AGENDA #6

MEMORANDUM

To:                   Mayor and Town Council

From:               Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee

Subject:           Process for the Development of the Horace Williams Property (Carolina North)

Date:               January 23, 2006  (updated from Jan 6)

The Council requested the Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee (HWCC) to develop recommendations on a process for the development of the Horace William Property, specifically on how to involve the public at all stages.  Here are our recommendations for your review and discussion.  To a large degree we relied on the attached December 6, 2005 Culpepper memo as a starting point for thinking about how a process involving the public should be approached.      

Since zoning authority resides with the Town, we think it appropriate for Chapel Hill to take the initiative to develop the framework for achieving a new zone in collaboration with UNC, while seeking advice and counsel from its partners.  We think the Town is in the best position to seek broad community input.  Indeed the present Horace Williams Citzens’ Committee represents a broad spectrum of the community and has provided the Council with important input from the community already.   The Committee’s work is the January 28, 2004 report, “Principles, Goals and Strategies for guiding Development of the Horace Williams Property,” which you accepted and forwarded to the UNC trustees in April 2004.  This report has informed us and provides a basis for these recommendations. 

We invite the soon-to-be-formed UNC Committee chaired by Ken Broun to meet with our committee to review and comment on our 2004 report.  We are eager to hear UNC’s comments which then could elicit further input from HWCC or the Council.  We also recommend that the Council clarify with UNC the role and process of the UNC Committee, so as not to waste more citizen and staff hours.   

We agree the Horace Williams property will need a "redesigned" zone to ensure an integrated and cohesive development.  However, we think the unique characteristics of this undeveloped property and its location in the community require the Town, in cooperation with UNC, to undertake several basic foundation studies – referred to in the Culpepper memo as “key considerations”.  Ideally, all parties )UNC, the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and Orange County) would agree on a framework for next steps.  In fact, UNC, Chapel Hill and Carrboro have already begun one foundation element, a transportation study.  We see the development process as following this sequence of stages:

A. The Town(s) and UNC agree on total process.  If no agreement reached, Chapel Hill invites input and proceeds with next step of developing foundation studies.     

B. Chapel Hill develops basic foundation elements with UNC and citizen input: transportation, land use, conservation, and basic principles.  

C. In collaboration with UNC, the Town creates a new zone, inviting input from public, County and Carrboro. 

D. Town reviews UNC master plans using foundation studies as a guide.  

E. Development review stage: detailed development plans are submitted for each phase of the project, ensuring sufficient review time by staff and  public.

Here follows more detailed descriptions of each stage listed above, recommendations on how to proceed, and suggested methods for ensuring public participation at each step:

A.  Agree on basic process  

Recommendation: Town Council develops a framework for getting input from UNC, Carrboro and Orange County decision makers for a development process.  If no agreement is reached, Chapel Hill moves ahead with all foundation elements, inviting comment at appropriate stages from UNC, Carrboro, and Orange County. 

B.  Foundation Elements and Principles                

We recommend that the Council begin the foundation studies right away.  Previous UNC and Town studies already point to the need for their development.  Unlike the structure of the OI-4 district zone adopted in 2001 for the central campus, the development of this property requires basic infrastructure not presently in place. To prevent the new campus from overwhelming northern Chapel Hill, careful planning needs to occur for all the foundation elements.  We think this is the appropriate stag to consult with outside experts.  We've added land use as an additional foundation element.  

Transportation:  We need to develop a Transit Plan to establish transportation capacity needs up front with UNC and Carrboro.  Thanks to Council initiative, this foundation element is well underway.

We recommend the Council expedite the Long Range Transit Plan and convene the Public Transit Committee in February 06, and invite Carrboro to be part of this effort. This is a key element and needs to be in place before the zoning step is undertaken.

Public input:  Transit Committee holds several public forums and small group discussions, sponsor surveys for feedback, and Town provides web site materials.  

Land Conservation and Protection:  Our Horace Williams committee document, “Principles, Goals and Strategies” recommends preserving “in perpetuity the maximum amount of open space possible with a goal of preserving 75% of the Horace Williams property as stated by the University.”  The first step is for UNC to share ideas, as well as their consultant studies on this topic, with the Town.  The second step would be for the Town to appoint a Conservation Committee to recommend to the Town Council areas appropriate for permanent conservation.  A subcommittee of the Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee could address this task with additional Council representation.

Recommendation #1:  (1) UNC shares ideas and consultant materials on areas to be conserved.  (2) Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee or an especially appointed Town conservation committee including UNC representation, develop a conservation map, using Orange County experts, previous County studies, and DENHR’s Little Creek Watershed Assessment describing sensitive habitat areas along Bolin Creek.  (3) Town invites UNC comment on proposed conservation map, including Trustees.  (4) Town holds public hearing and adopts a Conservation Map.

