Comment:   Implementation of the proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is dependent upon interjurisdictional cooperation.  First, a Memorandum of Understanding would need to be adopted and executed by each of the local elected Boards that serve the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District:  the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and the School Board.  Then Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County would each need to adopt similar amendments to their respective zoning ordinances, and an effective date would have to be set.  It is not possible to know at this time when these events will be completed, and what effect implementation of this system would have on projects currently under review.

• Are applications in for the proposed Marriott Hotel, Jefferson Commons, and Notting Hill proposals?

Staff Comment:   We note the following status of each proposal:

Marriott Hotel:  A rezoning application and a Special Use Permit application have been accepted.  Staff evaluation has been completed.  The applications have not been put on the schedule for Planning Board or Public Hearing.

Jefferson Commons:  A rezoning application and a Special Use Permit application have been submitted to the Town but, the applications have not yet been accepted.

Notting Hill II:  A Concept Plan application was reviewed by the Community Design Commission for a multi-family development application on Erwin Road next to the Englewood Subdivision.  A formal application for Special Use Permit approval has not been submitted

• What are the possibilities for workshops and work sessions to review the proposed 2^nd Draft of the Development Ordinance?

Staff Comment:   A related agenda item tonight (Item 9a) discusses these possibilities and makes a specific proposal.

• The Council asked specifically for information about what applications are in the “pipeline,” and at what stage of review.

Staff Comment:   We note in the attached tables development applications that are pending for Planning Board or for Town Council action.  Four of these applications already have been considered by the Council at a Public Hearing.  These applications are: 

1. Europa Office Building Special Use Permit/ Europa Special Use Permit Modification
2. Larkspur Cluster Subdivision – Major Subdivision application
3. Orange United Methodist Church Special Use Permit Modification
4. Orange Regional Landfill Addition Special Use Permit

Each of these items has had a Public Hearing(s) opened that has been recessed to a specific date:

Europa items –                                    February 11, 2002

Larkspur Cluster Subdivision –            February 25, 2002

Orange United Methodist Church –  February 11, 2002

Orange Regional Landfill –                  February 11, 2002

We attach two tables, immediately following.  The first lists the status of applications that would require final action by the Town Council;  the second lists the status of applications that would require final action by the Planning Board.  We note for each which steps in the process have already been completed.

_______________________________________________

ATTACHMENTS

1. Pending Applications for Council Action (p. 12).
2. Pending Applications for Planning Board Action (p. 13).
3. Superstreet Analysis Table:  “Level of Service,” 15-501 at Erwin Road (p. 14).

Pending Applications for Review by Council

(prepared January 25, 2002)

Council Action	Concept Plan	TIA Ordered & Paid for (or Equiv.)	Application Submitted	Application Accepted	Planning Board	Public Hearing	Council Action
Larkspur SD	X	X	X	X	X	X
Europa OFC, SUP	X	X	X	X	X	X
Or. Methodist Church SUP	X	X	X	X	X	X
Or. Co. Landfill SUP	X	X	X	X	X	X
Cross Creek SD	X	X	X	X	X
MM Hilltop Condos SUP	X	X	X	X	X
Rosemary Mixed Use SUP	X	X	X	X	X
Creekside SD	X	X	X	X
Marriott SUP/Rezoning	X	X	X	X
Delta Upsilon SUP	X	X	X	X
Rizzo SUP M	X	X	X	X
1609 E. Franklin SUP	X	X	X	X
Jefferson Commons Rezoning/SUP	X	X	X
Village Plaza SUP	X	X	X
Rams Plaza SUP	X	X	X
Eastowne Lot 6	X	X

Pending Applications for Review by Planning Board

(prepared January 25, 2002)

Planning Board Action	Concept Plan	TIA Ordered & Paid for (or Equiv.)	Application Submitted	Application Accepted	Planning Board Action
Mama Dip's Parking SPR	n/a		X	X
Reforso SPR	n/a	X	X	X
Creekview SPR	n/a		X	X
Mitchell/Merritt Parking SPR	n/a		X	X
Carmichael Partners SPR	n/a		X	X
Westminster Day Care	n/a		X	X