Text Box: ATTACHMENT 7

 

 

EXCERPT FROM COUNCIL MINUTES

January 10, 2005

 

Item 11 – Report on Rezoning, Fiscal Equity, and Land Conservation

Issues Related to the Horace Williams Site

 

Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt stated that the Horace Williams Citizens Committee had presented its final report to the Council on October 11, 2004.  At that time, she said, the Council asked for follow-up information concerning three issues:

 

 

Ms. Berndt said that regarding the rezoning, we have prepared a resolution that responds to the Council’s request and if the Council chooses to do that, then the resolution would call a public hearing for March 21 to consider rezoning property from its current zoning of a combination of Office/Institutional-2, Office/Institutional-3, and Residential-2 to Office/Institutional-2.  Ms. Berndt said as an alternative, we recommend that the Council consider another option, that in future discussions with the University that the Council request assurances that no development applications be submitted before “x” date.  She said this procedure had been followed in earlier cases.

 

Ms. Berndt said in the area of fiscal equity, two options were discussed in the report: first, that a committee be established whose members were not associated with the Town or University operations; and second, that the University, as a potential future developer, be asked 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.  Ms. Berndt said that a joint committee appointed by the Council and the University could review the consultant’s work and provide feedback on a proposed fiscal equity model.  She indicated that this option, Option B, was what was being recommended tonight.

 

Regarding land conservation, Ms. Berndt said it would be difficult to preserve land “in perpetuity” as suggested, but there were options such as conservation easements or lease agreements which might have potential for future discussions with the University.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if we were pursuing preliminary conversations with the University about doing this.  She asked the Mayor had he discussed this with the Chancellor, adding that she did not want to begin this process on a negative note.  Mayor Foy responded that he had discussed this with Chancellor Moeser, and the University did not like the idea.  He said we had not received any formal communication as yet.

 

Mayor Foy said he had told the Chancellor that from the point of view of the Town, it makes sense because it gives uniformity to those parcels which are not uniform now, and it gives greater assurance to the neighbors of the property that there would not be any activity on that site without “quite a bit of process.”  On the other hand, he said, neither the Town nor the University expects that anything would happen under any current zoning category.  Mayor Foy said there are compelling reasons on both sides, but the compelling reason to consider this from the Town’s point of view is the uniformity and the assurance to the neighbors that nothing will happen without their involvement.

 

Mayor Foy said the major concern of the University is that if we rezone the land, then they seek a rezoning in the future, that the Council would say that we already rezoned it and would not consider a future change.  He said he did not believe that was the intention of the Council.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the reasons given for proceeding made sense, but she does understand the University’s point of view.  She reasoned that we should sit down with the University and start a process, so that discussions could take place.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if the University chose not to sit down with us, then we could proceed, but we should at least extend the invitation.

 

Council Member Strom said he had served on the Horace Williams Committee and this was a key recommendation.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED RESOLUTION R-12, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT.

 

Council Member Ward agreed that we needed to reach out to the University, adding it was important to gain greater control and have Council review of the activity on the Horace Williams/Carolina North property.  He said that the rezoning was in the Town’s and the University’s best interests.  Council Member Ward stated that rezoning the property from OI-3 to OI-2 would give greater uniformity, greater protection and involvement by the Town and all of its citizens.

 

Michael Collins, representing Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG), said that they support the rezoning of the OI-3 tracks to OI-2, leaving the current OI-2 zoning unchanged.  He said the NRG felt that rezoning to OI-2 would encourage the University to be more creative in its plans than it has been to date.

 

Mr. Collins said regarding fiscal equity, they support the fiscal equity principle of having UNC bear the cost of Town services needed by Carolina North, and the goal of developing a process of identifying costs and revenues.  He noted that the six strategies listed in the Horace Williams report are a necessary part of achieving this goal.  Mr. Collins commended the Manager for suggesting in Option A that a fiscal impact statement be required with each new building or project.

 

Regarding preservation of part of the Horace Williams tract, Mr. Collins said NRG supports preserving 75% of the Horace Williams tract in its natural state in perpetuity, and encouraged the Town and the University to identify ways to achieve this goal.

