SUMMARY OF AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING CONCERNING THE HORACE WILLIAMS AND MASON FARM TRACTS, SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 1996

Planning Board Chairperson Mary Reeb called the session to order at 8:13 a.m. Attendees included Mayor Rosemary Waldorf, Chapel Hill Town Council Members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Richard Franck and Lee Pavao, Chapel Hill Planning Board Members Diane Bloom, Julie Coleman, June Dunnick, Charlie Lancaster, Scott Radway, Bruce Runberg and Martin Rody, Planning Panel representatives Flicka Bateman, Nancy Gabriel, Ted Hoskins, Jim Ward and Don Weisenstein, Neighborhood representatives Dan Coleman and William Whitehead, University Chief of Staff Elson Floyd, Planning Consultant Dwight Merriam and Institute of Government Faculty Member David Owens.

Mr. Merriam presented introductory remarks, noting that stakeholders had been invited to today's session to discuss the zoning of several large tracts of University owned land. Mr. Merriam said it would require a degree of forthrightness at this point so that there would be no surprise at the public hearing regarding the University's properties. He stated that a collective challenge today would be for all parties to help identify stakeholders in the process. Mr. Merriam said his goals would be to develop a process which would be as flexible and self-administering as possible, while maximizing certainty for all parties. Mr. Merriam noted that following today's session, he would forward a draft ordinance to the Town, several weeks prior to the proposed public hearing.

Mayor Waldorf expressed her concurrence with Mr. Merriam's call for forthrightness. She also emphasized the importance of good Town/gown relations and good planning through a cooperative planning process. After presenting a brief overview of the process to date, Mayor Waldorf encouraged all parties to be reasonable and candid today.

University Executive Vice-Chancellor Elson Floyd said that Chancellor Hooker was committed to being open, honest and held accountable for what the University did and failed to do, including the proposals for the Horace Williams and Mason Farm tracts. Mr. Floyd stated that the University wanted to be a good neighbor. He also said that the University very much favored having a comprehensive plan in place prior to consideration of zoning matters. Mr. Floyd said whatever was done should be based on flexibility and expediency, so that the University could wisely expend limited State resources. He stated that Mr. Hoskins would outline a proposal pertaining to zoning classifications.

Ted Hoskins said the notion behind the University's proposal was

to tie comprehensive plans for the two parcels to a zoning district text to be drafted by Mr. Merriam. Mr. Hoskins added that the University was proposing that there be no development on the portion of the Horace Williams tract north of Estes Drive until the Council approved a master plan for this land parcel.

He added that the University was proposing continuation of the collaborative planning process between the Town and University.

Mr. Merriam inquired about buildout expectations, including the number of years and phases for the Horace Williams tract. Mr. Hoskins said the University had not yet developed a plan to this level of detail. Mr. Hoskins added that the University was proposing the establishment of a new zoning classification prior to the development of the Horace Williams tract north of Estes Drive. Noting that he agreed with the proposal holistically, Mr. Merriam said later in today's meeting, he would draw a directive graph of how this process might work. Mr. Hoskins noted that the University's principal concern was to maintain as much flexibility as possible throughout the process.

Stating that the Council's April 2nd adopted resolution concerning suggested goals was idealistic in the best sense of the word, Mr. Merriam said the University needed to draft a memorandum during the next two to three weeks, about problems, if any, it might have with the resolution. He also said it was important for the University to provide as many specifics as possible about the anticipated time frame for the submittal of initial proposals. Mr. Hoskins said it was perhaps reasonable to consider a one year timeframe for the Horace Williams tract. Mr. Merriam said it was likely that there were would be very little in the way of administrative overhead activities at the end of the proposed process. Mr. Floyd said it was more important to know the criteria for approval in advance, rather than who would review the proposals. Mr. Floyd also said it was important that the review process be short, rather than long.

Noting that he was a private pilot, Mr. Merriam said he understood the arguments for and against keeping the airport facility at its current location. Mr. Hoskins said there were no other alternatives than to keep the airport at its current location, with no expansion plans.

Noting that he was under the weather and had a doctor's appointment, Mr. Floyd noted that he would need to leave the meeting early.

Planning Panel Member Flicka Bateman said she appreciated the opportunity for the Panel to participate in today's work session.

Ms. Bateman briefly reviewed the Panel's overall recommendations, including the desirability of developing in areas 4 and 5, the least environmentally sensitive areas outlined in JJ&R Associates report. She also stated that the Planning Panel's objectives placed an emphasis on: the availability of a variety of housing, protection of surrounding neighborhoods, not favoring utilitarian uses next to neighborhoods, not constructing "regional traffic magnets", and linking the Horace Williams tract to the main campus by means of pedestrian and bicycle trails, rather than roadways.

