SUMMARY OF A JOINT MEETING OF
THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
AND CHAPEL HILL PLANNING
BOARD REGARDING PLANNING
OF THE HORACE WILLIAMS
AND MASON FARM TRACTS,
FRIDAY, MARCH 29,
1996 AT 7:30 A.M.
Mayor Waldorf called the
proceedings to order at 7:38 a.m.
Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe
Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck and Lee Pavão. Council Member Barbara Powell was absent
excused. Planning Board members in
attendance were Julie Coleman, June Dunnick, Charles Lancaster, Scott Radway,
Mary Reeb, Martin Rody and Bruce Runberg.
Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers
Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Development
Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper, Planning Consultant Dwight Merriam and Town
Attorney Ralph Karpinos.
Noting that quite a tight
timetable was proposed for the Horace Williams/Mason Farm zoning matter, Mr.
Merriam said that zoning was a somewhat limited land development tool. He stated that all parties in the process
should expect to be a little frustrated, given the complexity of the
matter. Mr. Merriam also said that
local governments might not always attain their desired objectives in development
related matters of this type. Mr. Merriam
stated that mandating a final buildout through a zoning provision today was a
physical impossibility. He stated that
doing so would require knowing what was going to happen in the future and doing
a tremendous amount of land and economic development planning work. He also stated that a "free for
all" approach was not desirable.
Mr. Merriam said it was a good idea to have a definite concept of what
the plan's buildout scenario would look like and when buildout would be
reached. He stated that a mixed-use
plan planned and developed over a long period of time would involve a difficult
political process.
Council Member Andresen
asked how much detail would be involved in a performance zone agreement between
two parties and whether this approach would be possible. Council Member Andresen stated that during
his last visit to the Town, Mr. Merriam had indicated that both parties (the
University and Town) could get more if matters were negotiated, with minimal
protections in place during this negotiation period. Council Member Andresen asked whether or not it was possible to
have a negotiation when one of the parties to the negotiation did not have
specifics on its course of action. Mr.
Merriam said he believed that both parties (the University and Town) could
collectively proceed with such negotiations in a satisfactory manner. He stated that the narrow question involved
whether or not to have a mechanism in place to control the use of land until
the University decided what to do at total buildout.
Mr. Merriam said a
floating zone would not be tied to any particular course of action. He noted that the Town could maintain the
existing zoning and rezone individual parcels using conventional zoning
districts. Mr. Merriam stated that this
would have the effect of not allowing parcels to move forward without the
University's active participation in the planning process. He said the Town could place a temporary
moratorium on development on the two subject properties, with parcels being
released on a case by case basis. Mr.
Merriam said that such an approach would be in the University's best interest.
Council Member Brown
asked Mr. Merriam to define the term "floating zone" and inquired
about the estimated length of time for the overall process. Mr. Merriam said a floating zone ordinance
involved picking and choosing among several types of approaches which had been
discussed by the Council and its advisory boards on this matter. He stated that
the Council could elect to rezone properties with a new district or a mixed-use
type district. Mr. Merriam said the
steps in a mixed-use process would involve: (1) opting into mixed-use
development for one or both parcels, (2) developing a comprehensive conceptual
plan for one or both properties, including discussion of items such as access,
parking ratios and transit-related matters and then (3) developing site specific
details such as the color of bricks in buildings and the types of shrubs to be
planted.
Council Member Brown
asked how a two year development moratorium might fit into this process. Stating that there was not yet a
comprehensive conceptual plan for site, Mr. Merriam said he believed that the
University would need a fairly broad time window for this process to move
forward.
Council Member Franck
said the University appeared to be at least half-way to developing a
comprehensive plan in this matter. He
noted that at a recent public hearing (March 25th), University officials had
told the Council to plan first and zone later.
Stating that a step-wise process was involved, Mr. Merriam said he
wanted to hear how the Council wished to proceed in this matter. Mr. Merriam said it was correct that
planning should proceed regulation of the properties. He noted that regulation would involve a process driven approach,
as opposed to an end product driven process.