 

Mayor Foy indicated that it had been brought to his attention by Linda Convissor, the Local Relations Officer for the University, that the Council’s packet contained a letter from the Chancellor dated October 15, 2004, that says “I write to register in the strongest possible terms our objection” to rezoning the property.  He said the letter goes on to say he hopes the University and the Town will work closely together to develop a process for a zone for Carolina North.

 

Mayor Foy reiterated that these are parallel processes that are not mutually exclusive, but in his view he believes the Council expects that there will be some other zone crafted for Carolina North.

 

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, HILL, STROM, GREENE, VERKERK, WARD, AND KLEINSCHMIDT VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS VOTING NAY.

 

 

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REZONING THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY (2005-01-10/R-12)

 

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, 2005 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 10th day of January, 2005.

 

 

Regarding fiscal equity, Mayor Foy noted that two options were proposed.  Option A, he said, was to establish a committee that would develop a set of community indicators and produce a report on fiscal equity issues, and Option B was 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.  Mayor Foy reminded the Council that these options were proposed, but the Council could consider any options it wished.

 

Council Member Hill said that Option B as proposed had merit, noting that the two suggestions were similar except the second option included a report from a consultant.  He said he would like to know that the University was willing to pay for a consultant before they chose that option, so that this doesn’t just “die.”

 

Council Member Strom agreed that Option B was preferable, since it would be someone from “outside” with no personal interest, adding that people who live in Town could not avoid having some interest in the outcome.

 

Council Member Verkerk agreed with Council Members Strom and Hill.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ENDORSE OPTION B.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

With regard to land conservation, Mayor Foy said that one important point is that the University could lease property to another agency, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, just as it did with the 99-year lease to the Faculty Recreation Club (The Farm).  He said there is no specific recommendation in the report, other than to just discuss it, adding the Council needs to define this somewhat.

 

Council Member Harrison said he was happy that we could now enforce our RCD regulations on the University, particularly for this case.  He said there was information available to guide any entity that wanted to do preservation of land, and precedents had been set by the Little Creek/Morgan Creek watershed initiative that received help from Town staff.  Council Member Harrison said they had produced a set of maps, all for those watersheds including Carolina North, for land that would “give the most bang for the buck” if it had to be bought or preserved in terms of water quality.  He said that data is available.

 

Council Member Harrison said that he had brought up several months ago that Duke University had registered eleven natural areas with the Natural Heritage program in Orange and Durham Counties and UNC had not offered any areas for registry that they might have, such as parts of Bolin Creek.  He said it would be a voluntary protection by UNC.

 

Mayor Foy said it was not just the environmental quality that was important, but also the open space.  He said as we currently envision Carolina North, of the 900 acres that only 300 acres would be developed.   Mayor Foy said we have an interest in making sure that the 600 acres remains undeveloped for a significant period of time, including environmentally sensitive areas as well as open space.  He said the question is how to proceed.

 

Mayor Foy commented that we were going to be engaging the University in discussions about fiscal equity, so should we discuss both at the same time?

 

Council Member Greene said she definitely believed it should be discussed, but thought that the two issues were not directly related.

 

Council Member Hill said he believed it would be more reasonable to discuss the land conservancy issue along with the rezoning issues.  Mayor Foy agreed, saying we did not need to discuss land conservancy with the University at this time, adding he believed it would have little value.

 

Council Member Greene said she believed the Council should have some agreement, or “resolution,” of its intent, since they had done so for the other issues.

 

Council Member Hill suggested resolving that the Council’s ultimate goal is that 75% or two-thirds of the property remain undeveloped, which just reiterates what the Horace Williams Citizens Committee recommended.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said we need to explore what kind of mechanisms exist to keep this as green space in perpetuity, noting this property is owned by the State and we need more information as to what extent it is possible for the State to designate the property as green space forever.  She wondered if we would need special legislation, since we are talking about State-owned property.

