HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-20-1996 - X-E f
1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 20, 1996
Action Agenda
Item # )LE
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 UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel Response TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
to Proposed Plan
• Plan Alternatives A, B, & C Hillsborough- 732-8181
• Draft Agenda Item Abstract for Carrboro Board of Durham - 688-7331
Aldermen August 20, 1996 Public Forum 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 and both towns
appointed committees to work with the University and report to their respective
governing boards.
The University's consultant prepared several sets of information, including three
plan alternatives for community comment. On May 23, 1996 final draft plans
were presented and community comment requested.
2
r
The draft plan for the Horace Williams property includes a 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. The town
planning committees appointed by Chapel Hill and Carrboro reviewed the draft
plan and their comments are included as attachments.
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 Council hired a consultant,
Dwight Merriam of the law firm of Robinson& Cole,to assist in drafting a new
zoning district applicable to large tracts like Horace Williams and Mason Farm.
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.
Because of a protest petition filed by UNC, 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 34%of the 973 acre Horace
Williams tract extends into the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Joint Planning
Transition Areas; and all of the 57 acre Horace Williams home site lies in the
Carrboro Transition Area. These properties are classified as Future UNC
Development and Public/Private Open Space respectively in the Joint Planning
Area Land Use Plan. Low-density residential zoning has been applied by the
towns in these areas 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 towns for their respective areas.
Upon review of these materials, Orange County may wish to request a more in-
depth presentation by the University's consultants. Johnson, Johnson, and Roy
are tentatively scheduled to return with the final land use plans for Horace
Williams and Mason Farm in November, 1996. At that time,the University
Board of Trustees may adopt master land use plans for both tracts.
The County may also want to request involvement in Chapel Hill'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 community?'
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 alternative 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.
[SAnUPDATE]
5
ti
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Outlying Properties Land Use Plans
Site Visit#5
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
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.
2
7
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. Graduate/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
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 wayfmding 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.
5. 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
Y 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
0
0
y •CC
L
Q
d �
c
V H > A
Gn
co�1
,y
........ ....t.:..s.:... ...}...try.:}:.,.;}\M
? ti Q � V L +••� Q � L W � y •L � `� � N �"
Cca ++ ^ O cS
E�. O �%, N UUYa, Ta .-llu8. C—n ti a ya
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.XI.S HW 20 May 5/21/961:46 PM
s
y
c r 1;1; ;, � .' ro,,��
J a
T"
L � s
. Q
F.6
O
QVn HnAHIV� •�. � J i �a 7�iY_ � L
_6 1
`
OW
cu
b
OKW � � ' '.1 .�L` �-.. •1 -mil � Wes' Y. �. nn``
VN 11 Q W
J 7i by
9K
.\VA\91VN w"mu.nOS
S � l
nYn,i'i0MT.T;Tt7A%Vlq - t r , '^
1 r t'8
Q. J� 4,� �- .fit/ .�, 4t}•_ �
o '�^�A
SS '��• ��. 1 r O VJ
Y J(�
J t
O
.P.
ffU
cu
cp
1
1 ` .•�:t
0
A ^
A
.U
O
Q
J. x U
O
_--"• __v 1. l.: ao�•sFn
d�''NJI•WP�,`4
13
UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL
FOURTH INTERIM REPORT
RESPONSE TO DRAFT PLANS FOR THE HORACE WILLIAMS AND
MASON FARM TRACTS
June e 17, 1996
Introduction
The UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel would like to extend its appreciation for the opportunity
to participate in this collaborative long-range planning process with the University. We feel
comfortable that the University's needs will be met and that the community's concerns will be
satisfied with the development of the Horace Williams and Mason Farm tracts.
The Planning Panel believes that the University has listed carefully to community concerns and
has incorporated them into the draft land use plans. We are very impressed with the draft
plans that were presented by Johnson, Johnson and Roy on May 23 and, again, appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments.
This report offers a few comments and recommendati ons on the most recent draft land use
plans. We hope that the Council will endorse our recommendations and that the University
will consider these comments as it completes final plans for these properties. .
We look forward to receiving the final land use plans for the Horace Williams and Mason
Farm tracts in the fall.
14
HOR.ACE WILLIAMS TRACT
Um� Villaue
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 2nd Bufferin g
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.
Pnhlie School Rite
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.
Aesthetim
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 entrance points and achieving a
vegetated buffer for neighborhood protection or for screening obtrusive uses.
-Page 2
arse .�'�,'�Y :ft f �` t•o� s� `_' - � �
i •
b -,7194 •
Al
149
LEM
MA
�' I4 X11 {:
� L.
y.�� I ' m •
t
t\>./�
"_' SSA v�.�!':, 1Si 1 �t"I �•.
