AGENDA #10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Process and Schedule for Proceeding with Neighborhood Conservation Districts
DATE: June 15, 2005
This report outlines two options for proceeding with the preparation of Neighborhood Conservation Districts for the Greenwood, Pine Knolls, Coker Hills, and the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhoods. On May 9, 2005, the Town Council asked the Town Manager for options to streamline the preparation process and to complete more districts in a shorter time frame.
The attached Resolution A would select Option A to engage Clarion Associates to prepare and complete four districts by April 2006, at a cost not to exceed $50,000. Please see Attachment 1 for a proposal from Clarion Associates.
Resolution B would select Option B to prepare and complete two districts by May 2006, and prepare and complete two additional districts by May 2007, using Town Planning staff.
We recommend that the Town Council consider Resolution A.
BACKGROUND
On May 9, 2005, the Town Council continued discussion from its meeting of April 25 concerning options for addressing requests to initiate Neighborhood Conservation Districts. The Town Council referred the April 25 and May 9 reports to the Planning Board for comments and suggestions in developing a potential process for proceeding with Neighborhood Conservation Districts. (Please see Attachments 2 and 3).
On May 17, and June 7, the Planning Board reviewed options for proceeding. The Summary of Planning Board Action is attached (Attachment 4).
On May 9, we suggested the idea of preparing a “tear-down ordinance” as a tool to help address neighborhood concerns. We have not had time to research this idea; this memorandum does not address that suggestion.
On May 9, the Council asked for information on the City of Raleigh’s neighborhood plans. The City of Raleigh has prepared and implemented 21 neighborhood plans. They currently do one or two per year. Two city planners work with neighborhoods to accomplish one or two neighborhood plans per year. For more information, including copies of the neighborhood plan, please visit the Planning Department web page at www.raleigh-nc.org.
OPTIONS
The following discussion addresses two options to prepare one or more districts concurrently.
The Town’s first Neighborhood Conservation District for the Northside Neighborhood took 18 months from initiation to completion. In order to balance the Town Council’s objective of delivering Neighborhood Conservation Districts more quickly with the staff resources available, we believe that it is essential to establish the key goal of a process. We suggest the goal of the process be limited to creating a zoning overlay district and the design standards or guidelines as described in the Land Use Management Ordinance. Please see Attachment 5.
We would not propose to cover other neighborhood planning matters such as community policing, traffic management, or the needs for capital facilities as part of this work. We believe the broader the scope of the work is, the less likely we will be able to deliver zoning overlay districts in the scheduled time.
Option A: Consultant prepares four districts by April 2006.
The consultant’s proposal from Clarion Associates (Attachment 1) would undertake four neighborhood initiatives concurrently. It offers two alternatives.
Option B: Town Planning staff prepares four districts by May 2007.
The process outlined on the accompanying table is a potential generic process and schedule for the preparation of one or more districts. In preparing this process and schedule we have considered the time commitment required by the community, the Planning Board and Planning Department staff to undertake several neighborhood conservation districts concurrently.
Option B: Potential Generic Schedule |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Planning Person Hours |
|
|
|
Step |
Key Step |
Date |
Staff Meeting Hours |
Staff Prep. Hours |
Comments/Notes |
|
1 |
Council authorizes process |
June 2005 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Staff develops a “template” of materials and publish project web page |
Summer 2005 |
20 |
100 |
Background info, process & schedule. June & August Planning Board Long Range Meeting |
|
5 |
Meeting One “Kick-off open house”
|
End September beginning October 2005 |
15 |
100 |
Town hosts meeting for neighbors to share their concerns and interests |
|
6 |
Meeting Two “Follow-up” Neighborhood Meeting |
Week two October 2005 |
10 |
60 |
Neighborhood considers preliminary diagnosis and possible responses |
|
7 |
Staff drafts preliminary overlay district |
November 2005 |
|
80 |
|
|
8 |
Meeting Three- “charrette/workshop” |
Before Thanksgiving |
20 |
100 |
Saturday event on draft district & develop design guidelines |
|
9 |
Meeting Four: Review preliminary district |
December 2005 |
10 |
60 |
Early December. Planning Board Meeting |
|
10 |
Planning Board conducts a Public Forum on district to solicit comments |
Third Week in January 2006 |
10 |
60 |
During Regular Long Range Planning Board Meeting |
|
11 |
Staff revise drafts |
February 2006 |
|
80 |
|
|
12 |
Planning Board review revised draft and forward “final” draft to the Town Council. |
March 2006 |
10 |
60 |
Regular Long Range Planning Board Meeting |
|
13 |
Town Council calls Public Hearing for rezoning |
March 2006 |
10 |
100 |
Memo, maps, notices letters and mailings |
|
14 |
Town Council holds Public Hearing for rezoning |
April 2006 |
10 |
60 |
|
|
15 |
Town Council Adoption of Zoning Atlas Amendment |
May 2006 |
10 |
60 |
Consider adoption of Neighborhood Conservation District. |
|
16 |
Publish Design Guidelines |
December 2006 |
|
25 |
|
It is designed to facilitate participation from the Planning Board and the neighborhoods concerned and take about six months from initiation to completion of a draft district. Additional time would be needed for Council review of proposed Zoning Atlas Amendments. It is based on the Option A approach of not appointing citizens to work in committees with the Planning Board, relying on the existing neighborhood groups to represent each neighborhood.
