AGENDA #1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Community Dialogue: Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District, Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment
DATE: May 4, 2005
The Town Council has scheduled this Community Dialogue event in order to hear citizen comments on provisions of the Town’s Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District. Although relatively informal in format, this evening’s event is legally a continuation of public hearing discussions on this topic.
The Council, working cooperatively with the University, scheduled this opportunity for community dialogue. The idea evolved following an October Public Hearing to consider changes to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning provisions which apply to the main campus.
BACKGROUND
1981 The Chapel Hill Town Council created a zoning district called Office/Institutional-3, and applied this zoning to several large parcels of land that were owned by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Among those parcels was the University’s main campus. The OI-3 district allowed University facilities to be built with special standards related to height of buildings, intensity of use, buffers, and transition areas, reflecting the unique circumstances of University facilities. A floor area ratio was set to regulate intensity. At the time, the amount of floor area that could be permitted on the main campus, derived by applying this ratio, greatly exceeded the total of existing facilities.
Fall 2000 University representatives brought attention to the fact that construction of facilities on the main campus would soon reach the cap on floor area established in the OI-3 zoning district.
Spring 2001 The Town Council and University representatives began a series of meetings, discussions, and hearings to create a new zoning district. A joint Town-Gown Committee was formed to discuss creation of a new zone. Mayor Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor ProTem Lee Pavao, Council Member Kevin Foy and Council Member Bill Strom represented the Town Council.
July 2001 The Council amended the Development Ordinance in July 2001, to create this new district: Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4). Also in July 2001, the Council rezoned the main campus to apply this new district.
June 2003 The Council received a petition asking for reconsideration of the required action time limits specified in the OI-4 district for Town Council review of a Development Plan. The Council referred this petition to the Town Manager and, in September 2003, the Town Manager submitted a report to the Town Council for consideration.
Jan 2004 At its annual Planning Session, the Council discussed whether and how a reconsideration of provisions of the OI-4 zoning district might be undertaken.
Feb 9, 2004 The Council decided to call a Public Forum to hear citizen comments on this topic. The Forum was held on March 1.
April 2004 The Council adopted a resolution which called a Public Hearing for October 18 to consider specific adjustments to the Office/Institutional-4 provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Oct 18, 2004 The Council held a Public Hearing to consider adjustment to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district provisions. At the conclusion of the October 18 Public Hearing, the Council asked the Manager to recommend a process for initiating discussions with University officials.
Nov 22, 2004 The Council considered a proposed process for discussions about the Office/Institutional-4 text amendments. The Council requested additional ideas for a process that might better include citizens.
Dec 6, 2004 The Council requested that the Mayor and Town Manager make arrangements for additional discussions of the proposed changes.
Feb 14, 2005 The Council endorsed a process for further discussion with the Community Dialogue event.
REVIEW OF OI-4 PROVISIONS
The OI-4 zoning district was created following a series of discussions between the Town and the University. The new zoning district was established by the Town Council in July 2001. The end result was a negotiated set of regulations that balanced the University’s need for certainty, timeliness of consideration, and ability to pursue a development program with the Town’s need for community consideration of and mitigation of impacts of such development.
Key features of the OI-4 District include:
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The Council called the October 18, 2004 Public Hearing to consider the following adjustments to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. The Manager’s preliminary comments are provided regarding each of the proposed. We recognize that other options could be considered. We attach a letter from UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield, proposing additional ideas for change.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
b. Encourage University officials to provide a pre-application review of any proposed Development Plan or Modification.
c. No change.
We recommend consideration of (a) above. The Planning Board voted 10-0 to recommended (a) above. We believe that discussion of a Concept Plan at the beginning of the process helps to identify key issues at an early stage of consideration, and allows the Council and the community opportunities to offer early input.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
We recommend consideration of (a) above. As noted above, we believe that the opportunity to comment on a Concept Plan at the outset of consideration of a Development Plan (or Plan Modification) helps facilitate discussion and highlights key issues at an early stage. With this Council and community review at the beginning, before the clock starts running, we believe that 90 days is sufficient time for full consideration of an application. The Planning Board voted 9-1 to recommend (b) above.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
a. Lengthen the review period for Development Plan Modifications which involve changes in a Perimeter Transition Area from 90 to 120 days.
b. Require a separate, subsequent process for Council approval of development in a Perimeter Transition Area in circumstances where a Perimeter Transition Area is established as part of a Development Plan approval.
c. No change.
We recommend consideration of (a) above. The Planning Board voted 10-0 to recommend (a) above. We believe that additional time would be desirable for action on applications in perimeter areas, where community issues are most likely to be raised.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
a. Change the Ordinance to include the same provisions for Planning Board review of a Development Plan as we have for Special Use Permits. (This change would require that the Planning Board make a recommendation, and would give the Planning Board 35 days from receipt of a staff report to make a recommendation. This time allocation typically could be accommodated within the present 90-day review period, but there could be circumstances where, if the Planning Board were to take the full 35 days, the Council’s time for consideration of the Planning Board’s recommendation might be limited.)
b. Require the Town Manager to forward a Staff Report on a Development Plan or Modification application to the Planning Board within 30 days of acceptance of such as application, and require the Planning Board to make a recommendation within 30 days of receipt of a Staff Report.
c. No change.
