AGENDA #13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Rezoning, Fiscal Equity, and Land Conservation Issues Related to the Horace Williams Property (Carolina North)
DATE: December 6, 2004
This memorandum responds to the Council’s request for information on zoning, fiscal equity and land conservation issues discussed in the Principles, Goals and Strategies for Guiding the Development of the Horace Williams Property (Carolina North) report.
The attached resolution would call a public hearing for Monday, March 21, 2005, to consider rezoning the portion of the Horace Williams property within the Town of Chapel Hill, adjacent street right-of-way and intervening and adjacent railroad right-of-way (Tax Map Numbers 7.24..43C, 7.24..49C, 7.29..1A, 7.29..1B) that is currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2.
BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2004, the Council adopted a resolution accepting the Principles, Goals and Strategies for Guiding the Development of the Horace Williams Property report developed by the Horace Williams Citizens Committee. The resolution stated that the Council would “carefully review each of the recommendations to determine which ones need further work and how to go about doing so.”
On May 24, 2004, the Council referred the University’s “Conceptual Draft Master Plan” PowerPoint presentation on Carolina North of May 5, 2004, to the Horace Williams Citizens Committee for input on how the presentation compares with the recommendations in the Principles, Goals and Strategies report.
The Committee developed the comparative analysis in a series of meetings in June through September, presenting the final report to the Council on October 11, 2004. At that time, the Council asked for this follow-up report concerning:
· A process for rezoning to Office/Institutional-2 that portion of the Horace Williams tract that is within the Town of Chapel Hill.
· Options for establishing a committee to address fiscal equity concerns as described in the Principles, Goals and Strategies report and analysis.
· Options for permanently protecting areas of the Horace Williams tract from development.
DISCUSSION: Rezoning PROCESS
The Horace Williams Principles, Goals and Strategies report includes the following statement as a Transportation and Land Use principle:
“Retain existing zoning of OI-2 and rezone balance of property OI-2. Engage University officials in dialogue about the regulatory approach to the Horace Williams tract at the early stages of planning for Carolina North.”
The report recommended zoning the property Office/Institutional-2 while discussions take place with the University concerning the future development of the property. We believe that the Office/Institutional-2 category likely would not accommodate the type of development depicted in the University’s May 5, 2004 presentation on Carolina North, which showed a total of more than 8 million square feet of floor space at build-out.
Map 1, attached, shows the University’s Carolina North illustration along with the Town’s zoning and property lines.
Current Zoning
The Horace Williams property within the Town of Chapel Hill contains three zoning districts: Residential-2, Office/Institutional-2, and Office/Institutional-3 (see Map 2, attached). In addition, an Airport Hazard overlay zone extends from the western edge of the airport runway in the Office-Institutional-3 portion of the property east to the Town Limits. The following table summarizes key features of the zoning districts:
|
District |
R-2 |
OI-2 |
OI-3 |
|
Permitted Uses |
• Low Residential |
• All Residential • Office/Institutional |
• All Residential • Office/Institutional • Hospital • Hotel • Place of Assembly |
|
Floor Area Ratio |
.093 |
.264 |
.566 |
|
Height Limit |
50’ |
60’ |
None |
|
Approval |
Council |
Council |
Planning Board |
North of Estes Drive Extension
The portion of the tract in Chapel Hill north of Estes Drive Extension, totaling approximately 621 acres, currently carries three zoning designations (please see Map 2). Specifically:
South of Estes Drive Extension
Approximately 61 acres the University owns south of Estes Drive currently carry two zoning designations (please see Map 2).
These areas are not included within the Carolina North project area as described in the University’s May 2004 presentation.
These areas were considered for rezoning by the Council in 1994. At that time, the Council rezoned the 5-acre tract west of Airport Road and the 21-acre tract just south of Estes Drive Extension from Office/Institutional-3 to Office/Institutional-2, and it elected not to consider rezoning the property south of Estes Drive Extension with existing University buildings including the Physical Plant and the Giles Horney Building.
Because the Committee’s focus has been on the areas north of Estes Drive Extension, we believe the recommendation to rezone the property relates only to those areas.
Rezoning Options
The following are options the Council could consider:
· Rezone areas of the tract north of Estes Drive to Office/Institutional-2 that now are zoned Office/Institutional-3 and Residential-2.
Comment: This option would allow more development in areas currently zoned Residential-2, and less development in the portion zoned Office/Institutional-3. A future rezoning would likely be required for a development of the scale presented by the University on May 5, 2004.
· Rezone the Office/Institutional-3 area north of Estes Drive to Office/Institutional-2, leaving the Residential-2 zoning intact.
Comment: This option would have the same effect as the first option, but result in less density in the Residential-2 portion.
The Carolina North concept presented in May 2004 shows much of the proposed development focused on the Office/Institutional-2 zoned portions of the site around the Horace Williams Airport, south of the Office/Institutional-3 zoning district.