Addressing environmental matters, Planning Panel member Jim Ward said the panel recommended focusing development in areas 4 and 5, as referenced by Ms. Bateman. Mr. Ward said the panel also felt that it was very important to protect streams, the Resource Conservation District and associated steep slopes and hardwood forests. He also stated that the University, as a steward of public land, had a responsibility to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Noting recent concerns about toxic waste storage on a portion of the Horace Williams property, Mr. Ward said the University had an obligation to have an open and public process regarding the proposed development of the Horace Williams and Mason Farm tracts.

Planning Panel member Nancy Gabriel said the fiscal subcommittee recommended that the Town and University have the same policy framework on fiscal matters. She also noted that the subcommittee recommended that new development be revenue-neutral or positive. Ms. Gabriel said other options were: payments in lieu of taxes for third party developments and non-monetary compensation, such as the University providing new facilities for broad community use and local government functions. She also stated that the subcommittee felt it was important for the proposed new zoning category to be adaptable to future changes.

Referencing zoning goals, Planning Panel member Don Weisenstein said it was important to construct affordable housing for faculty, staff and students early in the process. He added the importance of providing convenient retail and commercial uses to persons working on site or residing nearby. Mr. Weisenstein also stated that it was important to encourage collaborative

long-range planning through a development agreement between the Town and University.

Council Member Pavao emphasized the importance of maximizing mass transit and bicycle access links between the Horace Williams, Mason Farm and the main University campus.

Planning Board Chair Mary Reeb inquired whether or not there were any comments from neighborhood residents.

William Whitehead, a resident of the North Haven neighborhood,

said residents of his neighborhood had requested that contiguous land parcels be zoned residential. Mr. Whitehead also said that he was generally gratified by the cooperation to date between the Planning Panel, Town Council, University officials and others.

He also stated that zoning would provide maximum protection of Town interests in negotiations with the University. Mr. Whitehead said although he conceptually supported a one-zone process, he felt there were inherent problems with zoning large and complex tracts of land. Mr. Whitehead said he encouraged the Planning Panel to differentiate zones, rather than outlining specific regulations.

Dan Coleman said he had resided in the Glen Heights neighborhood

for about twelve years. Mr. Coleman said he appreciated the zoning goals recently adopted by the Council and the work of the Planning Panel lying behind the goals. Mr. Coleman noted that he was occasionally awakened at 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. by low-flying planes. He also stated that a portion of the Horace Williams tract had served as a staging area during construction of the University's power plant, with frequent loud noises as equipment was moved on and off the site. Referencing Mr. Ward's earlier remarks, Mr. Coleman said the Town needed to examine toxic waste concerns on the Horace Williams site as public health concerns. He suggested that no development be permitted on the tract until there were assurances of no further health threat from the chemical storage. Mr. Coleman also said it was very important for citizens to have opportunities to participate throughout the University's development process.

Alice Ingram, a resident of Highland Woods, near the Mason Farm tract, said the University was proposing more golf holes and playing fields near her home. She also stated that OWASA had a nearby sewage treatment plant which produced unpleasant odors, especially at night. Noting the importance of trusting University officials to ask responsibly, Ms. Ingram stated that some persons who were impossible to work with had passed through the University's system several years ago.

Mayor Waldorf said it would be very desirable to reserve portions of both tracts for future potential transportation corridors.

Mr. Merriam drew a preliminary timeline for review the University's development plans, noting that if the property owner did not pull the trigger for development, underlying zoning of the properties could be altered. He said it was important for the University to provide an comprehensive, overall site plan to the Council, rather than a piecemeal proposal. Mr. Merriam said this would make it possible to nail down basic corridors, parameters, maximum building heights and other details. He also stated that the Council would not necessarily have to be involved at the precinct plan stage of the process and should not be involved at the building permit stage. Mr. Merriam said it was very important for precinct plans to be in conformance with the University's comprehensive development plan. He said that the Council could choose to review projects at the project plan stage by having an extraordinary majority vote of seven or more out of nine Council Members to have such involvement.

EXISTING >> TRIGGERING >> COMPREHENSIVE >> PRECINCT >> BUILDING ZONING EVENT PLAN PLANS CONSTRUCT.

