HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-05-1996 - X-A R
1
i
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 5, 1996
Action Agenda
Item #_&: A
SUBJECT: HORACE WILLIAMS PLANNING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes X No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
• 7-1-96 Update on Planning for Outlying Properties Gene Bell, Planner III, Ext. 2589
• Preliminary Planning Principles
• Horace Williams Use Districts& Proposed Plan
• 6-17-96 Planning Panel Response to Proposed Plan TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
• Plan Alternatives A, B, & C Hillsborough- 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the Horace Williams Planning Group recommendations and
zoning implications for Orange County.
BACKGROUND: In 1994,the University began to plan for eventual use of its two large
undeveloped tracts of land: the Horace Williams property and the Mason Farm
property. The University hired a consultant, Johnson,Johnson, and Roy of
Ann Arbor,Michigan to assist with the planning process. The Towns of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro were invited to participate in the process of creating and
responding to draft plans. The Chapel Hill Town Council appointed a UNC-
Chapel Hill Planning Panel to work with the University and report to the Council.
The University's consultant prepared several sets of information, including three
plan alternatives, for community comment and the Planning Panel appointed by
the Town Council made three formal reports to the Council.
On May 23, 1996 final draft plans were presented and community comment
requested. The draft plan for the Horace Williams property includes a
2
development with a mix of land uses, including housing,office, commercial,
academic,research,health care,public assembly,utilitarian, and active and
passive recreation areas. A transportation corridor is proposed to be located
through the center of the property, which could offer an opportunity for a future
fixed-guideway transit facility,bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The corridor is
proposed to include two transit nodes surrounded by mixed use development
districts,where land use intensity is concentrated. These areas are called
University Villages.
Overall,the UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel was very pleased with the draft
plan,but they did offer additional comments and recommendations on June 17.
Johnson, Johnson, and Roy are tentatively scheduled to return with the final land
use plans for Horace Williams and Mason Farm in September, 1996. At that time,
the University board of Trustees may adopt master land use plans for both tracts.
Concurrent with the University's planning process, the Chapel Hill town Council
directed the Planning Board to draft language for a new zoning district to be
applied to large undeveloped tracts of land. The Town Council hired a consultant,
Dwight Merriam of the law firm of Robinson& Cole, to assist in drafting a new
zoning district applicable to large properties like the Horace Williams and Mason
Farm tracts.
On June 17, 1996,the Town Council held a public hearing on the proposed
zoning district as well as the potential rezoning of the Horace Williams property.
At the conclusion of the hearing,the Council decided to consider establishing a
collaborative process for further discussion and refinement of the proposal with a
tentative deadline of March 15, 1997.
Of significance to Orange County is the fact that a sizable portion of the Horace
Williams tract extends into the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Transition Areas
delineated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan . The land is identified as
Future UNC Development in the plan and residential zoning of the two towns has
been applied as per the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. Any rezoning of
UNC land in the transition areas would require approval by Orange County and
the respective towns.
Upon review of these materials, Orange County may wish to request a more in-
depth presentation by the University's consultants. The County may also want to
request involvement in the Town's collaborative process to prepare a new zoning
district since it might ultimately be applied in the area and the County shares
joint approval authority.
RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides.
July 1, 1996 3
UPDATE ON LAND USE PLANNING FOR THE OUTLYING PROPERTIES
1. Background
A. Purpose of Planning Effort
In November of 1994,the University began an eighteen-month effort to develop long range plans for
the two outlying properties that may have significant development potential,the Horace Williams and Mason
Farm properties. This is an overview of that process and a progress report.
The University is on the verge of overstepping its central campus infrastructure capacity. Recent
development is taxing the capabilities of the central utilities and transportation/parking systems,and potential
sites for new buildings are disappearing. Also,there is a widely held perception that current development of the
outlying properties is proceeding in a piecemeal fashion,without the benefit of a guiding vision. Since these
outlying properties represent significant resources for the University and the university communities,a long
range planning effort was established. The fundamental question this planning effort intends to address is,
`How can the University use these properties most effectively to further its mission, in a manner that is
consistent with the goals of the communityT
B. Planning Process
In 1994,the University engaged the firm of Johnson,Johnson,Roy/Inc.(JJR),a nationally known
campus planning consultant. JJR proposed a five-phase planning process,with the following projected
completion dates:
Phase I. Definition of Directions&Needs-January, 1995
Phase II. Physical Analysis of Developability-April, 1995
Phase III. Generation of Alternative Land Use Plans-November, 1995
Phase IV. Detailed Plan Development and Impact Analysis-May, 1996
Phase V. Final Documentation-Fall, 1996
C. Participatory Effort
This has been a broadly participatory planning effort,with local guidance and input provided by six
advisory committees: the Facilities Planning Committee,the Buildings&Grounds Committee,a faculty
advisory committee,a technical committee,and two community advisory committees selected by the towns of
Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
Over the last year,both the Chapel Hill and the Carrboro Advisory Committees have met regularly
with JJR and University representatives. Both Community Advisory Committees have submitted detailed
interim advisory reports.
