MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Revising Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance
DATE: May 22, 2000
On May 8, 2000, the Town Council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan for Chapel Hill. A key recommendation of the new Draft 2000 Comprehensive Plan is a revision of Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance. We discussed this issue with the Town Council earlier this year and suggested that work begin in the current 1999-2000 program year, using many from the Town’s Fund Balance, rather than wait for the next program year. This project was identified at the Council’s January, 2000 Planning Conference as a Council goal. This memorandum reports on the status of our work on this task.
On April 24, we presented a proposal to the Town Council suggesting that the Council authorize negotiation of a scope of work and a contract for preparation of a revised Development Ordinance. The Council considered this proposal and referred the issue to the Manager to develop other procedural options. The Council motion to refer included a request for consideration of a specific model that would involve establishment of a committee of experts. A draft copy of the Council’s discussion and resolution is attached.
Adoption of one of the alternative Resolutions A, B, and C would start this process. Adoption of the attached budget ordinance would allocate funds for a consultant. Resolutions A and B would authorize issuance of a Request for Proposals. Resolution C, as an alternative approach, would authorize negotiation with the consultant who worked on the Comprehensive Plan.
We continue to believe the best approach to this task is to retain the services of a consultant. The consultant’s role would be to work with the Town Council, the Planning Board, and staff to revise the Development Ordinance.
One new component of this project as discussed by the Council could be the convening of a group of experts to offer advice and counsel. This idea is described below.
We also believe that this could be an opportunity to take advantage of new technologies. Ultimately, the revised Development Ordinance could be produced in a form that could be accessed electronically - - on a Compact Disk or over the Internet - - in a manner that incorporated graphics and that could be interactive (responding to queries, etc.).
We suggested on April 24 that the organization of this project take the following approach:
· Ordinance Diagnosis: The consultant would build on the work that was begun in the Comprehensive Plan -- comparing community objectives to the existing Development Ordinance to develop a list of areas for change. The Comprehensive Plan identifies many of those areas in its “Action Plan.” Included in this phase would be meetings with the Town Council and Planning Board.
· Annotated Outline: The consultant would prepare a detailed outline of a revised Development Ordinance, based on the diagnosis and the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. This would include suggestions for changes and options for consideration, along with a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of various approaches. The Annotated Outline would be referred to all Town Advisory Boards for comment, and would be the subject of a Council Public Hearing.
· Draft Ordinance: The consultant would prepare an initial draft of the revised Development Ordinance, with discussion about key features and changes. The draft would be subjected to an extensive community review and comment period, involving all Town advisory boards and a Public Hearing. There may be more than one cycle of board and public review.
· Final Ordinance: Once a final draft Development Ordinance is approved by the Town Council, the consultant will prepare the document in its written and electronic forms, with text and graphics, and provisions for “browsing.” Graphic illustrations may take the form of photographs, drawings, simulations, and/or video.
The final document needs to be in a form that can be distributed widely.
A project as important as this one must include participatory components. We have noted that the major policy decisions involving development issues are articulated in the new Comprehensive Plan, and it is the Plan that prescribes what should be in the Development Ordinance; the Ordinance is largely a tool to be used to implement the Plan. But community involvement in the refinement of this tool is still critical, to help assure that the tool is calibrated correctly to achieve the goals of the plan.
The Council’s resolution of April 24 called for the Manager to draft a Request for Proposals, for the Council’s consideration. According to the resolution, the Request for Proposals should outline a process that includes the general approach described above, with the Planning Board in a lead role, and also establishment of a Group of Experts to offer advice and counsel and reaction to work in progress. The purpose would be as follows:
“In order to foster a design revolution in Chapel Hill, to request cooperation from various UNC experts, including, but not limited to, biologists, ecologists, architects, designers, social scientists, environmentalists, physicists, anthropologists, lawyers from both the Law School and the Institute of Government, and that these people work with the various Town departments, Boards, the Town Council, citizenry, as well as a selected consultant, in rewriting the Development Ordinance.”
The motion passed by the Town Council indicated that an acceptable variation of this model would be that the Group of Experts work with the Planning Board, rather than as a separate group. The Council suggested that this Group might meet four times during the course of this project.
Key discussions before the Council at this point are (1) Whether to issue a Request for Proposals instead of negotiating with one consultatnt; and (2) Whether or not to build the “Group of Experts” component into the process. Our suggestion is yes on the first question, no on the second.