(Mixed- (Town or (General (Site

Use property principles, Plans)

University owner Best

development) initiated) management

practices)

Noting that the existing O&I-3 zoning category provided virtually no opportunity for Council review of development proposals, Council Member Capowski requested a clarification of Mr. Merriam's proposal relative to zoning. Stating that the process of development planning was interactive and iterative, Mr. Merriam said if the Council had sufficient detail about proposed building plans early in the process, the Council would not need to look at plans at the building stage or perhaps even the precinct plan stage. Stating that precinct plans would be fairly detailed, Council Member Capowski said it was important to have a good amount of detail spelled out early in the review process.

The work session recessed at 10:13 a.m. and resumed at 10:32 a.m.

Council Member Andresen requested information on what constituted a triggering event. Mr. Merriam said triggering events would involve actions initiated by the University relative to the process. Council Member Andresen said the process being laid out appeared to contain a tension between general and detailed aspects. She suggested the possibility of establishing "hard edge" type criteria. Mr. Merriam said it was important to develop criteria pertaining to: general development categories and uses including utilitarian uses, retail and commercial uses and active and passive recreation uses.

Council Member Andresen requested a clarification of Mr. Merriam's earlier recommendation concerning an extraordinary majority vote of the Council relative to the review of projects at the precinct plan or building plan stage of the proposed process. Mr. Merriam said although he was not specifically committed to this recommendation, he was attempting to facilitate a new way of looking at things, including maintaining a level of detail while reviewing several buildings at once. Council Member Andresen said an overriding concern in the process was the impact of buildings on infrastructure, rather than the design and architecture of these buildings. Mr. Merriam said these matters would best be reviewed at the precinct plan stage of the process.

Council Member Brown inquired whether or not Mr. Merriam was suggesting that the actual impacts of projects would be examined at the precinct plan by the Planning Board. Mr. Merriam said this was correct, noting that matters such as trip generation rates, peak hour usage and other factors would be reviewed at this stage of the process. He added that the property owner could, at any point in the process, request an amendment to the master development plan. Mr. Merriam said if certain conditions were no longer in place, new uses would have to be added. Council Member Capowski said flexibility would have to work both ways, for the University and for the Town.

Citing a hypothetical future situation such as inadequate water treatment capacity, Planning Board Member Scott Radway said it might be necessary to seek overall density reductions of staging of infrastructure in such an instance. Noting that matters such as stormwater management had changed a lot in the last five to ten years, Mr. Merriam said it also would be possible to go back and change the underlying district in such a case.

Council Member Evans said she thought that having fixed was really good, as compared to having a moving target at present. She stated that it was frustrating for applicants to have to meet an often changing set of development requirements. Council Member Evans inquired whether her inference was correct that it would be possible to change one precinct plan without necessarily having to redesign all of them. Mr. Merriam said he believed this would be the case since the precinct plans would likely be developed one at a time. Stating the importance of providing flexibility in the review process, Council Member Evans said she did not think that the Council needed to be locked into the present review process.

Planning Board Member Diane Bloom said she thought that the Council, rather than the Planning Board, should make important decisions about precinct plans. Stating that the real objective of zoning was to protect against negative impacts, Ms. Bloom said she objected to the suggestion that an extraordinary majority vote of the Council would be needed for the Council to review precinct or building plans. Noting that he did not feel strongly about the matter of extraordinary Council majority, Mr. Merriam said his prime objective was to stop drawn out review processes. Mr. Merriam said it would be a mistake to fast track the process through the precinct plan stage and then subject the applicant to a drawn out process during the last few review stages. Ms. Bloom said she was objecting to the need for a super majority of the Council, rather than expediency of the process during the final stages.

Noting the essential nature of fitting the proposed review process into existing State law, David Owens said the range of discretion had to be very narrow at later stages of the process. He noted that general policies and guidelines on buffers and related matters could be set out early in the process. Mr. Owens noted that if proposal met all of these criteria, the Town would have to approve these applications.

Referencing the Council's ability to hold a public hearing on possible expansion of the Horace Williams Airport facility a few years ago, Ms. Bloom said there could have been unanticipated consequences if the Council had been unable to call such a hearing. Mr. Merriam said these types of matters would be covered in precinct plans. He also said it was important for the Council to determine a fast track approach for resolving disputes and the matter of extraordinary majority votes.

Transportation Board Chairperson Ruby Sinreich said she had concerns about the fact that projects were virtually always approved. She stated that a tradeoff in this matter was that projects took somewhat longer to review through the Town's review process.

Citing a hypothetical example, Council Member Andresen inquired how the Town would handle a situation in which there was no additional capacity for the treatment of sewage. She asked whether or not it would be reasonable to address such a possibility at the comprehensive plan stage. Mr. Merriam said if criteria established in the project's comprehensive plan were not met, the Council not need to approve the project. Mr. Owens said that the Town could set criteria at the comprehensive plan stage, with the flexibility of changing or adding to these policies in the future.

