ATTACHMENT 1

report of joint staff work group

carolina north

may 19, 2008

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Report is to outline the status of recent discussions by Town of Chapel Hill and University staff concerning a possible Town regulatory process and approval schedule for development of that portion of the Carolina North property located within the Chapel Hill Town limits.

The Chapel Hill Town Council directed the Town Manager and Town Attorney to work with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill staffs to develop a framework and outline a process by June of 2008 for discussion and negotiation of development at Carolina North.  This report provides an update on the joint staff work group discussions.

The Town and University staff members have identified the desire to reach an agreement by June 2009 that enables the University to proceed with development at Carolina North while allowing time for a variety of community input and discussion opportunities prior to a final agreement.

The working group consists of:  Roger Stancil (Town Manager), Jack Evans (Executive Director, Carolina North), Bruce Heflin (Assistant Town Manager), Flo Miller (Deputy Town Manager), J.B. Culpepper (Planning Director), Gene Poveromo (Development Manager), Ralph Karpinos (Town Attorney), Bruce Runberg (Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction), Pat Crawford (University Counsel), Anna Wu (University Architect) and Mary Jane Nirdlinger (University Land Planner).  

Initial discussions have focused on review of relevant documents identifying goals/objectives for future development and an evaluation of the existing regulatory tools and their ability to support mutual goals for development at Carolina North.  The group agreed on the value of incorporating new standards (such as energy efficiency) into a comprehensive approach to development.  The group also identified a need to incorporate input from members of the Town Council, the Board of Trustees, University officials, Town advisory boards, the University community and the citizens of Chapel Hill.  The end goal of this process was envisioned as a regulatory mechanism that would address sustainability, regulation, predictability and transparency in the discussion and eventual agreement for development at Carolina North.

This report summarizes what this group has learned /shared to date.  The report describes and evaluates how existing zoning processes could be applied at Carolina North and how new options for regulation and mitigation of impact of development might be applied.  It is the hope from this group that a recommendation for a new zone and development agreement take into consideration the strengths and limitations of existing tools as well as the evolving vision for Carolina North.

BACKGROUND

Earlier this year, the Council heard a presentation of the University’s plan for development of Carolina North by University representatives as an adjunct to the January 13, 2008 planning retreat.  The Council agreed to have a work session at a later date to discuss a framework for considering proposals for the development of Carolina North from the University.

On February 11 the Council adopted a Resolution directing the Town Manager and Town Attorney to work with University staff to develop a framework and outline a process for discussion and negotiation of development at Carolina North.  The Town Manager suggested the following steps for Council’s consideration:

1. Outline the lessons learned from the development of the Office-Institutional-4 (O-I-4) zone;
2. Compare the advantages and disadvantages of traditional zoning and a development agreement;
3. Offer options for using the tools (zoning/development agreement) together or separately; 
4. Prepare a proposed basic development agreement; and
5. Develop a proposed process for the Town’s further negotiation of a development agreement with the University.

On February 11, the Town Manager offered to schedule a work session to present recommendations for Council consideration.  The Resolution adopted by Council that evening directed the Town Manager to report back to the Council prior to June 25, as well as authorized funding for the Town Manager to engage in focused consulting and legal assistance as needed.

COMPARISON OF EXISTING TRADITIONAL ZONING AND REGULATIONS

The existing zoning for the portion of Carolina North in Chapel Hill (located north of Estes Drive and east of Seawell School Road), is Office/Institutional-2 (approximately 453 acres), and Residential-2 (approximately 168 acres) at the northern end of the property (map is provided as Attachment 1). 

Office/Institutional-2(OI-2)

OI-2 is an Office/Institutional zone that provides for medium-intensity office and institutional development.  Development in this district typically requires individual Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board or Special Use Permit approval by the Town Council (example: the Innovation Center at Carolina North).  Proposals greater than 20,000 square feet in floor area, or 40,000 square feet in land disturbance require Special Use Permit approval by the Town Council.  In addition, a few specific land uses require Special Use Permit approval, regardless of size. Special Use Permits require that the Council make four findings before approving the application (Attachment 2).  Typically, developments greater than 20 acres involve the approval of a Master Land Use Plan.