Our reasons for suggesting “yes” to the Request for Proposals approach is as follows. We believe it is prudent to solicit expression of interest from a wide group of service providers. We believe that the work of the consultatnt on the Comprehensive Plan revision was excellent; but the nature of the Development Ordinance revision task is significantly different, and it may be that there are consultants better matched to that task. We believe it makes sense to look, acknowledging that the search will consume some time and staff and Council attention.
Our reasons for suggesting “no” to the Group of Experts proposal also relates to the nature of this task. Revising the Development Ordinance is primarily a technical and legal task, designed to implement the policy decisions that were made in the Comprehensive Plan. We believe the task that needs to be performed is not matched well with the expertise of “biologists, ecologists, architects, designers, social scientists, environmentalists, physicists, and anthropologists”. The purpose of this Group is not clear. If it is to comment on whether or not proposed language for the Development Ordinance will accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, this skill set may not be particularly helpful, in our opinion. If the purpose is to revisit the policy decisions that were made in the Comprehensive Plan and to re-write portions of the Comprehensive Plan, we believe that would represent a setback to the work that has just been completed.
In the context of these considerations, we offer the following options for approaching the task of revising the Development Ordinance.
We understand that timing and cost are key considerations, and that they are related. We believe that it would be desirable to complete this project within the time frame of the current Town Council cycle, such that this Council would have taken action on both the Comprehensive Plan and Redevelopment Ordinance revision (two closely related projects). We also understand the Council’s wish to accomplish this Development Ordinance revision with a budget of $100,00, rather than the $150,000 we suggested on April 24.
We suggest the following approach which could address these issues. First, we suggest that this project be structured so that a draft Development Ordinance is ready for Public Hearing in September, 2001. This means a finished, final draft by July, 2001, which means a 8-9 month project from the time of approval of a consultant contract to final draft (September 2000-2001). We believe that this could be accomplished by narrowly prescribing the scope of a consultant’s work, by putting off for now efforts to make this product graphically rich and electronically interactive, and by limiting (or eliminating) the “Group of Experts” component.
Option A: would authorize issuance of a Request for Proposals outlining this approach. We believe that the pros and cons of this approach are as follows:
Advantages: Charging the Planning Board with main responsibility for oversight and management of this project would be consistent with past Town practices and with procedures laid out in the Development Ordinance for amendments. Assembling a Group of Experts would bring people into the process who have not been involved before, in a position to offer new and unique perspectives and expertise. We would suggest two meetings of this group, rather than the four suggested by the Council to be able to match the desired time frame.
Disadvantages: The Development Ordinance is an implementation tool; major policy direction already has been established. The disciplines identified for the pooling of expertise do not match up well with the task of writing legislation to implement established policy. The 31-member Comprehensive Plan Work Group was appointed to be representative of the community, and we believe it was. Convening this Group of Experts could result in going over ground already covered by an extensive public process. The cost of this approach is likely to reflect the time involved in organizing and working with the group.
Option B: A second option would be to rely more heavily on the Planning Board for oversight and management, with regular check-in work sessions with the Town Council. This alternative is described in Resolution B. We believe that the pros and cons of this approach are as follows:
Advantages: Charging the Planning Board with main responsibility for oversight and management of this project would be consistent with past Town practices and with procedures laid out in the Development Ordinance for amendments. Regular check-in points with the Town Council can help assure that work is proceeding in accord with the Council’s priorities. Focusing policy oversight and management with the Planning Board and Council helps assure continuity of work and smooth transition from the Comprehensive Plan to the Development Ordinance. Cost of the consultant’s contract is likely to be lower absent the convening and support of a new group of citizens who have not been a part of this process to date.
Disadvantages: Work will likely focus on the ideas and policies discussed in the new Comprehensive Plan, without a re-examination of the policies and strategies contained in the new Plan.
Option C: A third option is the proposal we suggested on April 24: Direct the Town Manager to negotiate a contract with the consultant who worked on the Comprehensive Plan, as a continuation of that work. This would be accomplished with adoption of Resolution C. We believe that the pros and cons of this approach are as follows:
Advantages: Work on the revision could start quickly, with the possibility of having the Town Council in a position to adopt a revised Development Ordinance most expeditiously. There would be guarantee of continuity between the Comprehensive Plan project and the Development Ordinance revision.
Disadvantages: On April 24, Council members discussed the fact that this approach would not allow the opportunity to “test the field,” to be sure that we have the best match between the task and the abilities of a consultant.
We previously estimated the cost of this project to be approximately $150,000. However, the cost could vary depending on approach, and depending on the level of technology and graphics emphasis. We understand that the Council’s intent is to distribute a Request for Proposals and seek the best possible consultant while encouraging cost containment.