2. Categories of Potential Land Uses
During Phase I,the Faculty Advisory Committee recommended that the central campus should be
preserved for core academic uses,and that sensitive environmental areas on the outlying properties should be
protected. They recommended that developable portions of the outlying properties should be planned primarily
for(a)housing to serve the core campus community,(b)university administrative and support functions,and
(c)continuing education and independent research activities. The Community Advisory Committees also
suggested public/private partnership uses that might offer the possibility of generating income streams for the
university and the local governments. Potential land uses for the outlying properties have been grouped into
seven use categories according to similarity of functional characteristics and geographic requirements. (See
"Use Descriptions"in the attached materials.)
4
3. Site Analysis
During Phase II,JJR classified the 2,000+acres in the two properties into sub-areas of differing
sensitivity to development,ranging from areas that should be protected from future development to areas that
could be developed for a wide variety of uses. At Horace Williams,they determined that 530 acres are suitable
for prime development,assuming that the airport remains. Another 200 acres might be developed for more
restricted uses.
At Mason Farm,because of the extensive flood plain and environmentally sensitive area there,JJR
found that only 128 acres were suitable for more intensive development. This developable area is near the
Friday Center. Another 130 developable acres are present on the Parker Property,but this area is more
inconveniently located.
4. Alternative Plans
As Phase III,JJR generated alternative possible development plans for the Horace Williams property
and for the area of Mason Farm near the Friday Center. The alternatives differed according to the amount of
land area devoted to each use group,the locations of principal land uses,and the internal road circulation
patterns to serve those uses.
All of the altemative land use plans for the Horace Williams property anticipated a"build-out"
capacity of 6 million square feet(MSF). This is the amount of development the existing road network could
support without increasing traffic congestion beyond an acceptable level. However,the build-out capacity
could be increased with corresponding improvements in transit service to the property and reductions in
automobile travel demand. These improvements are suggested by the presence of the existing railroad corridor
that connects with the central campus. If this corridor were improved to accommodate a dedicated busway
($17M),build-out capacity might be increased to 7.5 MSF. Similarly,if light rail transit service could be
established($25M),build-out capacity might approach 9.0 MSF.
Development opportunities are far more limited at Mason Farm. Because of the extensive presence of
environmentally sensitive areas and prior-committed uses,only a small area around the Friday Center can
` accommodate additional development. A framework was proposed that would provide a coherent plan for
constructing an additional 480,000 SF in this area.
At the end of November,a detailed presentation of these alternative plans was given to the six
advisory committees.After allowing time to study these materials,JJR returned in March to seek feedback from
these committees. Also in March,JJR will made a presentation to the Board of Trustees,summarizing the
comments received and seeking guidance from the Board for the future direction of the planning effort.
5.Current Status and Next Steps
As Phase IV,JJR developed a single proposed plan for each property,incorporating the comments and
directions that have been received in response to the alternative plans. These were presented to the six advisory
committees in May,and the handouts from these presentations are attached. After collecting feedback on these
proposals through the Summer,final adjustments will be made. Final documentation be presented to the Board
of Trustees for adoption this Fall.
[SA nUPDATEJ
5
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Outlying Properties Land Use Plans
Site Visit #S
22-24 May 1996
PRELIMINARY PLANNING PRINCIPLES
Draft for Discussion
1. Preserve significant environmental resources (consistent with the existing RCD
ordinance) and concentrate development in the least environmentally sensitive
areas.
2. Promote sustainable development by:
• Mitigating adverse environmental impacts
• Conserving non-renewable energy and materials resources
• Designing for energy conservation
• Cooperating in planning for regional stormwater management and maintaining
stormwater discharge quantities from these sites at pre-development levels.
3. Promote the use of mass transit and other alternatives to automobile trips by:
• Designating and preserving future transit corridors and stops
• Clustering a mix of uses and the highest densities of development within a 5
minute walk of transit stops
0 Working in partnership with the surrounding communities (and other
agencies)to promote mass transit investments and land use patterns that
promote its feasibility
• Providing pedestrian and bikeway linkages to the larger community.
4. Link overall development intensity(on the Horace Williams property)to the
traffic carrying capacity of the transportation system(assuming a level of service
F on area roadways will be acceptable in the longer term future). Promote a
variety of trip reduction strategies.
5. Provide the flexibility to accommodate unforeseen university needs and to avoid
foreclosing future options.
6. Promote a mix of uses across the site to:
• Support the daily needs of campus residents, students and employees
• Reduce the need for off-site vehicle trips
1
6
7.. Especially in the University Village Use District, encourage a density and scale of
development similar in character to the older portion of main campus.