•
•
r � f
VIR; "v ^+ t l •�
zz
7
fQ���
.. y �'.��. It,
LV
w AL
RV h7
A,
r _ r
•
•
Y fir". •„-.-`'y - ` ' � ,. 71f��C � r��"'�''.
s d sU' ♦t rJ �- r
p- �, ��� ` ` Z�`IM , ♦,eta � #'-
:gip„ • .�.i,.i'_ JN. R�.,t�s".. �i]. ����.'� M /
,,.,.sue `c.v �¢ ^' s. � �� t � -' �� , t♦
/ .j�? may; �5�`�1/{�'.L•" ,� r' ,f,. ?. lU~ i�`�yR'�` y�'�
�,"I 1 atoms -
'�+��!
d % •% '
J
'�9�y { "".,� -^+.� �r'�� N�!�_ `�1,1•���rly .+fit � � C"�r,
�s-
i• fir. �� ��� �� r� �
Ira
IA
III;fit-
AW
!"iii
��
'•mss" P' - �"'�I Q s:.
I
1
BOARD OF ALDERMEN 18
ITEM NO.
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
MEETING DATE: August 20, 1996
SUBJECT: UNC LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC FORUM & REPORT FROM
CARRBORO'S UNC LAND USE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC NEARING: YES_NO
ATTACNMENTS: FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Proposed UNC Outlying Properties Land Roy M. Williford, 968-7713
Use Plan -T
2. Environmental Subcommittee Report
3. Minority Report from Carrboro's Land Use t' 44v:
Advisory Committee tee _
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS PROVIDED:
(x)Purpose (x)Action Requested 0 Analysis
(x) Summary 0 Recommendation
PURPOSE:
The staff will provide a brief overview of the proposed UNC Outlying Properties Land Use Plan
members of the Carrboro UNC Land Use Advisory Committee will present their reports, and a public
forum will be held by the Board of Aldermen to receive public input on the plan proposed by UNC.
SUMMARY:
Carrboro's University Land Use Planning Advisory Committee (UNC Land Use Committee)first met on
November 29, 1994 and has continued to work with UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill to formulate a
plan for the future use of outlying properties owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The committee has primarily focused on two of UNC's properties located in Carrboro's jurisdiction. These
two properties include the 58-acre "Homestead Tract" located north of Homestead Road along Bolin
Creek, and the 306-acre "Horace Williams Tract" located west of Seawell School Road, north of the Fair
Oaks Subdivision, east of the Cobblestone Subdivision, and south of Homestead Road. The UNC Land
Use Committee, to carry out its charge, has met over 30 times(22 Committee Meetings, 1 reconnaissance
meeting, and 7 community advisory meetings with UNC & Chapel Hill) and has presented reports before
the Board of Aldermen twice. The Board of Aldermen issued the following charge to the UNC Land Use
Committee on October 11, 1994:
• To define and advocate for the Town of Carrboro's interest and objectives with regard to any plans
proposed for the University-Owned lands;
• To keep the Mayor and Board of Aldermen informed about the work progress;
• to identify points in the process where a public hearing would be appropriate, to bring information to
the attention of the community, and provide opportunity for citizen comment;
• To prepare recommendations for the Mayor and Board of Aldermen's consideration regarding plans
that are prepared.
19
In its preliminary report to the Board of Aldermen on August 22, 1995, the UNC Land Use Committee
identified the following:
• Designate Bolin Creek and its adjacent lands containing steep slopes, flood plains, and a continuos
hardwood and mixed hardwood/pine forest as a distinctive natural heritage area that needs to be
protected and preserved for future generations;
• Create a 100 yard buffer circumscribing the hardwood forest along Bolin Creek;
• Provide passive pathways along Bolin Creek connected with the old grist mill site and the area
proposed as a neighborhood park on the south east corner of the property;
• Provide a new east west connecting arterial, that does not cross Bolin Creek or fracture the hardwood
forest, linking Homestead Road with Seawell School Road.
• Provide an intermodal hub or transfer station in conjunction with the intersection of the east west
connector, Seawell School Road, and the rail road slated to serve as a future transit corridor;
• Show with a directional arrow, the east west connector continuing in an eastward direction across the
Horace Williams Tract in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction to provide a connection with Airport Road and
other internal routes designated in the future.
Following the preliminary report made by the committee on August 22,1995 the UNC consultants,
Johnson Johnson & Roy Inc. (JJR), released a set of alternative land use plans for UNC's outlying
properties. Carrboro's Advisory Committee reviewed the alternatives as presented and formulated the
following consensus on December 6, 1995:
1. The Northwest portion of the Horace William's tract should be considered part of the natur
heritage area along Bolin Creek, should be preserved and not be used for development.