We believe that if the technology component were deferred, and time frame and number of public meetings kept to a minimum, that it might be possible to do this for $100,000.
We suggest that a Mayor’s Committee be formed tonight to advise the Manager or consultant selection, that a request for proposals be distributed immediately, and that the Council set July 5 as a target for consultant selection (contract to be offered in August).
We believe that all of these three approaches are workable. We recommend that the Council select the approach described in the attached Resolution B, issuing a Request of Proposals, outlining a process that focuses on Planning Board and Town Council oversight. We believe that the approach outlined in Resolution B has the advantages of a focused, content rated time frame that would improve the process, save money, and implement the policy decisions made in the Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution A would initiate the process including appointment of a group of experts.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution A
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR WORK ON REVISING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, INCLUDING APPOINTMENT OF A GROUP OF EXPERTS (2000-05-22/R-11a)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council intends to revise the Town’s Development Ordinance, as recommended in Chapel Hill’s new draft Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council seeks to identify a consulting firm best able to assist in the completion of this task;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for consulting services. The Request shall outline a 4-step process that includes:
· Ordinance Diagnosis: The consultant would build on the work that was begun in the Comprehensive Plan - - comparing community objectives to the existing Development Ordinance to develop a list of areas for change. The Comprehensive Plan identifies many of those areas in its “Action Plan.” Included in this phase would be meetings with the Town Council and Planning Board.
· Annotated Outline: The consultant would prepare a detailed outline of a revised Development Ordinance, based on the diagnosis and the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. This would include suggestions for changes and options for consideration, along with a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of various approaches. The Annotated Outline would be referred to all Town Advisory Boards for comment, and would be the subject of a Council Public Hearing.
· Draft Ordinance: The consultant would prepare an initial draft of the revised Development Ordinance, with discussion about key features and changes. The draft would be subjected to an extensive community review and comment period, involving all Town advisory boards and a Public Hearing. There may be more than one cycle of board and public review.
· Final Ordinance: Once a final draft Development Ordinance is approved by the Town Council, the consultant will prepare the document in its written and electronic forms, with text and graphics, and provisions for “browsing.” Graphic illustrations may take the form of photographs, drawings, simulations, and/or video.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board shall be the lead body to provide oversight and management of the work to revise the Development Ordinance, with the assistance of staff and consultant. The process shall involve the convening of a Group of Experts to meet four times during the course of work on the Draft Ordinance, to offer ideas, review work, and make suggestions. The group shall be made up of various UNC experts, including, but not limited to, biologists, ecologists, architects, designers, social scientists, environmentalists, physicists, anthropologists, lawyers from both the Law School and the Institute of Government. These people shall work with the various Town departments, Boards, the Town Council, citizenry, as well as a selected consultant, in rewriting the Development Ordinance in order to foster a design revolution in Chapel Hill. An acceptable variation of this model would be that the Group of Experts work with the Planning Board, rather than as a separate group.
The target schedule for consultant selection, contract, and work shall be as follows:
May 22, 2000: Approve Request for Proposals. Distribute
May 22, 2000: Appoint Council Committee to interview consultants
June 15, 2000: Deadline for proposals
June 15, 2000: Solicit applications for Group of Experts
June 22, 2000: Consultant Interviews
July 5, 2000: Consultant Selection by Town Council
August 28, 2000: Council Approval of Consultant Contract
August 28, 2000: Council Appointment of Expert Group
September 2000: Work begins on revision
June 2001: Draft Revision presented to Town Council
September 2001: Public Hearings on Draft Ordinance
November, 2001: Final Ordinance Ready for Council Consideration
This the 22nd day of May, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution B
Manager’s Recommendation
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR WORK ON REVISING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (2000-05-22/R-11b)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council intends to revise the Town’s Development Ordinance, as recommended in Chapel Hill’s new draft Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council seeks to identify a consulting firm best able to assist in the completion of this task;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for consulting services. The Request shall outline a 4-step process that includes:
· Ordinance Diagnosis: The consultant would build on the work that was begun in the Comprehensive Plan - - comparing community objectives to the existing Development Ordinance to develop a list of areas for change. The Comprehensive Plan identifies many of those areas in its “Action Plan.” Included in this phase would be meetings with the Town Council and Planning Board.
· Annotated Outline: The consultant would prepare a detailed outline of a revised Development Ordinance, based on the diagnosis and the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. This would include suggestions for changes and options for consideration, along with a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of various approaches. The Annotated Outline would be referred to all Town Advisory Boards for comment, and would be the subject of a Council Public Hearing.