We recommend consideration of (c) above. The current process, affording the Planning Board opportunity to offer comments but not to mandate that a Planning Board recommendation be made, was a key point of the Council-University discussion at the time the OI-4 district was initially created. We believe that the current provisions strike a reasonable balance between allowing time for community consideration and the desire for timely Council action. The Planning Board voted 10-0 to recommend (a) above.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
a. Ask University officials, with adoption of a separate resolution, to participate in quarterly or semi-annual meetings, in a work session format, to provide the Town Council with updates on University development activity, including upcoming projects that would require a Development Plan Modification.
b. Ask University officials, with adoption of a separate resolution, to provide a quarterly or semi-annual report to the Town Council to provide an update on development activity, including upcoming projects that would require a Development Plan Modification.
c. No change.
We recommend consideration of (a) above. The Planning Board voted 10-0 to recommend (a) above. We believe that face-to-face meetings, with opportunities to ask questions and engage in dialogue, are important, desirable, and help to improve working relationships.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
a. Add the language to the Ordinance to require that the Town Council make the finding in order to approve a Development Plan or Modification.
b. Do not add the finding.
We recommend consideration of (b) above, subject to possible further discussion. During the negotiations which initially led to the creation of the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district, this item was raised. The initial OI-4 proposal that was brought forward to Public Hearing in 2001 by Town Staff, having been developed by a joint Town-Gown Committee, did not include a Comprehensive Plan finding. At the June 2001 Public Hearing on this proposal, a citizen comment suggested that there should be a Comprehensive Plan finding. On July 1, 2001, we submitted a follow-up staff report, responding to Public Hearing comments. In that report, we offered reasons why we believed the provisions would be most appropriate without that finding. We wrote in that report, “Section 16.7.3 specifies that findings that the Town Council would have to make in order to approve a Development Plan. The two findings are that that a proposed Development Plan would maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it would maintain the value of adjacent property. In drafting and discussing the proposed ordinance, consideration was given to adding a third finding related to the Comprehensive Plan. We did not include this in our proposed ordinance because (1) In considering the main campus, development decisions internal to the campus are not issues that are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan; in discussing the University, the Comprehensive Plan largely focuses on edge issues and community interface; And (2) For purposes of focusing on edge issues and community interface, the two findings that are included (health, safety, and general welfare, and value of adjacent property) most directly address those issues. The Planning Board also discussed this point specifically, and concurred with the staff recommendation.” The Planning Board had concurred at that time with the recommended language which did not include a Comprehensive Plan finding. The Council decided on July 2 to enact the language without the Comprehensive Plan finding.
A copy of that staff report that was submitted to the Council on July 2, 2001 is attached here, along with minutes from the Council meeting summarizing the Council’s discussion that evening.
In response to the most recent discussion re-proposing that a Comprehensive Plan finding be added, the Planning Board has recommended (a) above, to add the finding.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
a. Add the language to the Office/Institutional-4 district regulations that would require the Town Council to make a finding that the Development Plan or Modification complies with all applicable regulations.
b. Do not add the finding.
We recommend consideration of (b) above (no change). During the negotiations which initially led to the creation of the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district, the University specifically requested that this finding not be included. Whereas most of the other proposed changes discussed in this memorandum are procedural in nature, this proposed change involves significant substantive changes. There are numerous dimensional standards in the Land Use Management Ordinance that are applied Town-wide, but would not necessarily be applicable to the University campus. That is one of the reasons that this zoning district was created. In addition, the level of detail included in a Development Plan typically would not allow full determination of a finding of compliance with dimensional regulations; a Development Plan in that regard is more similar to a Master Plan than to a Special Use Permit. The Planning Board voted 10-0 to recommend (a) above.
Comment: We offer the following options for consideration:
a. Adopt an Ordinance amendment which would require periodic public review of University projects to see if the University is adhering to the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
b. Do not adopt an Ordinance requirement to this effect.
We recommend (b) above (no change). The Planning Board voted 10-0 to recommend (b) above. To the extent that this proposed change would be directed at introducing Comprehensive Plan considerations during the Development Plan approval process, we believe this issue is the same as issue #6, above, and offer the same comments and recommendation. To the extent that this proposed change would be directed at projects during construction, we believe that procedures are already in place to assure compliance with conditions of approval for all applications. The Town Manager is responsible for enforcement of zoning regulations and conditions of development approvals. (Exception: State agencies are responsible for enforcing requirements related to water quality and soil erosion for State construction projects.) Town processes and records related to development are public records.
Additional item: On February 14, 2005, the Council added an item for consideration regarding the form that a Transportation Impact Analysis might take for main campus University development. It was suggested that the reports be shorter and less technical.
PROTEST PETITION
By law, formal “Protest Petitions” may be filed to protest the text amendments proposed to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district. A valid and sufficient formal Protest Petition meeting the legal requirements would increase the number of votes needed to enact these text amendments. University officials have filed a valid and sufficient Protest Petition regarding proposed amendments to the OI-4 zoning district, and accordingly a three-fourths vote by the Council would be required to enact the text amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Council reconvene the Public Hearing to consider changes to the Office/Institutional-4 zoning district following tonight’s dialogue. We recommend that the hearing be continued to June 15, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1. April 27, 2005 letter from UNC Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield (p. 1.1).
2. Memorandum from February 14, 2005, scheduling Community Dialogue Meeting (p. 2.2).
3. Memorandum from December 6, 2004, requesting that the Mayor and Town Manager make arrangements for discussions of proposed changes (p. 3.1).