Guiding Development at Carolina North (Chapel Hill Town Council)

I'm not finding tons of bacvkground on the Town web site, but here is the info for this agenda item: http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/10/15/1/

The staff recommends adoption of a resolution that would:

• Establish the development agreement, with a base zone, as the preferred tool for guiding development at Carolina North;
• Concur with the Trustees’ request that June 2009 is a reasonable target date for having established the process for guiding development at Carolina North; and,
• Sett the next joint work session with the representatives of the University Trusts for October 22.

The consultant says the Council already agreed on the following guiding principles for this process

• broad & meaningful public input
• open & tarnsparent negotiation
• plans for long-term as context
• rewview & approve discrete portions of the plan 
• adequate time for review
• predictability
• (I  missed one)
• monitor performance
• opportunities for adapttion
• address full range of community concerns

Proposed framework:

• create new zoning district
• rezone to new zone
• plan for discrete phase or portion of development
• development agreement

What's the difference between this model (development agreement) and typical zoning tools? The process is more flexible, not legally proscribed. (Me: There are good reasons for the limits on zoning process! It keeps it fair.)

This alternative also allows for a different scope, so the Town could regulate more and different things. For example, rezoning land with no buildings. Many regs are designed only for structures. This allows for the same standards but also more transportation, natural protection, and other areas.

Also can utilize unique mitigation standards so you can develop requirements that are specific to this project. Consultant says dev't agreement also allows for more flexibility in site planning.

Consultant says development agreement process moves faster than a comparabe process because it doesn't include gaps for the developer to go away and respond to the town's review, but that they can add those breaks as they go along if they want.  As a result this would take only 8 months instead of 8 to 12 months.

Me: It seems this whole idea is to let the Council make up everything as they go along. That doesn't seem fair to UNC, honestly. There needs to be some ground rules for the process that everyone must stick to.

Consultant say that in terms of enforceability, he THINKS they'd be able to do things after the 5 year term of the development agreement. But it's not proven in state law as this is a new tool! But it isconsidered a zoning violation to not comply with a dev't agreement at any time in the future.

Citizen comments...

Cindy Henshaw, Summerlin Drive: Piney Mtn Road is going to be aligned with the main entrance to CN. Residents have questionsd about the impact of this. She has over 180 signatures on a petition asking for compltete information about traffic and public saftey impacts be made publicly available before any decisions are made. Esp long-range transit plan , bike & pedestrian safety, air quality, noise & light pollution.

Will Raymond: Has researched how development agreements have worked in other communities, and feels good about it. It provides flexibility, but we have to guard against informality. We need to draft  compliance agreements that the main apporval is contingent upon. Also need an escape hatch.

He suggests the town invite & post frequently asked questions on the web. Evidentiary procedure also has some value.  Need to develop the new zone w/ a task force. 

Joyce Brown, former town council member: How do past plans fit into this process?  How does broad public participation fit in with predictbility and certainty? CN will worsen traffic problems, how wil neighborhoods be protected?  We're in very uncertain times, this shoud be part of the process.

Julie McClintock, former town council member, speaking for NRG: Communityy involvement and information will be critical.  There are advantages & disadvantages to the deveopment agreement prcoess. Problem is that it becomes imposible to amend the plan after it's adopted unless both prties agree. It seems there are 2 processes going on: one w/Council & BOT and one making text amendments.  This may be too much for the public to follow an give meaningful input.

Recommendations: 1. specific and robust scedule of public input. at least 2 public hearings.

2. loonger timeline so that peopel have time to understand  

3. tracking and notiiction system on the town web site so people can follow the process. 

Bill Strom: meaningful public input is essential, it may en up being at odds with the June approval goal. We need real, solid information just was we would have for an SUP. eg traffic impact for Piney Mtn neigborhood. What about fees as we would normally charge for development applications?

Jim Ward: Agree with Bill about timeline. Asks consultant about how to hanle points where thing need to be renegotited.

A: You can tie certain requirements to performance measures. (Me: that's very sketchy. how can we imagine all of the possible areas of centiention/requirements that would be needed in just a few months?) 

Jim: the situation is already chaning in the middle of the existing process. this is a bad way to work together. eg: Innovation Center going ahead without a master plan (Me: amen!)

Laurin Easthom: Generally supports the development agreement idea, but is concerened that moving so quickly could lead to an omission. (Me: just my point above.) How can we cover things that we didn't think of?

A: It's important for UNC to ber very specific in stating what it wants, and similarly the Town has to consider all of the issues in advance. It can only be changed if both parties agree to the amendment.

Laurin: What about areas where we disagree during the creation of the development agreement?

A: If you can't agree on the terms of the agreement, then you don't have a development agreement.

(Me: This i so loosey goosey! I don't see why we don't use existing  planning mechanisms.)

Laurin: If we don;t liek how the agreement works aout, can we drop it when it expirtes? A: Yes. 

Kevin Foy: We shuld consider mroe options for getting public input besides Council meetings. eg: a workshop where folks could ask questions informally.

Ed Harrison: re: NRGs idea about online project tracking. This is a need for all development．

Council voted to move forward with the development areement process and adopting June as a target date. Meeting w/ UNC Trustees next Wednesday.

I am gravely concerned about the process and time frame of this.