The table includes illustrative information concerning the composite hours of work required from the Planning Department staff in each stage of the process. The hours for each task have been divided into those required to staff the meetings during the process and those required to prepare materials and products, including hours for technical and administrative tasks. The estimated hours are composite person-hours for the staff positions that would potentially work on the project.
DISCUSSION
This discussion compares the implications of the two options concerning the primary issues of timing and the division of responsibilities.
Timing
There are limited windows in the Town’s business calendar to engage public participation. These windows are September to mid November and from January to May. Generally, a public participation process is best started in September, so that it may finish by the following June. We reviewed the following scenarios with the Planning Board:
Scenario 1: Undertake and complete four concurrently: If the scenario of four districts were selected the process would finish by May 2006.
Scenario 2: Undertake and complete two then undertake and complete next two: If the scenario of two districts at one time was selected, we anticipate that another two districts would commence the following year and finish by May 2007.
Scenario 3: Undertake four with staggered starts: (Assumes starting a first phase of projects in September 2005 and then starting a second phase in January 2006). If the scenario of a staggered start were selected, the process would finish by December 2007.
The Planning Board supported Scenario 1 provided appropriate consultant services are engaged.
Division of Responsibility
This discussion sets out potential roles of the Planning Board, the community, the Planning Department and consultant services to undertake several neighborhood conservation districts concurrently.
Planning Board Role: The Land Use Management Ordinance charges the Planning Board, or a committee designated by the Town Council with representation from the Planning Board, with the responsibility for developing ordinance proposals.
Staff Comment: In both Options A and B the Planning Board would participate and oversee the process. Members of the Board and citizens of the neighborhoods would be engaged in a series of neighborhood meetings for each neighborhood area.
The Planning Board also expressed an interest in discussing how the proposed process might be refined prior to initiation of work on the project in September. We suggest the Planning Board use its June and August Long-Range meetings to prepare itself for the project and to review refinements to the proposed process selected by the Council. If the Council selects the consultant Option A, the consultant could be invited to attend one or both of these sessions.
Community Role: The Land Use Management Ordinance states in section 3.6.5 (c) 3 that all property owners within the proposed district shall be afforded the opportunity to participate in drafting the conservation plan.
The Planning Board believes committee meetings, with designated neighborhood representatives, should be a focus of the process for developing neighborhood conservation districts in order to provide consistency of thought and decision making. The Board felt the concept of just using neighborhood meetings was inadequate. Please see Attachment 4.
Staff Comment: Both Options A and B rely on a process that allows multiple opportunities for citizen input and feedback as zoning overlay districts are composed.
We believe that the neighborhoods concerned are already well organized and represented. Therefore we believe that with a clear goal and strong facilitation that the creation of a neighborhood committee as used for the development of the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District may not be needed.
Consultant Role: Under Option A, the consultant scope of services proposes preparing all four Neighborhood Conservation District Ordinances and guidelines between September 2005 and April 2006. During this period the consultant will facilitate four neighborhood meetings for each district for a total of sixteen meetings.
Staff Comment: Option A (Alternative 1, limited consulting services) would require that the Planning Department staff be responsible for the preparation, information and logistics for all four districts (see staff role below). We believe that Option A (Alternative 2, expanded consulting services) would enable staff to better manage the workload of the Planning Department to focus on key Council goals (see related agenda item tonight on Planning Department workload).
Staff Role: Under Option A (Alternative 1, limited consulting services) the Town Planning staff would be responsible for preparation of maps; preparation of mailing lists of property owners; logistical support for sending out notices and distributing leaflets; logistical support for setting up meetings; distribution of materials to the Planning Board and Council; creating and maintaining a link on the Town’s website; provision of a planner to be a lead point of contact; responding to inquiries from neighborhood residents and property owners; and attending all neighborhood meetings.
Under Option A (Alternative 2, expanded consultant services), the Town staff would be responsible for the distribution of materials to the Planning Board and Council; creating and maintaining a link on the Town’s website for this project; designation of a planner to be a lead point of contact for the Consultant; and attendance at neighborhood meetings as determined to be desirable by Town Planning staff.