Council Member Capowski inquired about the possibility of building legislative specifics concerning off-site traffic and widening of roads into the process. Mr. Merriam said although he did not the specific details about highway capacities, it was possible to key the level of development to specific criteria such as not creating hazards to public health and safety. Ms. Reeb asked whether or not it was correct that either party to the agreement could initiate changes. Mr. Merriam said this was correct, with one exception, the requirement to vest rights in the property owner to proceed with the development.

Stating that existing zoning regulations for the two properties were not adequate, William Whitehead said the attractiveness of the proposed plan would depend on when the University was willing to make a commitment regarding proposed development. He also inquired how precincts would be defined with respect to terrain, neighborhoods and other criteria. Mr. Merriam said there was a certain degree of trust involved with the plan he had outlined earlier in the day. He also stated that the precincts were micro bioregions, areas which worked together, rather than simply geographical areas. Mr. Merriam said that issues such as environmental protections could be addressed in large scope at the comprehensive plan stage.

Expressing his conceptual support for a proposed mixed development district, Council Member Franck said he was not satisfied with the proposed scheme for a triggering mechanism, given the inadequacy of the underlying zoning district. Council Member Franck said he preferred dealing with interim zoning concerns on a building by building basis. Mr. Merriam stated that property owners could voluntarily opt into a development limitation or moratorium arrangement. Mr. Merriam said the Council would need to decide on the matter of how long it wished to wait relative to triggering development on the University's properties.

Council Member Franck inquired about the flexibility of legislative approval up to the precinct plan stage. Mr. Owen said ordinance amendments could be entertained during the triggering and comprehensive plan stages. Mr. Owen added that at the precinct plan stage, courts had approved some very general standards. Mr. Merriam said it was possible not to have anything too final at the precinct plan stage, with a collaborative effort between the Town and developers. He added that some matters such as parking ratios could be determined fairly early in the process.

Scott Radway said that the length of the existing review process contributed to anxiety on the part of many citizens who needed to attend a number of different board meetings relative to the same development application. Noting that the Town's Comprehensive Plan was out of date in some respects, Mr. Radway suggested that the Council adopt by legislative action the University open space, buffering and circulation elements.

Mayor Waldorf said it was important that the University's development plans address community needs such as affordable housing and recreational facilities. She inquired how these matters could possible be addressed in the proposed process.

Mr. Merriam said such matters could be addressed at the comprehensive plan stage by way of a set of mutual commitments and mandatory standards between the Town and University.

Planning Board Member Julie Coleman inquired whether enabling legislation from the General Assembly was needed for the proposed process. Mr. Owens said probably not. Council Member Capowski inquired about involvement by the Town of Carrboro relative to the process. Mr. Owens said the Town of Carrboro would need to enter into separate negotiations with the University relative to proposed development within its Town limits. Ms. Coleman inquired about the ideal time range for the process. Mr. Merriam said he felt confident that the draft zoning ordinance could be in place in time for the June public hearing. Mr. Hoskins said the University hoped to have a foundation for the plan in place by the time of the hearing. Mr. Merriam said that precinct plans

could be in place within twelve to eighteen months of the development of a comprehensive plan, dependent upon the property owner's needs.

Martin Rody said that the precinct plan was an interesting new concept. Mr. Rody said some kind of requirement for environmental assessment was needed at the precinct plan stage.

Mr. Merriam stated that such matters could be addressed in earlier stages of the process. Mr. Rody suggested the possibility of having some purely residential areas in the proposed mixed-use development. Noting that some purely residential areas were likely, Mr. Merriam stated that single-family detached housing on small lots was the most sought after type of housing.

Council Member Brown inquired whether the existing zoning district would no longer exist if five or more Council Members were to vote in favor of a mixed-use development district. Mr. Merriam said no, noting that changing the underlying would involve a period of interim zoning while the property owner submitted proposals on a site by site basis. Council Member Brown asked what would happen if the University chose not to present development plans for the parcels. Mr. Merriam said one option would be for the Council to start the process of underlying zoning. Mr. Merriam said he did not believe that the University would not present development plans in the near future.

Council Member Evans said if the Town put an underlying zone in place, the Town would be obligated to come forward with a comprehensive plan. She inquired whether or not Mr. Merriam was suggesting that zoning code lists be developed in association with precinct plans. Mr. Merriam said he hoped that there would be a high level of detail presented in association with the proposed precinct plans.