The standards in OI-2 are aimed at regulating less intense development than the level of development contemplated by the University on the Carolina North site.  This zoning district does not contain mechanisms for addressing long-term development and broad community impacts such as traffic, transportation, and some issues related to sustainability such as energy efficiency and water conservation.

Office/Institutional-3 (OI-3)

OI-3 is intended to provide for major educational, research, public service and office uses (and their necessary support functions) while minimizing conflicts with adjacent land uses.  Prior to the creation of the Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) district, the main UNC campus was zoned OI-3. The rezoning of the main campus from OI-3 to OI-4 was necessary in order to accommodate the University’s plan to increase floor area on the campus beyond the maximum permitted in the OI-3 district.

While OI-3 could allow a level of development more in keeping with the University’s vision for Carolina North, it, like OI-2, lacks the mechanisms for addressing long-term development and broad impacts.  Further, most land uses are allowed as a use by right subject to either staff or Planning Board approval.  For example a permitted use in OI-3, such as College/University, is not subject to the floor area or land disturbance limits (20,000/40,000 square feet) associated with the typical Special Use Permit process.

Office/Institutional-4(OI-4)

The creation of the OI-4 district was in direct response to the University’s plans for additional development on the main campus and the community’s desire to mitigate the impacts associated with this growth.  OI-4 established procedural and substantive standards for the Town Council’s review and approval of development on large parcels of land where the predominant use is to be college, university, hospital, clinics, public cultural facilities, and related functions.

Unlike the other office and institutional districts, OI-4 established a review process for a Development Plan application that identifies growth, impacts and mitigation measures.  That review process requires input from the community and the Town advisory boards and approval from the Town Council.  Council action on the Development Plan requires that three of the four Special Use Permit findings be met.  Following approval of a Development Plan, individual buildings are subsequently reviewed by the Town staff for approval by the Town Manager.  The first Development Plan on the main campus was approved by the Council in October 2001.  Several modifications to the 2001 Development Plan have subsequently been approved by the Council.

While OI-4 may be able to address the level of development proposed at Carolina North and the broad approach to planning for mitigation measures, the standards in OI-4, while more extensive than other zones, do not address some of the more far-reaching and innovative aspects of sustainable development.

The OI-4 zoning district does have the benefit of providing a framework for development and review that has generally been effective on the main campus and is familiar to both the University and the Town.

LESSONS LEARNED WITH OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL-4(OI-4)

Through the development of the current OI-4 zoning for campus and subsequent implementation and modifications, the community, the Town and the University learned several lessons.  In response to a query by the Town Manager, we compiled the following list of general comments from Town, University staff and Board of Trustees, and Council members:

University Board of Trustees and University Staff Comments

Each of the staff comments was reviewed and supported by the Chancellor and the Chair of the Board of Trustees.  In addition, the comment about building on the existing basis of trust was submitted by the Board Chair.

General comments:

• The Town and University staffs have worked well together in the past and expect to be able to do so as we continue.  Success in this regard will be enhanced by the trust and respect that have been built in the past and that continue to exist today, even though some of the participants have changed.
• We have established communications between the University and Town at several levels and among a broad range of participants.  This strength of the relationship should be continued as we move toward review and decision on the Carolina North Plan.
• Multiple opportunities for public input and dialogue have benefitted the review process and we would expect to include extensive public processes in the development of zoning for Carolina North.