Recommendation #2:  UNC submits Remediation plan for landfill. Town staff asks outside technical expert to review results, requests community input.  Town signs off

            Recommendation #3:  Toxics.

Land Use: Land use decisions depend on UNC objectives and on the identified principles in the 2004 Report to Council.  For example, the Transit plan will indicate capacity limitations.  

Recommendation: The Mayor and Council request UNC to submit a list of  desired land uses and land use intensities desired for the project. The Council could request the Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee to review the types of land uses [i.e. residential, commercial, office, lab, research, recreational, parking, etc.], and the intensity of each use [i.e. square footage of buildings, height of improvements, number of residential units, number of parking spaces, amount of impervious cover, etc.] to assess they are within parameters defined by Transit Plan, the Conservation Map, and the 2004 Principles Report.  Feedback to UNC.

Public Input:  public hearings, community input through discussion groups, joint meetings between Council, HWCC, and Advisory Committees.      

Fiscal Equity:   The Town has requested that UNC as the future developer pay an independent consultant to develop a fiscal equity model to estimate direct revenue and cost from the development.  The Institute of Government would choose the consultant and the process would be jointly supervised.  UNC and the Town would determine if the model is acceptable.  The Chancellor has agreed to a process but the project has not yet moved forward.

Recommendation #1: Town and UNC move forward with the proposed process to develop a fiscal equity model.  Town initiates a Fiscal review committee composed of experts to review fiscal impacts findings and report to Council. 

Recommendation #2: We recommend that UNC and the Town reach general agreement on the infrastructure improvements that will need to be in place before zoning discussions begin.

Include public by holding a public hearing requesting comment on UNC study results.     

Principles:  Our 2004 Horace Williams committee document, “Principles, Goals and Strategies” describes a number of principles and recommendations. 

Recommendation:  Council request that Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee develop measures and visual depictions for each principle identified in the 2004 Report.

Public input:  public hearings, discussion groups chaired by Council or Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee.

C. Create zone   Creating a new zone will involve determining land uses, intensity of development, transportation issues, conservation areas, and all the rest.  The Foundation study results will describe the infrastructure capacity limitations needed on which to construct a zone without harming area residents.  UNC is the only entity that can decide when to begin the development process on this land.  Therefore, it would be wise to begin this step only when UNC is ready to move forward.  If we start too early on this stage, we could waste an enormous amount of time and energy.  A previous 2 year UNC-Town zone negotiation produced a zone for the Horace Williams property, MX-150, which was later rejected by UNC Board of Trustees.    

            Recommendations:

a. Once UNC agrees to move forward to participate in creating a zone, the Town should plan how to include Trustees early in the process.  This might be appropriate stage to hold joint visualization exercise or “Charette”with UNC administration and Trustees.  For example, the Council could ask the Horace Williams Committee to develop visual examples which meet our report principles.  We would share those examples with the public first, and then hold a special session with trustees.  UNC input would be communicated to everyone, including Council and HW Committee.  

b. Agree in principle that the negotiating committee will be informed by outside experts who can offer object analysis about appearance, functions, and land uses and what are the appropriate stages to employ them.   Examples of types of expertise:   

i. Conservation expert, Little Creek Watershed Assessment Final Report

ii. Storm water expert:  e.g., Rich McLauglin, NC State

iii. At development plan stage, employ critique by outside architect on building appearance, use of space and function.

c. Public involvement:  Form Community advisory committee or use existing Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee to give input during negotiation at designated stages.  

d. During negotiation of zone, build in phased development percentages tied to capacity to ensure development plans on ground do not exceed capacity.  

e. UNC and Town reach agreement on enforcement provisions

Public input:  public hearings, web postings, visualization exercises with the public, Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee and Town Advisory Committee input.

D. Review concept development plans (Master Plan stage)

Recommendations:  We recommend the following sequence:

a. UNC submits concept plans.

b. Town reviews concept plans using foundation studies as a guide.

c. UNC and Town employ “Visualization of plans” so public can interact with UNC proposals:  use charettes open to the public.

d. Include experts at this stage, e.g. storm water controls needed given intensity, water quality impacts, architect to critique appearance and functions.

    Public input:   public hearings, charettes

E. Development review stage – detailed development plans

Recommendations:

a. Build in adequate review time for staff to review plans and to make comments;  allow time for public input

b. Noise abatement plan, and other applicable principles from 2004 Report 

We welcome the opportunity to answer questions and to be of further assistance in developing a process for the development of UNC’s Horace Williams tract.   Please contact Julie McClintock, Chair of the Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee, for more information.  [email protected] or at 541-5339.

Ruby Sinreich of HWCC prepared the attached visual representation of this process.