ATTACHMENT #3
STATEMENT OF MAYOR ROSEMARY I. WALDORF
April 18, 2001
I want to begin with a simple statement of how much importance we Town
representatives place on these discussions. These discussions are about our
future together, town and gown. We have a history of more than 200 years,
mostly harmonious. We of the Town want to perpetuate that good history.
These discussions are extremely important to our community. This is a
community that is shared by the University, which I believe does count on the town's amenities, the town's ambience and the Town's services, and our town’s folk, who identify with, are proud of and care about this excellent
institution of higher education. We value living next to it, and in
particular we cherish its historical role in the state as a leader in thought
and values.
We believe that "flagship" is a term that, if truly earned, means
good relations at home. We are here today to work on that good relationship.
On behalf of our town-gown committee, I am pleased to present a framework for moving forward on how the Town and the University can work together on development issues. We recognize and appreciate the extremely important role the University of North Carolina plays in our community. I would not be a good Mayor if I did not also ask University students, faculty, staff, alumni and administrators to recognize the important enrichment that the Town of Chapel Hill provides the University by always striving and most often succeeding in providing a beautiful, interesting and safe community for the University. This is a good place to live. A town-gown effort, partly planned and partly fortuitous, has made that happen.
Right now I wish to outline two important matters related to our suggested
new zoning district OI-4. Those two matters are: clarification about what
might be considered a "development plan" in the OI-4 district, and a proposed schedule for consideration of that district.
As an introduction, some important comments are in order. These are summary comments and more details will follow. I also want to point out that we believe the details need to be worked on collaboratively, as described later.
First, we propose a zoning category and process that would offer the
University approval of its 10-year building program. This encompasses the
complete list of bond projects and other projects that the University provided to us at our February 9 town-gown meeting. I believe that any person truly attentive to these issues would not see our proposal as an impediment to implementation of the bond program. Indeed, we are quite serious about making sure that all the bond projects and housing programs are implemented according to the schedule the University has provided to us. You will see evidence of our good faith on this as I outline other aspects of our proposal.
Second, we propose an expedited enactment and review process. As you will see on the proposed schedule that I will outline in some detail in a few minutes, we offer to put this ordinance in place by July 2, with Council action on a development plan by October 1. Thus, under our proposal, the University could secure approval of a development plan and all bond and housing projects covered by that plan within 6 months of today.
By comparison, the normal process required by our ordinance for creation of a new district and approval of a development proposal could take up to 15 months. Despite the unprecedented scope and potential community impacts of the University's plans for the main campus, we understand that special expedited consideration is in order. Our proposal acknowledges this.
Third, as to building capacity, our proposal allows 110 percent of the
years. The new district makes it possible to build all the University has
requested, plus 10 percent. I note, also that any square footage for construction of additional housing would not count against this allowance.
Let me take a few moments here to describe the "development plan" component of this proposed ordinance.
The main purpose of a Development Plan would be to allow the community to understand specifically what is being proposed, and what negative impacts would likely accompany the development, so that mitigation measures can be designed and implemented.
Procedural considerations for a Development Plan would be similar to the Town’s procedures and requirements for review and approval of a Master Plan. Materials would be prepared and submitted, reviewed by staff and advisory boards, discussed at a Council Public Hearing, and subsequently acted upon by the Council. A time frame would be established, defining the maximum time period from initial application to Council action. We propose 90 days as that time period.
Application submittal requirements would include the following, for the entire development covered by the Development Plan:
· Specific descriptions with building locations, building sizes, parking details, and conservation details.
· Traffic Impact Analysis, both considering internal and community roadways, with mitigation strategies.
· Transit Impact Analysis.
· Parking Requirements/Proposals/Strategies.
· Description of building heights, with consideration of topography, nearby areas, and long-range vistas.
· Stormwater Impact Statement, with mitigation strategies.
· Description of Air Quality impacts, with mitigation strategies.
· Description of Noise and Lighting Impacts, with mitigation strategies.
· Preliminary Timetable and Sequencing for Facility Construction and for related Mitigation Measures.
Following Council approval of a Development Plan, the University could begin submitting building plans for administrative review. Administrative review would be limited to 15 work days.
These are the same key elements of a develop plan that the Town Manager outlined and discussed with Vice Chancellor Suttenfield when they met last week.
Fourth, I would like to briefly return to the fiscal issues which are a very
important part of our proposal. The fiscal issues discussed in our April 9 memorandum are critical to the Town. We are in negotiations. We cannot let go of the fiscal concerns, and thus must take exception to the statement in Chancellor Moeser's April 17 letter that: "Once a mutually acceptable resolution of all zoning and regulatory issues is reached, the University will take actions outlined in the following sections, in response to the Town's draft proposal." All subsequent matters referenced are what we call fiscal issues.
We have a more collaborative approach to propose.
Think of this as a parallel process, a concept that Cal Horton and Nancy
Suttenfield discussed on April 10. The two themes of the parallel process are development issues and fiscal issues.
We propose that Town and University staff representatives meet beginning
April 24 to discuss details of the OI-4 zoning district regulations and
application requirements. We propose that those discussions be concluded within 4 weeks, as the Chancellor has suggested.
We also propose this parallel process: The Chancellor, Ms. Suttenfield, the
Mayor and Mr. Horton will meet to discuss the fiscal issues at stake.
I certainly do not want these town-gown discussions to continue too long without resolution of these key issues. When the Chancellor and I first set up this committee structure, we anticipated more frequent meetings than we have had. There have been scheduling conflicts. But I continue to believe that an early resolution to all these issues would be a good outcome for both parties.
Therefore I propose that we have a convergence of the development proposal discussions and the fiscal discussions by June 18 of this year.
Before we look at the proposed schedule in detail, let me repeat the three outcomes we of the Town would like to achieve at this meeting:
1. Town and University agree that staff representatives will meet to discuss details of proposed OI-4 zone and process, with a reporting date to
this committee of May 24.
2. Town and University agree that Mayor, Chancellor, Manager and Vice
Chancellor for business and Finance will meet to discuss fiscal issues, with
a reporting date to this committee of May 24.
3. We will all today agree on the timetable
Now, I will review the proposed schedule.
October 2: University submits application for Zoning Compliance Permit for first building(s) covered by Development Plan
October 23: Town Manager issues final approval for first building(s)
I believe that this is a very challenging schedule and that it is essential to meet the challenge so that the community and the University can move forward in addressing the important issues before us.
I look forward to our continuing discussions.