AGENDA #14
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-Up Report on Discussion of Mixed Housing Ordinance
DATE: April 10, 2000
This memorandum is written in response to Council comments on March 20, 2000, during a Public Hearing on a draft Mixed Housing Ordinance. We respond to a Council request and offer procedural options.
Adoption of the attached Ordinance would require that a percentage of homes in new residential developments be below a particular size.
Adoption of the attached Resolution would direct the Town Manager to develop a series of additional ideas on affordable housing, querying experts and municipalities across the region and state, to bring a report for consideration in June/July while deferring work on other tasks.
The Town Council held a Public Hearing on March 20, to consider a proposed amendment to the Development Ordinance. The proposed ordinance (attached here) is modeled after one adopted by Carrboro in June, 1999, requiring that new subdivisions contain a mix of housing sizes. A copy of our March 20 memorandum, containing two draft ordinances presented that evening, is attached.
Reservations about the proposed ordinance were raised at the hearing. After discussion of the issues presented, Council members asked the Town Manager about the feasibility of developing alternate affordable housing ordinances for the Council to consider. We responded at the time that we thought, because of work loads, it would be difficult to develop additional ideas within a schedule that would allow the Council to act on such ideas prior to the summer break. We offered to return on April 10 with a list of the projects currently underway. We also agreed to offer any additional comments or observations on this topic.
PROJECTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY
I have asked Planning Director Roger Waldon to prepare a summary of ongoing tasks that are currently underway. He has prepared a memorandum, attached here, that describes regular and special projects that are currently assigned to the Planning Department. I agree with his conclusion that it would not be possible to add, this spring, another major work element to develop a series of additional affordable housing options unless other work items are delayed. We noted that the Council could adopt a Mixed Housing ordinance, of the type that was discussed on March 20 and for which a Public Hearing had been held, at any time following the hearing.
As we identify options for the Council’s consideration tonight (listed below), we suggest that the Council could direct that work on some ongoing projects be deferred to allow a report on affordable housing options to be presented in June.
As noted above, at the March 20 Public Hearing several persons expressed reservations about the feasibility and/or desirability of the Mixed Housing ordinance that was being considered. Opinions were expressed that this Mixed Housing ordinance, similar to the one adopted by Carrboro, may not be the best way to approach the Council’s affordable housing objectives for Chapel Hill.
Discussion at the Public Hearing prompted us to consider again how this ordinance might work in Chapel Hill's housing market. There is no experience to draw on from Carrboro; although the ordinance has been in place for nine months, the first application to fall under its provisions was just recently submitted (a request for 56 townhomes).
We have identified a concern that we had not considered before, about possible unintended results of this kind of ordinance for Chapel Hill. Our concern is that if this ordinance were adopted, what we would see is mostly 12-lot subdivisions and smaller, in order to avoid the provisions of the ordinance. State law provides, for example, that division of land into parcels that are at least 10 acres in size is exempt from subdivision ordinances. It is not hard to imagine a property owner using this provision, or recombination, or some other mechanism to be able to create development parcels small enough to do 12-lot subdivisions, rather than do a larger, coordinated development that would be subject to the size restrictions. We do not believe that this would be a desirable result for the community.
There is also the question of affordability. We heard at the Public Hearing that there is no assurance that small houses will be affordable. There is greater likelihood, of course, that a smaller house will be less expensive than a larger house. It also is possible that any increased affordability of the size-limited houses may come at the expense of higher costs for remaining houses.
In addition, we cannot assume that the smaller homes would be purchased by people with low/moderate incomes as opposed to people who may simply want a smaller house. The proposed Ordinance limiting house sizes does not provide a control for the price of the house or to whom the house may be sold.
Several new ideas have surfaced. The first is to ask for opinions from experts and from other communities. If the Council wishes to generate a wider array of alternative approaches, one way would be to direct a query to members of the faculty of the Department of City and Regional Planning and the Institute of Government at UNC, and a second query to the managers of North Carolina’s 20 largest municipalities as follows:
For Managers:
For Academicians:
“The Town of Chapel Hill is surveying cities in North Carolina to determine what ordinances or other methods are in use to require a mix of housing sizes, types, and prices. What ideas or suggestions do you have to accomplish this goal under existing North Carolina State law?”
The second idea involves the use of zoning. The Town Council has discussed, occasionally, the idea of using zoning to address its affordable housing objectives. It might be time to surface that idea again - - identify all undeveloped land, rezone to reduce allowable intensity of development, and then entertain applications for conditional use zoning (perhaps using the Town’s new Residential-Special-Standards zoning district). With the new Council-adopted policy stating that 15% of all new housing associated with a rezoning request should be affordable, the results might be positive. We recognize that this approach has disadvantages and costs that should be explored further before any final decision by the Council.
We also have received a letter from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce (attached), which offers additional ideas.
We believe that there are several options available for the Council’s consideration and action tonight:
(1) The Council could adopt tonight a Mixed Housing ordinance that was considered at the March 20 Public Hearing. If the Council selects this option, we recommend adoption of the Ordinance which allows expansion of the houses after one year. We noted on March 20 that the Town Attorney had not completed his legal review of the Ordinances. The Town Attorney now advises that adoption of the March 20 proposal which would allow no future expansion of the restricted size houses (Ordinance B) is not legally defensible. The attached Ordinance, if adopted, would allow expansion of the houses after one year.