What has gone well:

• OI-4 outlines broad review of university development with relatively less information that is specific to individual projects other than use, floor area, and height.  This departure from the Special Use Permit process was negotiated in OI-4 and is an important attribute to retain.
• Revisions to the original OI-4 that permitted longer review times and presentation to all advisory boards appears to have alleviated concerns about the difficulty of accomplishing adequate review and discussion of the larger review plan.  Having a defined limit on that review time is a desirable attribute of the process.
• The respective staffs worked closely to develop the stormwater and traffic standards of OI-4.  The OI-4 requirements for stormwater and traffic are stringent but attainable, and we expect to do at least as well for Carolina North. 
• The OI-4 requirements have a foundation in science and technology, not arbitrary standards – we should strive for the same foundation with Carolina North.  The infrastructure workshops for Carolina North permitted us to bring our consulting team, in-house expertise and town staff together for the sharing of information.  Developing the technical standards for Carolina North from this foundation is desirable.

Things that we could do differently:

• The Development Plan modification process is burdensome and lengthy.  For future work, having a more general development agreement would be preferable that provides latitude for individual projects provided that overall guidelines are met.
• As OI-4 is structured, we will always have to be in modification mode, unless we somehow define an end (to a development plan) and a beginning for a new one.  A model with more flexibility would be preferable.  Perhaps this would take the form of an agreement that covers a defined period of time (with approximate square footage of development and accompanying sustainability requirements) that could be “rolled forward” at some point prior to expiration of the defined period.
• Interactions with the Council tend to produce additional requirements for which responses are expected in nearly real time.  It would be preferable to negotiate performance standards such that our ability (or commitment) to meet them would result in approval.  This would enable development of more budgets that are achievable and would reduce uncomfortable and difficult surprises.  Even standards that are more stringent than present ones, provided they are practicable, would be preferable to the current uncertainty.
• The Development Plan Modification that included the Cobb Chiller Plant/Parking deck highlighted the consequences of focus by the Council on one or a few projects within a development plan.  That resulted in a significant number of costly stipulations. 

Town Staff Comments

What has worked well:

• The collaborative intensive three month effort between multiple working groups of Town and UNC staff to create the Office-Institutional/4 zoning district worked well. The resulting OI-4 requirements, as developed by these joint working groups, addressed issues and areas of concern that were subsequently adopted by the Town Council and the University.

• Creating guidelines/procedures/policy for Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Stormwater Management, Noise and Lighting worked well.

• Creating special design standards for development along the perimeter (Perimeter Transition Areas) worked well.

• Providing flexibility to allow minor modifications to the approved Development Plan has worked well.

• Regular meetings between Town and University staff have worked well.

What could improve:

• Reassignment of Town staff away from ongoing responsibilities in order to dedicate several month crafting the Office-Institutional/4 zoning district.  Reassignment resulted in delay and excessive demands on limited staff resources in trying to accomplish routine work assignments

• Unrealistic review time period (15 working days) for Town staff to review and approve Site Development Permit applications.

• OI-4 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) policy does not require the developer to follow current policy in which the developer pays the Town for the traffic analysis study.

Council Members Comment

• The meeting between the University Trustees and the Town Council at the Southern Human Services Center January 13, 2008 produced an informative and healthy dialogue.  The processes for Carolina North should include discussion at appropriate intervals between University Trustees and Town Council in such an informal public session.

• Citizen feedback from OI-4 discussions were that too much work was done behind closed doors. There should be ample opportunity for citizen input and a transparent decision-making process.

• OI-4 is unclear about what happens if monitoring shows an issue around requirements (Traffic Impact is an example).  There should be meaningful mechanisms to monitor and enforce any provisions of proposed zoning and/or development agreement.

As we continue to discuss a regulatory process for the development of Carolina North, we anticipate that the Town and University staff will recommend incorporating some of the above ideas into the recommended course of action including options for public input and comment.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACKGROUND

Use of a Development Agreement, as a planning tool, is a relatively new option for municipalities in North Carolina; however it has been available in other states such as New Jersey and California.  Please see Attachment 3 for a legislative description of a Development Agreement. 