2. The portion of the Horace William's tract located south of Bolin Creek shoMo lds a
public park ark and slated for some sort of recreational use.
3. Transit stop as shown in "A" and road alignment as shown in"C". High ad Extension
as shown on Plan"B".
4. Preserve Bolin Creek and associated flood plain, steep slopes, and hardwood/mixed hardwood
forest as a natural heritage corridor.
5. Concerned about storm water management issues associated with the development of the tract, and
these issues will need to be explored further in the future.
6. Housing and any other development should be located in such a fashion so as to not impact the
creek and should have significant set backs to preserve and protect the integrity of the Bolin Creek
Corridor.
7. Extend existing (High School Road) and proposed road into Chapel Hill side of campus to allow
multiple east-west access between Chapel Hill and Carrboro and provide north-south access from Estes
through Airport(connection to the south).
On January 3, 1996, Carrboro's Advisory Committee produced a recommended land use plan and on
January 30, 1996, the Carrboro Advisory Committee and the Chapel Hill Planning Panel met jointly to
discuss issues and points of consensus associated with the UNC Land Use Plan. JJR (consultants for
UNC) met with local advisory committees on 2/7/96 to discuss and obtain feedback on alternative land
use proposals. The Board of Aldermen received a status report on March 19, 1996 and requested the
agenda planning committee to schedule a public forum.
The University presented a draft plan on May 23, 1996. This plan (attached) proposes a transit oriented
mixed use style of development with a University Village similar to old campus densities centered around
two transit stops located along the existing rail corridor. In Carrboro's jurisdiction the university village is
bordered on the west by a new road connecting Homestead Road, east of Bolin Creek, with Seawell
1
School Road. West of the Seawell Road connector, a 60 acre portion of the property bordering Bolin 20
Creek is proposed for Independent Use which will accommodate academic, research, administration,
technology transfer and park and ride lots. A 37 acre Flood Plain is bordered by a 31 acre Stream
Conservation Buffer that runs along Bolin Creek. On the southeast corner of the property, north of the
Spring Valley and Fair Oaks Subdivision, an 18 acre Passive Recreation area is proposed The remaining
area (60 acres) south and west of Bolin Creek and adjacent to Cobblestone, Wexford, Sudbury, and Fair
Oaks subdivisions is proposed for Housing, Passive Recreation, or Disposition. The Homestead Tract
located west of Camden and the Highlands subdivisions, and east of the Lake Hogan Farms subdivision is
proposed'for Housing or Disposition with 15 acres of Flood Plain and 9 acres of Stream Buffer.
The Carrboro UNC Land Use Advisory Committee met on June 10, 1996 to develop a response to the
proposed plans. As a result of this meeting, the attached committee reports have be vided for review
by the Board of Aldermen.
ACTION REQUESTED:
That the Board of Aldermen accept the attached committee reports, receive public comment, and provide
the University Land Use Planning Advisory Committee with comments and further direction as deemed
appropriate.
1
21
UNIVERSITY LAND USE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
. 5 ► ! 1 `
AIMI ST
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCOM ffF EE MEMBERS
-----------------------------------------�-------------------
CARLA BALL i KEITH BURWELL I Tom HIGH
:.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
;
While the Environmental Subcommittee appreciates the receptiveness of JJR to
our comments throughout the planning process to date, we believe the recommendations
listed below would further enhance the development plan for the Horace Williams site.
The following recommendations are proposed based on the development plan of
the Horace Williams site as presented by JJR consultants to UNC-CH May 22-24, 1446.
• It is important that the buffers surrounding the Bolin Creek corridor be located outside the
floodplain along the creek.
• We are opposed to any housing on the west side of Bolin Creek in the section south of
Homestead Road. This is particularly true for the northwest hardwood area. We are also
very concerned that this area has been designated "disposition" by JJR. This
Subcommittee has always maintained this area to be unsuitable for single family housing
given the potential impact on Bolin Creek and the surrounding natural area. JJR's
definition of housing includes multi-family housing units for possibly both university and
non-university markets as well as fraternity/sorority housing. The past and present
development in north Carrboro has had a significant negative impact on Bolin Creek to
date. The type of development proposed by JJR on this plan would be devastating to this
area which is truly a prize in the Town of Carrboro and a treasured slice of nature for
many of the residents that regularly walk,jog, birdwatch, bike, and walk their dogs there.
