AGENDA #1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Public Hearings: Rezonings of Portions of Horace Williams Property

DATE: March 21, 2005

The Town Council has called tonight’s public hearings to consider rezoning portions of the Horace Williams tract within Chapel Hill, adjacent street right-of-way and intervening and adjacent railroad right-of-way currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2 (Tax Map Numbers 7.24..43C; 7.24..49C; portion of 7.29..1A; 7.29..1B).

This package of material has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:

¨ Cover Memorandum: Summarizes the proposals, reviews procedures for review and offers a preliminary recommendation for Council action.

¨ Attachments: Includes ordinances approving and resolutions denying the rezonings (please see Attachments 1 to 4), advisory board recommendations on the proposals, and associated materials.

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 a 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.

On October 15, 2004, James Moeser, Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote in a letter to Mayor Foy that the University objected to the proposed rezoning (please see Attachment 5).

On December 6, 2004, the Council received the follow-up report. At its January 10, 2005 meeting, the Council discussed the report and adopted a resolution calling public hearings for Monday, March 21, 2005, to consider rezoning portions of the Horace Williams property (please see Attachments 6 and 7).

DISCUSSION

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 recommends 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. (Please see Attachment 8 for a list of the permitted uses in each district.)

District	R-2	OI-2	OI-3
Permitted Uses	• Low Residential	• All Residential • Office/Institutional	• All Residential • Office/Institutional • Hospital • Hotel • Place of Assembly
Maximum Density	4 dwelling units/acre	15 dwelling units/acre	Not Applicable
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:

About 167 acres just north of Estes Drive Extension and the North Haven subdivision already are zoned Office/Institutional-2, the Town’s standard office designation. The airport runway and immediately surrounding areas are included in the zoning district. This area is not proposed for rezoning.

A large central area of approximately 286 acres, extending west of Airport Road to Seawell School Road, is zoned Office/Institutional-3. This is the zoning designation that, for many years, applied to the UNC Central Campus. It establishes fewer requirements than most Chapel Hill zoning districts, and does not require a Council public hearing and approval process for development to be approved.

About 168 acres west of Glen Heights and south/southeast of Homestead Village are zoned Residential-2, a low-density residential designation. This area includes intervening railroad right-of-way.

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 in the rezonings that the Council will consider on March 21.

Process for RezoningS

Section 4.4.1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance states that an amendment to 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.

These rezonings would be general use rezonings. 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.

Separate Action

These rezonings require separate actions by the Council on two ordinances: one to rezone the area from Office/Institutional-3 to Office/Institutional-2 (portions of Tax Map Numbers 7.29..1A and 7.29..1B), and one to rezone the area from Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2 (Tax Map Numbers 7.24..43C; 7.24..49C; portion of 7.29..1B).

Public Notice

Notice of this public hearing was sent to the property owner and owners of property within at least 2,000 feet of the parcels in the Chapel Hill jurisdiction (please see Attachment 9). Legal notice was published in the Chapel Hill Herald on Sunday, March 6, and Sunday, March 13, 2005. Display ads also were published in the Chapel Hill Herald on Sunday, March 13, and Sunday, March 20, 2005. Copies of the agenda materials on this proposal are available in the Clerk’s office and in the Public Library, and are also available on the Town’s website (www.townofchapelhill.org).

Format Tonight

The Council tonight is holding a public hearing on the proposed rezonings. The purpose of the hearing is to receive public comment on the proposed rezonings. Typically the Council refers comments made at the hearing to the Manager and Attorney for a follow-up report. We anticipate returning to the Council with this follow-up report for Council consideration on April 11, 2005.

Protest Petitions

By law, formal “Protest Petitions” may be filed against these rezonings by the owner or by owners of nearby properties. A formal Protest Petition that meets legal requirements would increase the votes needed to enact this rezoning. The notice mailed to the University as owner and property owners within 2,000 feet of the subject property included a statement that information on protest petitions was available from the Planning Department. We also hand delivered the notice to Chancellor James Moeser’s office. If a protest petition is submitted and determined sufficient, a three-fourths vote by the Council would be required to enact the new zoning.

The deadline for filing protest petitions was 5 p.m. Wednesday, March 16, 2005. On March 16, 2005, the University of North Carolina submitted two protest petitions concerning these rezonings (please see Attachment 10). We will report at tonight’s Public Hearing regarding the sufficiency and validity of the protest petitions that have been submitted.

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REZONINGS

The proposals would rezone to Office/Institutional-2 approximately 286 acres currently zoned Office/Institutional-3, and approximately 168 acres currently zoned Residential-2 (see Map 3).

These rezonings would have the effect of lowering the allowable development intensity in the area currently zoned Office/Institutional-3 and raising the allowable development intensity in the area zoned Residential-2. In the Office/Institutional-2 and Residential-2 districts, approval of development greater than 20,000 square feet of floor area or 40,000 square feet of land disturbance would be subject to a Special Use Permit process, including a Council public hearing and Council consideration of development proposals.