Process for Rezoning
Section 4.4.1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance states that the Zoning Atlas may be initiated by:
· The Council, on its own motion;
· The Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, Historic District Commission, or Community Design Commission, on submittal of a request to the Council;
· The Town Manager, on submittal of a request to the Council; or
· Any property owner or citizen, or agent thereof, on submittal of an application to the Town Manager.
Zoning determines the type and intensity of uses and development that are allowed on a piece of land. A rezoning involves a change to the zoning of the land. In Chapel Hill, a rezoning may be a general use or a conditional use rezoning request. A general use rezoning request is to change the zoning to a different zoning district in which any of several kinds of developments and uses are permissible. A conditional use rezoning request is to allow development and uses only with approval of a Special Use Permit. This rezoning proposal would be a general use rezoning. Conditional use zoning must be requested by the property owner.
The zoning designation of a property determines the range of land uses and development intensities permitted on the property. Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning Atlas Amendments by stating:
“In order to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development within the planning jurisdiction of the Town it is intended that this chapter shall not be amended except:
a. to correct a manifest error in the chapter; or
b. because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally; or
c. to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.”
Article 4.4 further indicates:
“It is further intended that, if amended, this chapter be amended only as reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.”
The Land Use Management Ordinance requires a public hearing on a rezoning request, and review by the Planning Board prior to the public hearing. A more detailed staff report would be prepared, analyzing the proposal in terms of the findings the Council needs to make, providing a comparison of what key provisions would be allowed or prevented in each district, and proposing an effective date.
In accordance with State law, Section 4.4.2(i) of the Land Use Management Ordinance provides for the submittal of protest petitions, which if effective, require the favorable vote of not less than seven members of the Council. Should the Council call a public hearing on this proposal, the hearing would be advertised and information on protest petitions provided to the public.
The attached resolution would call a public hearing for Monday, March 21, 2005, to consider rezoning the portion of the Horace Williams property within the Town of Chapel Hill, adjacent street right-of-way and intervening and adjacent railroad right-of-way (Tax Map Numbers 7.24..43C, 7.24..49C, 7.29..1A, 7.29..1B) that is currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2.
Discussions with the University
The Horace Williams Citizens Committee’s report, in addition to recommending rezoning portions of the Horace Williams tract Office/Institutional-2, recommends that the Town “engage University officials in dialogue about the regulatory approach to the Horace Williams tract at the early stages of planning for Carolina North.”
We believe it would be worthwhile for the Council to pursue the Committee’s recommendation to discuss with the University issues related to Carolina North. For example, the Council might consider an alternative to rezoning, such as requesting a commitment from the University not to submit a development application or master plan for the property while discussions took place with the Town.
If the Council wishes to pursue this approach, we recommend that the Council request assurances from the University that no development application would be submitted for Carolina North before January 2006, or another date of the Council’s choosing. Until that time the Council and the University would have the opportunity to discuss key issues, including transportation and transit services, potential development intensity, preservation of open space, and fiscal equity issues.
DISCUSSION: Fiscal Equity
The Horace Williams Citizens Committee’s report submitted to the Council on October 11, 2004, includes the following comment:
“We feel that the fiscal plan is as important as the physical plan. As a consequence, we strongly urge the Town to set up a structure to measure and evaluate fiscal impacts and take other actions recommended in this section prior to the development review process.”
The Principles, Goals and Strategies report recommends several specific strategies related to fiscal equity (see Attachment 1).
The Town Council has in the past attempted to reach a formal agreement with the University on fiscal equity issues. Most recently, in November 2001, University Chancellor James Moeser stated in a letter that the Board of Trustees considered a formal memorandum of understanding unnecessary (see Attachment 2).
Options
Option A: The Council could consider implementing a recommendation in the Principles, Goals and Strategies report to establish a committee that would develop a set of community indicators and produce a report on fiscal equity issues. The report stated that the committee members should not be associated with Town or University operations. Such a committee could examine the applicability of issues raised in previous fiscal equity discussions and discuss further the feasibility of the fiscal equity strategies in the Principles, Goals and Strategies report, such as requiring a fiscal impact statement with each new building or project.
Option B: Another option would be to ask the University, as a potential future developer, to pay an independent consultant to develop a fiscal equity model that could be used to estimate direct revenues and direct costs that would result from proposed development of University lands. The Institute of Government could assist in the selection of a consultant, with the Council approving the selection. A joint committee appointed by the Council and the University could review consultant work and provide feedback on a proposed fiscal equity model.
DISCUSSION: Land Conservation
The Principles, Goals and Strategies report 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 report further recommends using conservation easements, and designating and protecting “areas that serve as passive recreation opportunities, as wildlife habitat, and as buffers along Bolin Creek and Crow Branch. Establish as much of the open space as possible as a contiguous area.”