He said that he had traditionally employed two- rather than three-stage,
planning processes, as he was recommending for the University's land parcels.
Mr. Merriam said the
first stage would involve mutual commitments by the University and Town, with
both parties providing applicable assistance to one another. Mr. Merriam also said he was proposing the
establishment of a "University Mixed District" zoning category. He stated that both parties would have to
commit to a schedule of uses and overall floor area square footages. Mr. Merriam noted that the buildout scenario
site plan would need to be committed to Town ordinances and community
objectives. He said that property
owners were generally amenable to this type of commitment. He stated that a principal challenge would
be consistency with the Town's planning objectives.
Council Member Franck
inquired whether the goals and objectives that Mr. Merriam had seen were on the
right track for this type of process.
Mr. Merriam said he did not think it would be possible to achieve all of
the goals and objectives, meaning that some parties would be somewhat
frustrated. He stated that it was
important to have goals and objectives which were measurable in the future.
Planning Board Chair Mary
Reeb said it was likely that a four stage process would be needed, with the
first stage being the establishment of a new zoning category. Ms. Reeb said she hoped that Mr. Merriam
would be able to provide assistance with this task. Mr. Merriam said he would be pleased to do so.
Mayor Waldorf said she liked
a lot of what Mr. Merriam had said today.
She inquired whether or not Mr. Merriam had any thoughts about how to
engage the University in discussions about the overall process. Mr. Merriam said that if the property owner,
the University, did not agree with the overall process prior to the June public
hearing, there would be a real problem.
Mr. Merriam stated that his most important role was as a consensus
builder in the overall process.
Council Member Evans said
that the multiple reports from the UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel were
wonderful guidelines for the whole process.
She also stated that the Council's subcommittee report on the matter
contained several proposed regulations which she did not agree with. Council Member Evans said it would be helpful
for Mr. Merriam to distinguish the utility of these documents in his
remarks. Stating that fifteen years ago
when she first served on the Town's Planning Board, the Town was becoming a
community where some persons could not afford to live and transit matters were
not a high priority, Council Member Evans said it was important for the Council
to be as visionary as possible relative to the University's properties. Council Member Evans said it was very likely
that some things would change in ways which it was not possible to
foresee. She also expressed the
importance of building sufficient flexibility into the process to allow for
such changes.
Mr. Merriam said he
agreed entirely about the importance of long-term planning. He stated that some changes in behavior were
so subtle, it was difficult to detect them.
As an example of this phenomena, Mr. Merriam said that there was good,
empirical evidence that people were doing more linked travel and shopping trips,
with peak hours flattening out to a considerable degree. He stated that two-parent families with both
partners working outside the home were doing more linked travel and
shopping. Mr. Merriam also said that
given the advent of the Internet, he and others were doing more work at home
and less in the office, reducing automobile usage.
Council Member Evans
inquired how a new use or obsolescent use would be handled in terms of the need
for an update of the Town and University's overall planning process and
documentation. Mr. Merriam stated that
the adoption of a buildout plan would be a legislative act, subject to periodic
review, driven by the property owners desire to amend the plan over time.
Planning Board Member
Scott Radway said the Planning Panel's efforts involved a lot of cooperative
work with the University. Mr. Radway
said he was worried about how the University might react to the fact that there
was a two month time gap between the time of the Planning Panel's first report
and the response by the University's planning consultant (JJ&R
Associates). He also expressed concern
about how the University would respond to comments by the Planning Panel. Stating that the Council bent over backwards
to permit citizens to comment on proposed uses of property, Mr. Radway said he
believed it would be a gross mistake to not formally or officially extend this
courtesy to everyone else, especially the University. He stated that process would fall apart quickly if the University
did not have sufficient opportunities to participate in the overall
process. Mr. Merriam said he understood
these concerns. He noted that it was
essential to achieve consensus in the overall matter.
Stating that the roles in
the process had become somewhat muddied, Council Member Andresen said she did
not agree with Mr. Radway's remarks.
She said that the Planning Panel and the University planning consultant
both had important roles in interacting with the University in this
process. She urged the Council not to
sell itself short on efforts to cooperate with the University.