• Create public outdoor spaces as development focal points.
• Foster a clear pedestrian and transit orientation.
8. Foster visual continuity in the siting and design of buildings to create a consistent,
harmonious campus context.
9. Encourage the development of housing affordable to faculty, staff and students.
10. Continue a dialogue with the community on opportunities for shared facilities
11. Promote compatibility between existing off-site uses and on-site development;
provide buffers adequate to protect adjacent neighborhoods from noise, lighting,
and visual impacts,where appropriate.
12. Enhance the visual character of community entranceways and project a positive
campus identity
13. Encourage traffic distribution and avoid congestion by providing multiple campus
entrances. Avoid channeling increased traffic volumes onto neighborhood streets.
.1
2
7
i
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Outlying Properties Land Use Plans
Site Visit#S
22-24 May 1996
HORACE WILLIAMS USE DISTRICTS
Based on facility requirements and functional similarities, potential land uses for the
outlying properties are grouped into seven district categories. The Horace Williams
Property may contain more than one of each kind of district, and each district may
contain the uses outlined below.
1. University Village District
This district includes a variety of uses that can contribute to and benefit from a
pedestrian-oriented, human-scale "village" atmosphere and convenient transit
access to the main campus. Uses may include:
A. Graduat&Professional Academic Units that function relatively
independently from main campus activities and services. These uses could
include established or emerging cross-disciplinary curricula of sufficient
critical mass to find an outlying location attractive because physical
proximity within the curriculum outweighs the disadvantages of
remoteness between the curriculum and the main campus.
B. University or Corporate Research Units or Facilities that do not require
` physical proximity to main campus and can be accommodated in a mixed
use setting. Examples include data base driven"dry lab"collaborative
research, "wet lab"hospital related analytical services, laboratory shops
and support services.
C. Administrative Functions that might operate effectively at outlying
locations. Examples include administrative support functions and
business office support functions including accounting, data processing,
purchasing,human resources and materials management.
D. Incubator Facilities for technology transfer that are appropriate for a
mixed-use setting.
E. Convenience Commercial and Service Uses that meet local or
neighborhood needs. Examples include food service, dependent care
facilities, small retail, small grocery store, dry cleaner, and automated-
teller banking.
8
i
F: Housing could include multifamily units for university students, faculty
and staff;fraternity/sorority housing;temporary housing for short-term
university visitors; and multifamily housing for the broader(non-
university)market.
2. Visitor Destination District
This district includes uses which require direct auto access from the regional
circulation network, accessible parking and flat topography. Uses may include:
A. Health Care Uses where patient accessibility is a primary consideration
and services can be provided away from main campus. Examples include
outpatient medical clinics, ambulatory patient-based research and clinical
trials. Both university and private/university partnership uses are possible.
B. Public Assembly Uses where small- and medium-sized groups can gather
for meetings, educational activities and entertainment purposes. Examples
may include continuing education centers serving non-traditional students,
conference centers,theaters, auditoria,performing arts and staff training
centers.
C. Park&Ride Facilities that require convenient transit access to main
-- . campus and auto access to and from the regional road system.' Flat
topography and ease of way finding are required.
D. Local Commercial and Service Uses that require auto access to and from
- the regional road system because they serve areas beyond the
neighborhood scale. Flat topography and ease of wayfinding are required.
3. Independent Use District
A. Single-Purpose Uses which can be developed as free-standing
developments. Examples include major research-oriented facilities which
desire a campus setting;incubator facilities for technology transfer;
academic groupings or schools; "big science"and technology activities
which must be remotely sited because of size or setback requirements
from surrounding activities; library special collections and technical
facilities; institutional records; and some physical plant shops.
B. Park&Ride Facilities that require convenient transit access to main
campus and auto access to and from the regional road system.
9
•
4. Utilitarian Use District
These uses are often perceived as unsightly or obtrusive. To avoid adverse
impacts on adjoining land uses,they are sited in more isolated areas and/or are
well buffered. Examples may include: printing services; indoor storage and
warehousing; and some physical plant shops. Exterior uses include vehicle
maintenance, storage yards,plant nursery and composting and recycled materials
handling.
S. Housing District
Component uses may include: housing for university faculty, staff and students;
fraternity/sorority housing; and temporary housing for short-term university
visitors. Both multi- and single-family housing for the broader(non-university)
market are also possible. Convenient transit access to main campus is desirable.
Smaller grain sites and steeper topography are acceptable, especially for lower
density housing formats.
6. Active Recreation District
These uses require flat topography and convenient transit access to main campus.
Examples include playing fields for soccer, football and baseball, as well as
playgrounds.