Under Option B, the Town Planning staff would prepare two districts between September 2005, and April 2006, and then prepare two more between September 2006, and April 2007. The Planning Department staff would facilitate the neighborhood meetings, prepare proposals, write draft ordinances and oversee preparation of design guidelines. Potentially two staff persons could be assigned as project managers. Each could be responsible for one or more districts, and could be supported with a project planner, technical, graphic and administrative assistance from the Planning Department.
Option B would require consultant assistance to develop and produce design guidelines, and possibly for meeting facilitation.
Staff Comment: We believe that Option A (Alternative 2, expanded consulting services) is the best option for managing the workload of the Planning Department to undertake key Council goals. This option would allow the Town Council to undertake more than one district at a time and have the least impact on the discretionary elements of the Planning Department work plan.
Under Option B, potentially a budget of about $20,000 would be needed to contract for design guidelines, for additional planner assistance with meeting logistics, and for meeting facilitator assistance. This budget would provide some relief for staff undertaking the neighborhood meetings and would allow planning staff to meet other essential work commitments.
CONCLUSION
The Town Council’s direction has been to provide options for how to streamline the Neighborhood Conservation District preparation process and to complete more districts in a shorter time frame. This direction has resource implications and impacts on the amount and form of public participation in the process. More districts prepared faster will require more resources.
We believe that Option A (Alternative 1, limited consulting services) could address all four current requests. However, it would still require extensive staff person-hours for administrative and technical support, for preparation of written and graphic materials, for undertaking the logistics of 16 public meetings between September 2005 and April 2006, and for participation in these meetings.
Similarly, we believe that Option B could address two of the current requests per year. However, it would also require the dedication of the discretionary elements of the Planning Department’s work plan for 2005-2006 to only this project.
Therefore, we recommend Option A (Alternative 2, expanded consulting services) as the best option for addressing the Council’s direction to complete four neighborhood conservation districts in one year while managing the workload of the Planning Department to meet key Council goals. The $50,000 cost of the Clarion Associates proposal would be funded from the cost savings realized by holding the Planning Director position vacant for six months, and therefore would require no additional appropriation in the Town Budget for 2005-2006.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: On May 17 and June 7, 2005, the Planning Board discussed options for responding to the current requests for Neighborhood Conservation Districts. The Board supported the concept of undertaking and completing multiple neighborhood conservation districts concurrently, and supported the idea of bringing in a consultant. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (Attachment 4) for a detailed list of comments and suggestions.
Manager’s Recommendation: We recommend the Council adopt the attached Resolution A to contract with Clarion Associates to prepare and complete four districts by April 2006, at a cost not to exceed $50,000.
Resolution B would prepare and complete two districts by May 2006 and would prepare and complete two more districts by May 2007 using Town Planning staff.
ATTACHMENTS
RESOLUTION A
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH CLARION ASSOCIATES TO PREPARE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (2005-06-15/R-17.1a)
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has a goal of protecting the physical and social fabric of Chapel Hill’s neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance includes provisions for creation of overlay zoning districts for older neighborhoods and several neighborhoods in order to meet the Town’s Comprehensive Plan goal; and
WHEREAS, the Greenwood, Pine Knolls, Coker Hills, and the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhood representatives have requested that the Council consider initiating a neighborhood conservation district planning process for their neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, Clarion Associates has submitted a proposal to undertake four neighborhood conservation districts by April 2006;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager to contract for services with Clarion Associates based generally on the Manager’s Memorandum to Council of June 15, 2005, such services to consist of preparing Neighborhood Conservation Districts for the Greenwood, Pine Knolls, Coker Hills, and the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhoods using a process as generally specified in the Clarion Associates proposal submitted to the Town Council dated June 10, 2005, at a cost not to exceed $50,000; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the consultant work shall include review of the process specified in the proposal with the Planning Board to seek input on how the proposal might be refined prior to the initiation of work in September 2005.
This the 15th day of June, 2005.
RESOLUTION B
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PREPARE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS BY MAY 2006 AND TWO ADDITIONAL DISTRICTS BY MAY 2007 (2005-06-15/R-17.1b)
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has a goal of protecting the physical and social fabric of Chapel Hill’s neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance includes provisions for creation of overlay zoning districts for older neighborhoods and several neighborhoods in order to meet the Town’s Comprehensive Plan goal; and
WHEREAS, the Greenwood, Pine Knolls, Coker Hills, and the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhood representatives have requested that the Council consider initiating a neighborhood conservation district planning process for their neighborhoods;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager to prepare and complete two districts by the Summer of 2006 and then prepare and complete two more districts by the Summer of 2007.
This the 15th day of June, 2005.