 

Mayor Foy said this was not likely to happen with any developer unless you have the acquiescence on the part of the developer, because there are no laws to force anyone to do this.  He said he thought if it happens it will be because of negotiations that create the zone.  But, Mayor Foy said, we were not at the point of negotiating the zone as yet.  He suggested that the Council send the recommendations to the University, reiterating that this is a concern that came up in the Horace Williams Report and here are the options that have been developed, and we were forwarding it for information purposes.  Mayor Foy said then we refer to ourselves for further consideration in the future.

 

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said we should keep in mind that the Chancellor and Board of Trustees can only speak during their time in office, and that the current Chancellor and Board of Trustees could not speak for future administrators twenty, thirty, or more years from now.  She said if we were to get agreement from the University, we should not assume that the issue is solved forever, because future UNC administrators could bring it back up to future Councils.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL SEND THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY, REITERATING THAT THIS IS A CONCERN THAT CAME UP IN THE HORACE WILLIAMS REPORT AND HERE ARE THE OPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, AND THAT WE WERE FORWARDING IT FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES.  AND, THAT THE ISSUE IS REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE FUTURE.  COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE SECONDED.

 

Council Member Greene said she had served on the Conservation Committee and it is relevant here, because they had talked about examples where the State had in fact worked out a way to put permanent conservation easements on land that the State owns.  She said it can be done, although the Council could not do it.  Council Member Greene said if the University through the State agrees to do that, it can be done.

 

Council Member Hill agreed with Council Member Greene’s remarks.

 

Council Member Ward said he supported placing as much protection on the acreage as possible.  But, he noted, 75% of that acreage is about 750 acres, and it would be just like the University asking us for 17,000 or 21,000 parking spaces on that site, meaning “it ain’t gonna go.”  He said if we were asking for 75% just to have a bargaining position, and the University asked for the 21,000 parking spaces just as a bargaining position, then he did not want to work that way.  Council Member Ward said he did not believe it was realistic for us to say we expect that 75% of that acreage would be permanently protected.  He said he was not even sure that was in the best interest of the Town.  Council Member Ward said while he “vigorously supports” permit protection on the Horace Williams site, 750 acres is unrealistic and he cannot support that figure, but he could support a more general figure.

 

Council Member Hill said that the University’s current plan is to develop only 250 acres.  Council Member Ward said that figure means nothing to him, because that simply means that phase one is to develop only 250 acres, and phase two may be another 250, and phase three another 250.  He said he does not give them credit for saying they have a cluster development or a conservation-minded development, because they haven’t done anything to permanently protect the rest of the land.  Council Member Hill said that was the whole point of this, and that the Council had been led to believe that the 250 acres was going to be the entire development over the next 70 years.  Council Member Ward said the University had been unwilling to do anything in perpetuity.

 

Mayor Foy said he did not believe we knew that for sure as yet, stating that we had not engaged in a conversation with the University about exactly what their plans are.  He said we have a model, and the model shows a certain portion of land being used and not being used, along with a prediction of a time line.  Mayor Foy said that given the density of what has been proposed along with the time line, it was reasonable for us to say that the development will be confined to that area.  He said that was the good thing about a 99-year lease.  Mayor Foy said that he believes that if the land is protected for the next 70 years, then a future generation could make the decision about what happens then.  He said at least we are bargaining in good faith about what is actually planned.

 

Mayor Foy said there was more than one way to make this effective for us, and if protecting the land in perpetuity is not something that the University will agree to, we at least get it protected by a 99-year lease.  Then, he continued, if the University says we can’t do 750 acres but we can do 650 acres, and we say how about 300 in perpetuity, then we continue to negotiate until we get something we can all live with.  Mayor Foy said he did not think we were being disingenuous by stating what exactly what our goals are, which is that it be in perpetuity for this much and that is how it would be set.  He said that just because 750 acres is not achievable does not mean that “something” is not achievable.  Mayor Foy said we needed to set out exactly what we want.

 

Council Member Ward said that is an admirable goal, but mentally he has taken the next step and concluded that it is not achievable.

 

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).