7 Passive Recreation and Natural Area District
These undeveloped natural areas typically include non-developable natural areas
or minimally improved green areas. Examples include parks, greenways,
preserved natural areas, stream buffers,plant and wildlife habitats and stormwater
detention ponds.
10
cz
ca0
a�
O
Q� CU
¢ lir
CO
co
�i f-•
�,I � },,+;`::�.Ki:h�Yom..ti•.�•�`�::>�.�.���{�:,fir
•::.}:::••.o.•f.:.;:},•..r^::.
d a •
Q �
r 4 A
i 0
0
z �
O cC
C
cs U sue. y
Cj y G cOa
to r- to
mo
3 N y V N 'fl 1 �Q cO X ^�+ rO F
�. 0E%, Cv x A ¢ a: ¢ E-rF- UUZazaaUav� 3ua0. H �.
11
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Outlying Properties Land Use Plans
Site Visit#5
22-24 May 1996
HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY
LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY 973 TOTAL SITE ACRES
Prior Committed Land 170 acres 17.5%
Airport: 110 acres
Physical Plant: 60 acres
Dedicated Open Space 304 acres 31.2%
Floodplain: 56 acres
Stream Cons. & Buffer: 65 acres
Passive Rec./Cultural Area: 18 acres
Active Rec./ Playing Fields 34 acres
Edge Buffers, Major Road
Setbacks, Approach Zone 131 acres
Developed Land 498 acres 51.2%
University Village: 170 acres 34.1%
Independent Use: 137 acres 27.5% -
Visitor Destination: 45 acres 9.0%
Utilitarian Use: 38 acres 7.6%
Housing: 108 acres 21.7%
HORACE WILLIAMS HOME SITE 57 TOTAL SITE ACRES
Prior Committed Land 0 acres
Dedicated Open Space 24 acres 42.1%
Stream Floodplain 15 acres 62.5%
Stream Buffer 9 acres 37.5%
Developed Land 33 acres 57.9%
Housing _ 33 acres
SUMMARY.XLS HW 20 May 5/21/961:46 PM
14
HORACE WILLIAMS TRACT
iTivesity VUlskgC
There is concern about the location of the southern University Village district in relation to
the flight path of the Horace Williams Airport. We recommend that the location of the
district be studied further and possibly moved slightly north to avoid conflicts with the
airport.
Land Uses
We again seek assurance that health care facilities and public assembly uses on the site will
be small in scale. We recommend that the description of these land use categories be
modified to clarify the scale of these uses.
Environment sindRiffferin
Generous perimeter buffers are less important to the Planning Panel than the protection of
the Bolin Creek corridor and other environmentally sensitive areas. We recommend that
the University consider reducing the width of the generous buffers that are proposed, so
that more sensitive lands associated with Bolin Creek may be preserved.
We recommend that vehicular access not be provided to the Glen Heights neighborhood to
access the proposed adjacent housing district. We suggest that an alternate access to the
housing area be explored, such as a possible extension off the main road from N.C. 86,
crossing Crow Branch.
Public School Site
If housing is built for graduate students, faculty and staff(and we strongly encourage this),
we recommend that the University consider reserving space for day care and early
childhood education facilities.
Aesthetics
We reiterate our recommendation to enhance entranceway beauty. Visual vistas into
entrances of the development are encouraged to provide a good sense of the campus within.
There should be a balance between achieving views at entzanc a points and achieving a
vegetated buffer for neighborhood protection or for screening obtrusive uses.
-Page 2
}
,.•ter"°`..._.� \� �,?#zs� �;! .!:�y's ��1{�A' �.-
w
All
x
Mj
Its
7, v
� T
1 I
ro
IC
ES
•
•
iY/
L
16 '
C2
� S
I
� C+'0 y 1 (j , I�. 1`'> , .� - ` �.�-� �\, �-�'i�� I lC fit.lI f�.. , y•• i � �.�- �
I � �'J ,�, ! 'l�•• � •i t.. , � 4 �i -� YI r iC�,3r�1���, - -� .) 4.1 �` �I A
`-
��-
., `r. E urn:: J ^S. ,•1 y
o•e 0 el _ d
L
(wAtl!oH uaylnog
y•s a --f - r 1I7, - .. e. I
(o
TA oil
l cm u y� i _f �O Un
�r s� , g1�'f •, f
y'
O
1
ang auro}}s�uinlj!m
r+
F i
Ndd N
NEW
;fit�ii r� ' ►t?
OVER� ,� � `? , r�iii M.r)1�+1.
..+�
��.-sue_.. - vpy � ��, ' l'`" c P,', °e ai3:asli ,M,.�` ',1` A� •
�� �. � i �._ i '} r..; ,�—_ r:! � ■!- �/�;Yn 9�h��,� DES
r 7
r �� >;� :ltZ '`��TJ' Sri � � �� � •
r,
dh
•