Agenda #4 | Scale of Initial Development Agreement and Rezoning for Carolina North Development Proposal

AGENDA #4

TO: Chapel Hill Town Council

Trustees/Chancellor

FROM: David Owens

RE: Scale of Initial Development Agreement and Rezoning for Carolina North Development Proposal

DATE: December 3, 2008

The Town/University Joint Staff Work Group (JSWG) has identified the principal options for the size and scale of the Carolina North proposal that could be included within the initial development agreement and rezoning. While modifications can be made based on discussions over the January to June period, guidance to staff is needed now to determine the scale of the project to be submitted in January, 2009.

1. Principal Options

The table below summarizes four principal options for areas and scales of development that could be included in an initial development agreement and the land area to be rezoned.

The first is the “Early Stage” of the development shown in the University’s October 31 plan submittal, which comprises about 1.5 million sq. ft. of building space within a 150 to 185 acre area. The second is the “Mid Stage” of the development, which adds another 1.5 million sq. ft. of building space on essentially the same 150 to 185 acre land area (producing a total of 3.0 million sq. ft. of building space). The third is the full build out of the current plan, which would add development on an additional 100 acre area (for a total development area of 250 acres) and another 5.0 to 6.0 million sq. ft. of building space (for a total of 8 to 9 million sq. ft. for all three phases of the development combined). This third area could of course be divided into multiple additional phases in the future. The fourth is the portion of the property within the Town’s jurisdiction but not included within the proposed development area.

	Site area	Total Building Square Footage	Include in Development Agreement?	Rezone to new District?
1. Area in Chapel Hill jurisdiction within 50-year Development Plan
a. Early Stage	~ 150 to 185 acres	~ 1.5 million sf	Yes	Yes
b. Early and Mid Stages	~ 150 to 185 acres	~ 3.0 million sf
c. Full 50-year Plan	≤ 250 acres	~ 8 to 9 million sf

2. Area within Chapel Hill jurisdiction but outside the 50-year Plan	~ 390 acres	None proposed

Please note several factors regarding the delineation of these areas. First, these are general descriptions to assist in your policy discussion. Much more detailed boundary delineations will be made by the zoning atlas and development agreement. Second, these areas do not include potential road or utility corridors (such as the North-South corridor to Homestead Rd. or a connection to Sewell School Rd.) nor do they include other areas that may have some limited ancillary development (such as greenways, trails, landfill remediation area, and the like). The location and activities within such areas can be addressed in detail in the development agreement. The delineated areas do include the sites for all proposed buildings, internal roads and utilities, internal green space and natural areas, recreation fields, and utility facilities (including reclaimed water). Third, the areas do not include any land south of Estes Rd. This excluded area includes the Giles Horney complex and the adjacent undeveloped tracts.

Maps delineating the general boundaries of these areas are now being prepared and will be distributed at the meeting. A map depicting the current zoning of the site and the immediately surrounding areas is attached as Appendix 1. Also included in Attachment 1 is a map showing the current main campus overlaying the Horace Williams tract to provide a point of reference.

All of the land area and buildings that are to be approved for development under a development agreement must be included in the development agreement and the rezoning. Additional land that is to be subject to future development agreements can be rezoned now or those areas can later be rezoned concurrently with future development agreements. If rezoned now, development of those areas would still generally be contingent upon adoption of future development agreements or other Town approval. Land that is not subject to development in the 50-year Development Plan submitted on October 31 can be included within the development agreement and/or a rezoning but it is not necessary to do so.

2. Factors to Consider

In determining the scale of the rezoning and the initial development agreement, the JSWG suggests consideration of the following factors:

Specificity of plans. Are there sufficient development plan specifics available for review and approval? A site plan and design is needed at a minimum.
Certainty of plans. Is there enough certitude about the development subject to approval to avoid the need for frequent modification reviews?
Predictability for the University. Is sufficient lead time allowed for efficient capital planning and budgeting for the University?
Sufficient breadth for context. Is there enough development included to adequately consider interactions of the individual parts of the development and its relationship to the neighboring areas and community?
Effectively addressing mitigation needs. Is there sufficient development included to allow broad consideration of cumulative impacts and appropriately scaled mitigation measures?
Implementation impacts. Would inclusion of an area enhance the Town’s enforcement options regarding compliance with the development agreement? Does an area need to be included to address the issue of Town oversight of development that does not involve a building?
Ability to adapt to changing conditions. There is general agreement on the need to learn from the development and adapt future plans to changing conditions, technologies, and circumstances. While modifications to a development agreement can be made by mutual consent at any time, what should be the maximum amount of potential development included in a first agreement?
Efficiency of process. Is enough potential development included to warrant the amount of citizen, Town, and University resources that will be devoted to plan review?
Length of time to implement. What is the general range of time that is likely to be needed to carry out the projected development that is included within the initial development agreement?

3. Range of Potential Land Uses

There are two aspects of the issue of the range of potential land uses at Carolina North. First, the zoning district text will need to specify the full range of potential uses. Second, the development agreement will need to specify the land uses allowed in the portion of the project subject to the development agreement. The list of uses allowed in the development agreement can be the same or have fewer uses than are allowed in the zoning district, but cannot include any uses not allowed in the zoning district.

The JSWG suggests use of the OI-2 and OI-4 zoning districts as the starting point for the list of uses in the new zoning district. Main campus is currently in the OI-4 zoning district. Much of the Horace Williams tract (including all of the area within the University’s projected 50-year development plan) is in the OI-2 district. The northeast portion of the tract is now zoned R-2.A map of the current zoning district boundaries for the Horace Williams tract is included in Appendix 1.

The list of uses allowed either as permitted, accessory, or special uses in the OI-2 and OI-4 zoning districts are substantially similar (though the process for approval varies for some of the more intensive uses). They include most of the uses anticipated to be included within the Carolina North project. These uses include college/university, business-office, dwellings (single family through multi-family), hotel, public cultural facilities, public service facilities, publishing, research, residential support, and schools. The table of uses from the current LUMO will be distributed at the meeting for reference purposes.

There are several land uses that are treated differentially in the OI-2 and OI-4 districts. The following uses are allowed in the OI-4 district but not the OI-2 district: Business-general and convenience, hospitals, places of assembly with capacities over 2,000, recreation facilities-commercial, residence halls, supply yards, and veterinary hospitals/clinics.

The question to address is whether all of the OI-4 list of potential uses should be included within the list of potential uses in the new district and whether the same range of uses should potentially be available in the initial development agreement. Also, are there any uses not currently included in either OI-2 or OI-4 that should be included as potential land uses in the new district?

3. HWCC and LAC Reports

While the ultimate size and scope of the Carolina North development are related to many of the substantive issues raised by the Horace Williams Citizens Committee (HWCC) and the Leadership Advisory Committee, neither directly addressed the scale of development to be addressed in a first phase of town review.

The HWCC did include the following, which may be relevant to the scale of a rezoning:

Principle 3: Retain existing zoning of OI-2 and rezone balance of property OI-2. [Note: Portions of the property were at the time zoned as OI-3. The OI-3 portion was subsequently rezoned to 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.

Appendix 1. Maps for Reference (to be distributed)

Note: Maps delineating the general location of the four areas discussed above will be distributed at the meeting and will be available on the Town web site.