In addition the report calls for the University to conduct a natural resources inventory to guide development of the site and “permanently protect designated environmental assets.” The report cites the University’s Carolina North Infrastructure Report of May 2003 to:
“Identify and delineate Carolina North’s most valuable environmental assets that merit permanent protection. These assets include critical habitat, hardwood forests, steep slopes, streams, perennial and intermittent tributaries, stream buffers … and other riparian buffers. Preserve these assets by inviolable means, such as conservation easements or land trusts.
“Identify other environmental assets that merit protection. These assets include green space, open space, tree stands and a specified protected acreage or percent. Preserve these assets by means that are durable and allow the best future environmental decisions (e.g., Board of Trustees policy).”
Options
Following are potential strategies and issues related to preserving portions of the property:
· Preserve land through the zoning process.
Comment: The Town could establish a zoning district for the site whereby density would be transferred from one portion of the property to allow more intense development on another portion of the site. This option would preserve areas from where the development rights were transferred; however, the provisions would be enforceable only as long as the development permit is in place and the Town maintains legal authority to regulate development of University-owned land.
· Enforcement of stream buffers and other environmental regulations.
Comment: A provision of the State’s Technical Corrections Bill, enacted as Session Law 2004-199, modified municipal zoning authority over projects proposed by the State and units of local government. Under the provisions of the new law, which became effective October 1, 2004, municipal zoning authority extends to development of land proposed by the State and State and local governmental units. Present law provides that local zoning applies to buildings. In addition, under this new statute, this publicly-owned property will now be subject to local overlay zoning districts.
The provision means that areas of the Horace Williams tract would be subject to the restrictions in the Resource Conservation District. Large segments of the environmentally sensitive portions of the property would be protected through the Resource Conservation District rules for as long as the rules were applicable to University property. However, these areas would comprise substantially less than the 75 percent of the total site.
· Lease of Property.
Comment: The University could lease property to another agency, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, with conditions. As an example, the University entered into a 99 year lease from the State to the Faculty Recreation Club (“the Farm”).
· Volunteer donation of conservation easement to public or private entity.
Comment: The University could transfer real property and interests in real property by private sale to a public entity or a private non-profit entity which carries out a public purpose. By following certain procedures, such a transfer of an interest in most University property could be completed. Unlike leases, conservation easements can have an indefinite life.
We note the University’s Infrastructure Committee Report called for measures to delineate valuable environmental assets, including critical habitat, hardwood forests, steep slopes, streams, perennial and intermittent tributaries, stream buffer and other riparian buffers, and to preserve these assets “by inviolable means, such as conservations easements or land trusts.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rezoning
If the Council wishes to pursue rezoning the Office/Institutional-3 and Residential-2 portions of the Horace Williams property to Office/Institutional-2, we suggest calling a public hearing on the proposal in March 2005. The attached resolution would do so. As an alternative, we recommend that the Council consider the option of discussions with the University.
Fiscal Equity
This memorandum has presented two options for the Council’s consideration: a) implement the Report’s recommendation to establish a committee, and b) ask the University as a potential future developer to pay an independent consultant to develop a fiscal equity model, with review by a jointly appointed committee. We recommend option B.
Land Conservation
We believe it would not be possible for the Town to require a substantial portion of the Horace Williams tract to remain undeveloped “in perpetuity.” However, the University could voluntarily take steps to protect areas of the property from development through, for example, entering into a conservation easement or a lease agreement with a land conservancy or another public agency. We recommend that the Council engage the University in discussions about this issue.
ATTACHMENTS
MAPS
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY (2004-12-06/R-16)
WHEREAS, the 2000 Comprehensive Plan includes a strategy to continue the Town’s involvement in planning for the future development of the Horace Williams property, with a focus on exploring ways in which future development can help achieve Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives in areas such as transit, mixed-use development, employment, and University housing; and
WHEREAS, the Council appointed a Horace Williams Citizens Committee to develop a set of Principles, including community interests and goals and objectives, to guide the Council’s deliberations with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill regarding the development of the Horace Williams property (Carolina North); and
WHEREAS, the Council accepted a report of the Committee, “Principles, Goals, and Strategies for the Horace Williams Property” on March 22, 2004; and
WHEREAS, a recommendation of that report is that the Council consider rezoning of the property from its current zoning of a combination of Office/Institutional-2, Office/ Institutional-3, and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2 while the Council and University consider future conceptual plans for the Horace Williams property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing for Monday, March 21, 2004 to consider rezoning of the portion of the Horace Williams property within the Town of Chapel Hill, adjacent street right-of-way and intervening and adjacent railroad right-of-way (Tax Map Numbers 7.24..43C, 7.24..49C, 7.29..1A, 7.29..1B) that is currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2 as shown on the attached Map 3 contained in the Manager’s memorandum to Council of December 6, 2004.
This the 6th day of December, 2004.