Adverse impacts caused by JJR's proposed development plan would include an
increase in impervious surface, increased fertilizers and pesticides from
landscaping as well as increased trampling effect of fragile flora and fauna.
=> The housing designations on the plan are in direct conflict with the planning
principle stated by JJR to preserve significant environmental resources and
concentrate development in the least environmentally sensitive areas.
These designated housing areas are not easily accessible to transit nodes
designated on the plan.
t
22
Aur,d 05, 1996
P'ar #2
• JJR consultants spoke proudly of preserving 6 hardwood areas comprising 125 acres. As
we have repeatedly emphasized, small, fragmented areas of hardwoods are virtually
meaningless from an environmental point of view. Once edge effects are accounted for,
the area is often too small to sustain the animal life which requires large contiguous tracts
of hardwoods. Environmentally productive hardwood areas are large contiguous tracts,
not small separated fragments.
• JJR mentioned surface parking throughout this site simply because the space exists. They
have repeatedly said the site capacity at Horace Williams exceeds the road capacity. We
would encourage a more thoughtful approach to parking to reduce the amount of
impervious surface on the site. This would include parking ability underneath buildings
as well as small decks. If surface parking is pursued, we encourage leaving large
specimen trees throughout such parking areas. This has been successfully done in other
areas of the country and provides aesthetic appeal in addition to pleasant shade.
• This subcommittee wants to encourage a designation of passive recreation along the west
part of the Bolin Creek corridor to the south of Homestead Road. Areas of active
recreation are designated in other locations on this site plan. Passive recreation is often
overlooked by recreation planners but deserves thoughtful consideration alongside active
recreation sites. The two really should not be in conflict since most areas suitable for
active recreation are open, clear flat areas as opposed to the more natural, wooded
environment preferred for passive recreation. We are concerned that JJR has a park and
stormwater detention ponds listed under their passive recreation definition. We need
clarification of these terms.
• We very much appreciate that roadways have not been designated to cross the Bolin
Creek corridor. This will go a long way to protecting what remains of this fragile
ecosystem.
23
t
UNIVERSITY LAND USE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A T.
JULY 34, 1996
................
........... ...........................................................................................---....................-----......-----..................................---........----...-----:
--------------- MINORITYsuBcoALIIITTEEAfF.MBms
---------r-T----------------------------
HEIDI PEROV PERRY
GARY GILES
.................................................................................................
..............................:
BASIS OF REPORT: CARRBORO'S CONNECTIVITY WITH ITS NORTHERN
TRANSITION AREA AND THE HORACE WILLIAMS
TRACT.
THE FOLLOWING PRESENTS THE POSITION OFA MINORITY ON THEADVISORY COMMITTEE.
We agree with the majority of our Committee on all substantive issues surrounding
the Committee's recommendations to the Board on the UNC Master Plan for the Horace
Williams Tract with one exception:
CARRBORO SHOULD KEEP ITS OPTIONS OPEN WITH REGARD TO A FUTURE
VEHICULAR CONNECTION FROM THE FAIROAKS AREA OF CARRBORO TO
THE PROPOSED SEAWELL ROAD TO HOMESTEAD ROAD ILLUSTRATED ON
THE PRESENT MASTER PLAN.
1. The development of the Northern UNC campus on the Horace Williams
Tract will prove to be a strong economic center and one which Carrboro
should fully embrace. We therefore need more than two points of connection
in order to be competitive with Chapel Hill for the support services and uses
the future campus will demand.
2. There will be a need to provide more linkages between this future campus
and Carrboro to distribute traffic more evenly throughout the area.
There are minimal routes connecting Carrboro with its Northern
Transition Area. To date there are only two such roads, Old Fayetteville
Road/Old 86 and Stratford Drive/Cates Farm Road, which are wholly
within Carrboro's planning jurisdiction. Providing an additional road
connection through the Horace Williams Tract will result in much
greater efficiencies for governmental services such as police, fire,
sanitation, recycling, and bus.
24
f�,Jy 30, 194
Aq. #2
I Minimal environmental damage to the Bolin Creek stream and basin can be
achieved with a properly designed bridge crossing; one that is aesthetically
attractive and respective of human and wildlife movement through the Bolin
Creek corridor. Far greater adverse impact on the stream and basin is
occurring and will .continue to occur from human use and development
parallel to its flow; not from occasional and necessary perpendicular
crossings.
A well designed bridge crossing will accommodate not only motorized
vehicles, but also non-motorized vehicles and pedestrian traffic.
For the above reasons we ask that the Board request that a right of way and road be
inserted in the UNC Master Plan for the Horace Williams Tract in order that we not lose
the option for a future link to the north and its economic potential for Carrboro's urban
development