(2) The Council could ask the Town Manager to develop a series of additional ideas, querying experts and municipalities across the state, to bring a report for consideration in June/July. The Council could direct the Town Manager to cease work on some of the ongoing tasks that are underway, and bring this report on additional affordable housing initiatives in June/July.
If the Council chooses this option, we would suggest that a letter be sent out challenging University of North Carolina Department of City and Regional Planning academicians, Institute of Government experts as well as Managers in the State's largest 20 cities to tell us something that can be done within existing North Carolina law to address the affordable housing dilemma that we face. The questions we would raise include:
· To practitioners: Tell us what regulations you have to address a mix of houses, types and styles.
· To academicians: What ideas do you have under North Carolina law to accomplish our goal of achieving affordable housing through regulations.
We believe this request could be sent out in the next two weeks and that we could ask for responses back by the end of May. We then could compile and evaluate the responses and provide a report to the Council in June with the results of the query and any additional ideas.
If Option 2 is selected by the Council, we ask that the Town Council simultaneously direct the Manager to defer work on particular tasks that are underway. In that circumstance, we would recommend that the following projects be considered for deferred work:
· Beginning Implementation of the Downtown Small Area Plan; and/or
· Contracting for Transportation Planning Services; and/or
· Work on the Million Solar Roofs Campaign.
If Option 2 is selected, we would also ask the Council not to direct that a new initiative be started this spring to convene employers and work on Transportation Demand Management strategies. In all these cases, we would suggest fall staff work.
(3) The Council could direct the Town Manager to initiate a rezoning process as described above, such that most new developments coming to the Council for consideration would need to be accompanied by rezoning requests, with direction to arrange for public hearings on rezonings this fall. With the new Council-adopted policy stating that 15% of all new housing associated with a rezoning request should be affordable, the Council could then entertain applications for conditional use zoning. This rezoning process would involve a lot of staff time. If the Council selects this option, we would prepare a report identifying the process and associated staff times as well as the advantage and disadvantages of this approach.
Our recommendation would be that the Council consider option 2 from the above list. We look forward to the Council’s discussion and direction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memorandum from Planning Director regarding Planning-Related Tasks
2.
Letter from Chamber of Commerce
3.
Manager’s memorandum from March 20 Public Hearing and its related attachment
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIZE OF NEW HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING PROPOSALS (2000-04-10/O-4)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendment to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to impose restrictions on the size of new dwelling units in new residential subdivisions, and finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council seeks to expand opportunities for provision of moderately priced housing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
“13.11 Major Subdivision and Planned Development-Housing Floor Area Restrictions
Major Subdivisions and Planned Development-Housing proposals which create residential building lots shall restrict the floor area of single- and two-family dwelling units in the following manner:
· For a major subdivision or a Planned Development-Housing proposal with 13-20 single-family or two-family residential lots, at least 15% of the dwelling units shall contain no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area and an additional 10% of the dwelling units shall contain no more than 1,100 square feet of floor area at the time that the units are initially conveyed.
· For a major subdivision or a Planned Development-Housing proposal with 21 single-family or two-family residential lots or more, at least15% of the dwelling units shall contain no more than 1,100 square feet of floor area and an additional 10% of the dwelling units shall contain no more than 1,350 square feet of floor area at the time that the units are initially conveyed.
Each lot that is large enough for only a single-family dwelling unit or that is limited by restrictive covenants to development only with a single-family dwelling unit shall be deemed to house one single-family dwelling unit. Each lot that is large enough for a two-family dwelling unit or that is allowed by restrictive covenants to develop with a two-family dwelling shall be deemed to house two dwelling units. The minimum number of size-limited units shall then be determined by multiplying the maximum number of dwelling units permissible within the development proposal as determined herein by the percentage specified above (resulting fractions shall be dropped).
The subdivision preliminary and final plats and the Planned Development-Housing proposals minor subdivision plats shall indicate clearly each lot on which a size-limited unit must be constructed, and the builder, developer and purchaser shall be bound by the limitation.
No Zoning Compliance Permit or Building Permit shall be issued for the construction of any dwelling unit on any lot that has been designated as a lot on which a size-limited unit must be constructed unless the proposed dwelling conforms to the limitation of this section. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not prevent the purchaser of any size-limited unit, or any successor to such purchaser, from enlarging the dwelling unit at any time following one year after the issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy for the unit.
This section shall not apply to any major subdivision or Planned Development proposal that has been approved by the Town Council prior to the effective date of this ordinance."
Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. That these amendments shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 10th day of April, 2000.
A RESOLUTION directING the Town Manager to develop a series of additional ideas ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING, querying experts and municipalities across the region and state, to bring a report for consideration in June/July while ceasing work on particular tasks (2000-04-10/R-17/
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to have a series of affordable and mixed housing strategies developed, to be considered in June, 2000; and
WHEREAS a series of other ongoing tasks have been planned and programmed for this same time period;
NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to defer work on the following projects until the fall of 2000:
· Beginning Implementation of the Downtown Small Area Plan; and/or
· Contracting for Transportation Planning Services; and/or
· Work on the Million Solar Roofs Campaign.
[Manager recommends selecting two items]
This the 10th day of April, 2000.