Ms. Reeb said one of the problems in the process up until today had been a mutual distrust about whether or not the Town and University would do what they said they would do. She stated that any waiting period would pose a problem with distrust concerns. University Associate Vice-Chancellor Bruce Runberg said today's session had been cooperative and profitable. Stating that the proposal under consideration was similar to the one submitted by the University, Mr. Runberg noted that the Chancellor Hooker had submitted a letter of commitment that no development would occur on the Horace Williams tract north of Estes Drive until sixty to ninety days after approval of final development plans by the University's Board of Trustees. He noted that it was likely that these plans would not be submitted to the Board of Trustees until September, 1996 or perhaps later. Mr. Runberg said the University intended to continue cooperative planning efforts for the two properties (Horace Williams and Mason Farm).

Council Member Andresen said the idea of an elective trigger was an interesting concept which merit discussion and review by the Council. She requested a clarification of the proposed process by Mr. Merriam. Mr. Merriam said he would submit a draft zoning ordinance within three weeks, schedule a follow-up meeting for review and then prepare a final draft ordinance for consideration at the June public hearing. Stating that alternatives needed to be included in the follow-up options, Council Member Andresen inquired who would decide the criteria. Mr. Merriam stated that

the ranges of floor area and dwelling units would be based on information given to him by the Town and JJ&R Associates (the University's planning consultant). Mr. Merriam said he would not set specific standards in some regards unless he was specifically directed to do so. Commending the Planning Panel and University for doing a good job of planning, Mr. Merriam said both parties had made his job less difficult.

Ms. Bloom requested a clarification of when interim zones would take effect. Mr. Merriam said interim zoning would go into effect when the University triggered the start of the review process. Mr. Merriam added that a draft proposed zoning ordinance would be in place by June. Mr. Merriam also said he believed that mutual commitments on development regulations between the Town and University would work well.

Stating that overlay zones had not always been applicable to the University in the past, Mr. Radway said there might be an overlay district if the proposed development were staged. Mr. Merriam said the proposed district would displace the underlying district.

Mr. Whitehead said in general he was pleased with the overall plan and process today. He inquired whether or not it was correct that it could take up to two years between the comprehensive plan and precinct plan stages. Mr. Merriam said there would be a relatively short period of time where it might be possible for the University to proceed with existing zoning. Mr. Merriam stated that he would develop a draft zoning proposal within the next three weeks.

Flicka Bateman said she appreciated the comments made today and the opportunity for the Planning Panel to participate in the process. She inquired about the legality of concurrency.

Mr. Owens said although special details were a little fuzzy, the general rule was that adequate facilities had to be in place to serve proposed developments. Speaking for herself, Ms. Bateman said that continued collaborative efforts should continue and she requested that community values be reflected in shared activities between the Town and the University.

Ted Hoskins said he was confident that there was a good basis on which to build the review process for development of the two properties.

Council Member Franck thanked Mayor Waldorf and the Planning Board for sponsoring today's work session. Council Member Franck also said he was very appreciative for the extremely constructive proposal offered by the University today.

Council Member Brown said she was concerned that the most recent University plans for the two parcels called for seven to nine million square feet of building space and parking spaces for forty percent of building occupants. Council Member Brown said the protection of hardwoods and streams were very important priorities. She said that proposed public facility plans should not be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.

Stating that this morning's session had been very good, Mayor Waldorf said that so much had been invested in the process in terms of time, emotion and resources that the process could not be sabotaged or derailed. She noted the importance of moving ahead collaboratively with the planning process.

Diane Bloom said that today's session had been very interesting and constructive. Ms. Bloom said she still saw a tension between the Council's efforts to protect neighborhoods and the University's efforts to get new buildings in place within a certain period of time. She expressed hope that the approval for precinct plans would be handled by the Council. Ms. Bloom also said she hoped that incentives would be provided for the University to get the new zoning category in place.

Martin Rody said precinct plans would have to be carefully done so that citizens could fully understand them. Scott Radway said it would be helpful to have slides to illustrate individual points in a communications package.

Stating that the matter of precinct plans was a difficult concept to plan, Mr. Merriam said he would prepare a short report to explain the overall proposed ordinance, with annotations, prior to the June public hearing.

Mr. Runberg noted that the University currently had no specific development plans for the portion of the Horace Williams property north of Estes Drive. He stated that several development projects were already in process at the Mason Farm tract and the portion of the Horace Williams tract south of Estes Drive. Ms. Reeb said in effect, these parcels were protected with existing zoning.

Ms. Reeb expressed appreciation to all persons in attendance today. The work session concluded at 12:28 p.m.