Council Member Pavão
stated that he and two other Council Members served on the UNC-Chapel Hill
Planning Panel. He noted that the
Planning Panel had been working for eighteen months. Council Member Pavão said the process was coming down to the
point where the Council was going to hear how much the University's planning
consultants were responding to comments and suggestions by the UNC-Chapel Hill
Planning Panel. Council Member Pavão
said he wondered how much control the Town would have once the property's
zoning was in place.
Council Member Capowski
asked which documents Mr. Merriam was working from at present. Mr. Merriam said he could not begin to list
all of the documents. He stated that
the two most recent documents he had reviewed were the Planning Panel's most
recent report and the brief goals and objectives report of the Council
subcommittee. Council Member Capowski
suggested that Mr. Merriam look at all three of the Planning Panel's interim
report. Mr. Merriam said he had done
so. Noting that he resided out of town,
Mr. Merriam said it was quite likely that he would miss some nuances. He noted that it was human nature to
generally agree and get by until a certain point when confrontations and
disagreements arose.
Council Member Capowski
said it was very important to have a scope of work which was well-defined and a
clear process leader, which, he personally believed, was the Planning
Board. Mr. Horton said that Mr. Merriam
had been engaged by the Council to proceed as the Council directed. He stated that Mr. Merriam had been asked to
work principally with the Council and Planning Board on development of a zone
for the planning process. Mr. Merriam
said he had been asked by the Council to write a zoning ordinance amendment to
take to the public hearing on June 17th regarding the Horace Williams and Mason
Farm properties. He stated that the
University had provided input about the importance of any such zoning category
having sufficient flexibility to incorporate future uses. Mr. Merriam stated a survey in the late
1930's found that the vast majority of citizens had no interest in radio with
pictures (television).
Council Member Brown
stated that a group of University planning students was in the process of
completing a report on sustainability.
Council Member Brown said she had been impressed with the specifics
given to the Council by Mr. Merriam.
Council Member Brown said she appreciated the roles in the process being
defined diplomatically.
Planning Board Member
Bruce Runberg noted that although Planning Board Member Julie Coleman had
indicated that the University and Town were working cooperatively on the zoning
matter, University officials speaking at the March 25th public forum on the
matter had indicated just the opposite.
Council Member Evans said
that the Planning Board had understood its role regarding zoning up until a few
weeks ago, when the matter had been muddied by the report of the Council
subcommittee. She noted that the
Planning Board had understood its role to be go through a small area plan process,
involving area residents, regarding road networks, environmental and other
matters. Ms. Reeb said that the small
area planning process involved the community to zoned the body to do the zoning
was one body. She stated that the
people to be most effected would have an opportunity to discuss the
matter. Stating that all effected
parties were not necessarily represented on the Planning Panel, some individual
representatives were not saying "I don't like this". Ms. Reeb said she was a little dubious about
whether or not the process could be completed by June.
Mr. Radway said he
believed that things were in step to do something of a process fashion which
differed from things done in the past.
He stated that the Council could do something different, needed to be
cognizant of this and the potential political consequences. Mr. Radway also stated that semantics were
very important. Mr. Radway said his
recommendation was to go forward to a combined public hearing between the
Council and Planning Board.
Council Member Brown said
some things clearly needed to be worked through. She suggested that the Council make the best use of Mr. Merriam's
knowledge when he returned to visit the Town.
Council Member Brown said she felt optimistic that things could be
worked out.
Planning Board Member
Charles Lancaster said the presence of all interested parties at meetings was
important, as was keeping doors open relative to the process.
Planning Board Member
June Dunnick said a joint Saturday meeting between University officials and the
Planning Board had been very productive.
Noting that the Council had many matters on its forthcoming agendas, Ms.
Dunnick said she thought that consensus on the matter was possible, using the
energies of the Planning Board, citizens and others.
Planning Board Chair Mary
Reeb suggested that Planning Board members meet briefly to discuss setting up a
future informal meeting or charrette regarding the planning and zoning process
for the two University properties (Mason Farm and Horace Williams tracts).