Attachment 1
Staff Comments on Information Statements/Requests
Raised at 6/16/03 Public Hearing
1. Master Plan vs. Development Plan
Two documents were frequently referenced during the Hearing. A Master Plan was prepared by the University to plan for long-term facilities, and was adopted by the UNC Board of Trustees. The Town Council was not asked to approve or endorse the Master Plan. The Master Plan provides useful background and context, but is not a Town-approved document. Subsequent to preparation of the Master Plan, the University prepared and submitted a Development Plan for the Council’s review and approval. The Development Plan proposes specific facilities and a mid-range timeframe (8-10 years). The Town Council approved the Development Plan in October, 2003. There are many facilities on the long-range Master Plan that are not programmed for construction in the next ten years, and which accordingly do not appear on the Development Plan. It is a modification of this Council-approved Development plan that is currently under consideration.
2. Process for Planning Board Review
Comments were offered, suggesting that this review process and Public Hearing deviated from normal procedures in that the Planning Board made comments at the Public Hearing, rather than presenting a recommendation. The Land Use Management Ordinance (and its predecessor document, the Development Ordinance) both contain provisions for reviewing development applications in the Offiice-Institutional-4 zoning district (which applies to the UNC main campus). Unlike Special Use Permit and Subdivision processes, the OI-4 process for review of a Development Plan application does not require a Planning Board recommendation; it does require Planning Board review. Another difference is that, with a Special Use Permit or a Subdivision, the Planning Board explicitly has 35 days to prepare a recommendation. This time frame is not included in the OI-4 regulations.
3. Utility Line Through Jones Park
An early version of the University’s Modification application mistakenly showed a utility corridor through Chapel Hill’s Jones Park. This was shown in error, and the University submitted a corrected map that relocates the line to the west.
4. Manager’s Recommendation on Building H-21
The Town Manager’s recommendation regarding a proposed Family Housing structure on Mason Farm Road, shown as building H-21, was mistakenly characterized at the Public Hearing as calling for changes to the footprint for the proposed structure. The Manager’s recommendation on June 16 (as now) calls for changes to access, not the building footprint.
5. Increase in Traffic on S. Columbia Attributable to Modification
Questions were raised about differing estimates of traffic impacts. We prepared a discussion paper that was included in the June 16 materials, describing our conclusion from the studies, that the estimated impact of changes proposed with this application would be in the nature of a 3-4% increase in vehicles traveling on South Columbia Street (approximately 900 additional vehicles per day, attributable to the changes proposed with this application). A question was raised at the hearing, asking why, if 600 additional parking spaces are proposed across from the hospital, the analysis assumes only 90 more trips using South Columbia Street. The answer is that the 90 trips referred to in the report are peak-hour trips.
6. Comparison of University Traffic Numbers to Regional Plan Projections
Questions were raised about differing methods of projecting traffic. We described in our June 16 discussion paper that we conclude that the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared as part of this application is reasonable, and performed in accordance with Council-adopted guidelines for the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. A second set of projections, prepared as part of regional modeling and regional transportation planning efforts, has yielded a different, but similar, set of projections. We believe that the projections prepared according to the Council-adopted methodology are the most specific and appropriate to use in estimating impacts from these specific, proposed facilities
7. Compliance with Town Noise Ordinance
There are concerns about possible impacts of noise from the proposed new chiller plant. This new facility, as all facilities on campus, will need to comply on an ongoing basis with Chapel Hill’s Noise Ordinance, which places limits on noise that can be detected at the property line.