We believe the justification for the Zoning Atlas Amendments as called for in this rezoning proposal would not relate to either a manifest error or changing conditions. We believe that arguments for rezoning the properties to the lower density relate to achieving the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

“Achieving the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. An issue is whether rezoning the properties would achieve goals of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The rezonings would have two effects: increasing allowable development intensity in the northern portion of the site, and decreasing it in the area north and west of the airport.

The proposed rezoning actions are a recommendation in the Principles, Goals and Strategies for Guiding the Development of the Horace Williams Property report. The report states that the Council should “retain existing zoning of OI-2 and rezone balance of property OI-2” and “engage University officials in dialogue about the regulatory approach to the Horace Williams tract at the early stages of planning for Carolina North.” The intent of the zoning, based on the report’s recommendations, is to establish a zoning district to regulate development, and to allow time for discussions with the University on establishing a future zoning district for the site before significant development occurs.

The two rezonings are further analyzed below by zoning district.

1. Proposed Office/Institutional-3 Rezoning to Office/Institutional-2

Arguments in Support

Comprehensive Plan

The intent of the rezoning to establish a dialogue with the University is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Strategy 4A-3 of the Comprehensive Plan states: “Continue the Town’s involvement in planning for the future development of the Horace Williams property.” The Plan further states that the Town “should continue to be involved in planning for 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.” The rezoning from Office/Institutional-3 to Office/Institutional-2 would increase the Council’s involvement in the development review process. Under Office/Institutional-3, the Planning Board, not the Council, has authority to approve development applications.

Land Use Plan Designation

The Land Use Plan has a “University” designation for the entire Horace Williams tract, including areas south of Estes Drive Extension. The Comprehensive Plan states the following in describing the “University” Land Use designations: “Future use of the Horace Williams and Mason Farm properties should be consistent with the 1998 Outlying Parcels Land Use Plans Report developed jointly by UNC and the Town.” Office/Instutional-2 zoning would be consistent with the Outlying Parcels Land Use Plans Report, which showed a mix of uses in a compact form of development which limited automobile trips and encouraged public transit.

Neighborhood Protection

A major theme of the Comprehensive Plan is to “conserve and protect existing neighborhoods.” The rezoning from Office/Institutional-3 to Office/Institutional-2 would decrease the allowable development intensity in areas just south of Glen Heights and to the north of the Ironwoods subdivision on Seawell School Road.

Arguments Against

Land Use Plan Designation

An argument could be made that Office/Institutional-3 zoning is more in line with the Land Use Plan designation of “University” compared with the proposed Office/Institutional-2 zoning. The Land Use Management Ordinance states that Office/Institutional-2 zoning “is intended to provide for medium-intensity office and institutional development;” the intent of the Office/Institutional-3 zoning district, which was formerly applied to the main campus, is “to provide for major educational research, public service, and office uses, and their necessary support functions, while minimizing conflicts with adjacent land uses.”

2. Proposed Residential-2 Rezoning to Office/Institutional-2

Arguments in Support

Comprehensive Plan

Land Use Plan Designation

Residential-2 zoning does not conform to the intent of the Land Use Plan’s “University” designation for the Horace Williams tract. As described above, the Comprehensive Plan states that the future use of the Horace Williams property, as designated in the Land Use Plan, “should be consistent with the 1998 Outlying Parcels Land Use Plans Report developed jointly by UNC and the Town.”

Arguments Against

Comprehensive Plan

An argument could be made that the Residential-2 zoning is an appropriate “holding zone” while discussions take place with the University. In addition, current University plans for the site do not contemplate development on this portion (see Map 1).

Neighborhood Protection

A major theme of the Comprehensive Plan is to “conserve and protect existing neighborhoods.” The rezoning from Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2 would allow increased development intensity near the northern edge of Glen Heights to the east and southern edge of Homestead Village to the north.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposed rezonings at its March 15, 2005 meeting (please see Attachment 11). The Planning Board recommends that the Council rezone the Office/Institutional-3 portion of the property to Office/Institutional-2 and retain the current Residential-2 zoning on the portion of the property with that zoning designation. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.

Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board is scheduled to consider the rezonings at its March 22, 2005 meeting.

Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We believe that the proposed rezonings would achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, recommend that the Council approve the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendments (Ordinance A and B).

ATTACHMENTS

MAPS

ATTACHMENT 1

ORDINANCE A

(Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation)

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE HORACE WILLIAMS TRACT

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Office/Institutional-3 to Office/Institutional-2 zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

SECTION I

That those portions of the site presently zoned Office/Institional-3 be rezoned Office/Institutional-2.

These properties are identified as now or formerly by the following Chapel Hill Township Tax Map numbers, including intervening and abutting road and railroad rights-of-way:

Portion of Chapel Hill Township, Orange County Tax Map 29, Lot 1A

Portion of Chapel Hill Township, Orange County Tax Map 29, Lot 1B.

The description of the portions of this site to be rezoned is indicated on Map A, attached.

SECTION II

That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

This the _____ day of _________, 2005.

Insert Map A

¨ Cover Memorandum: Summarizes the proposals, reviews procedures for review and offers a preliminary recommendation for Council action.

Arguments in Support

Arguments in Support

ATTACHMENTS

MAPS

ATTACHMENT 3

RESOLUTION A

ATTACHMENT 4

RESOLUTION B