The following is a general description of Development Agreements.

Development agreements are contracts negotiated between project proponents and public agencies that govern the land uses that may be allowed in a particular project.  Although subject to negotiation, allowable land uses must be consistent with the local planning policies formulated by the legislative body through its general plan, and consistent with any applicable specific plan.  Neither the applicant nor the public agency is required to enter into a development agreement. When they do, the allowable land uses and other terms and conditions of approval are negotiated between the parties, subject to the public agencies’ ultimate approval. While a development agreement must advance the agencies’ local planning policies, it may also contain provisions that vary from otherwise applicable zoning standards and land use requirements.

The development agreement is essentially a planning tool that allows public agencies greater latitude to advance local planning policies, sometimes in new and creative ways. While a development agreement may be viewed as an alternative to the traditional development approval process, in practice it is commonly used in conjunction with it. It is not uncommon, for example, to see a project proponent apply for approval of a conditional use permit, zone change and development agreement for the same project. [DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MANUAL: COLLABORATION IN PURSUIT OF COMMUNITY INTERESTS © 2002 by the INSTITUTE for LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

We view a Development Agreement as an opportunity that would allow the Town and University to enter into a long-term agreement that stipulates levels of development, timing of development, performance standards and the implementation of public improvements/facilities.  We believe this approach offers greater flexibility, creativity and assurance than the current options available in the existing Land Use Management Ordinance.  We have reviewed a variety of documents for ideas of performance standards and other criteria that may be appropriate for inclusion.  Attachment 4 provides a summary listing of possible topics. 

Development Agreements are not a substitute for or a replacement of the underlying zoning district. For example, if the Development Agreement was available as an option when the OI-4 zoning district was created, the University could have rezoned the main campus to OI-4 and then proposed a Development Agreement.  Development Agreements offer greater flexibility for negotiations and for commitment beyond existing development standards.

A basic outline of items typically included in a Development Agreement is provided as Attachment 5.

POTENTIAL INTERRELATIONSHIP: ZONING DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UNIVERSITY PLAN FOR CAROLINA NORTH

As we see it, the zoning of the Carolina North property, a Development Agreement, and review of the University’s Plans are all interrelated.  

Much as the Town Council is accustomed to reviewing rezoning applications with an accompanying Special Use Permit, it is possible that a negotiated, community-informed process for Carolina North’s future could result in the establishment of a new base zoning, negotiation of a Development Agreement, and approval of an overall plan for Carolina North.

The Staff Work Group is exploring how these three items are interrelated.  We see these three intertwined:

• Base Zoning
• Development Agreement
• University’s overall Plan

We envision that the zoning of the University’s Carolina North property would be negotiated with and interconnected to the terms of a Development Agreement.  As we have noted, a Development Agreement would allow the consideration of standards beyond those of our current Land Use Management Ordinance.  Ideally, the standards for a new base zone would achieve some of the goals of both parties, while negotiations of a Development Agreement would provide mutual, additional gains.

POSSIBLE TIMELINE

Outline of Potential Schedule

June 2008: Staffs request authorization from the Town Council and Board of Trustees to move forward with a Development Agreement and possible new base zoning district.

September-October, 2008:  Joint meeting with Town Council and Board of Trustees to review and discuss draft proposals for a Development Agreement and a new zoning district.

October, 2008 – April, 2009:  Town Council and Board of Trustees consider provisions and discuss standards of a base zone and a Development Agreement following a series of public input sessions, advisory board input, and staff input.

May-June 2009   New zoning established and Development Agreement signed by Town and University representatives; initial Carolina North development applications considered.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Map of current zoning at Carolina North (p. 10).
2. Four Findings for approval of a Special Use Permit (p. 11).
3. Development Agreement Statute (69 KB pdf) (p. 12).
4. Topics for Development Agreement/Zoning Discussion (p. 13).
5. Draft Outline of a Development Agreement (p. 15).