· Draft Ordinance: The consultant would prepare an initial draft of the revised Development Ordinance, with discussion about key features and changes. The draft would be subjected to an extensive community review and comment period, involving all Town advisory boards and a Public Hearing. There may be more than one cycle of board and public review.
· Final Ordinance: Once a final draft Development Ordinance is approved by the Town Council, the consultant will prepare the document in its written and electronic forms, with text and graphics, and provisions for “browsing.” Graphic illustrations may take the form of photographs, drawings, simulations, and/or video.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board shall be the lead body to provide oversight and management of the work to revise the Development Ordinance, with the assistance of staff and consultant The process shall involve periodic meetings of the Planning Board and the Town Council to discuss work in progress, key decision points, and Council priorities.
The target schedule for consultant selection, contract, and work shall be as follows:
May 22, 2000: Approve Request for Proposals. Distribute
May 22, 2000: Appoint Council Committee to interview consultants
June 15, 2000: Deadline for proposals
June 22, 2000: Consultant Interviews
July 5, 2000: Consultant Selection by Town Council
August 28, 2000: Council Approval of Consultant Contract
September 2000: Work begins on revision
June 2001: Draft Revision presented to Town Council
September 2001: Public Hearings on Draft Ordinance
November, 2001: Final Ordinance Ready for Council Consideration
This the 22nd day of May, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolution C
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR WORK ON REVISING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (2000-05-22/R-11c)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council intends to revise the Town’s Development Ordinance, as recommended in Chapel Hill’s new draft Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the consulting firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd has been responsible for work on the new Comprehensive Plan and has developed familiarity with the issues addressed in the new plan; and
WHEREAS, the consulting firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd has the capability and availability to perform the work required to revise the Development Ordinance;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to negotiate a scope of work and contract with the firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, as described in a memorandum to the Council dated April 24, 2000, for an amount not to exceed $100,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the Town Manager bring such a draft contract to the Council for consideration, such that work on this project can begin July 1, 2000, with a target date for completion by September, 2001.
This the 22nd day of May, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 4
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 (2000-05-22/O-4)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1999” as duly adopted on June14, 1999, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Planning 997,297 100,000 1,097,297
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Fund Balance 1,685,630 100,000 1,785,630
This the 22nd day May, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 5
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR WORK ON REVISING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (2000-04-24/R-10.1)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council intends to revise the Town’s Development Ordinance, as recommended in Chapel Hill’s new draft Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the consulting firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd has been responsible for work on the new Comprehensive Plan and has developed familiarity with the issues addressed in the new plan; and
WHEREAS, the consulting firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd has the capability and availability to perform the work required to revise the Development Ordinance;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to negotiate a scope of work and contract with the firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, as described in a memorandum to the Council dated April 24, 2000, for an amount not to exceed $150,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the Town Manager bring such a draft contract to the Council for consideration, such that work on this project can begin July 1, 2000, with a target date for completion by September, 2001.
This the 24th day of April, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 6
Item 8 – Report on Revising Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance
Mr. Horton said the project would require that the costs for the project be taken from Fund Balance, up to about $250,000. He said by the end of the year Fund Balance would not grow much, and would be about the same as it is at the present time.
Planning Director Roger Waldon said that a key recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan was a revision of Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance, and when the Comprehensive Plan Work Group discussed the way to do this, the unanimous opinion was to revise it all at once, rather than in piece-meal fashion. Mr. Waldon said the staff recommended that the Council adopt Resolution 10.1 and the attached budget ordinance, which would authorize the Town Manager to negotiate a scope of work and contract with the firm of Wallace, Roberts, and Todd, for submission to the Council for approval, and budget funds for this project. He said this was the same firm who had worked on the Comprehensive Plan, and was well aware of the Town’s goals.
Mayor Waldorf asked what the Town might lose by not putting the contract out to bid, rather than going with the same firm that worked on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Waldon said the obvious answer was time, but the staff felt that the firm had done a good job on the Comprehensive Plan and knew what the issues were and were familiar with the Town.
Council Member Ward felt the contract should be open for bids, and that another firm might come up with some fresh ideas.
Council Member Foy said he agreed, and suggested that the staff pursue working with the Institute of Government, where there might be an opportunity for some creative ideas.
Mr. Waldon said the staff did contact the Institute and they said they would be willing to help in the discussion with the staff, but they would not be able to develop a such an ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT IN ORDER TO FOSTER A DESIGN REVOLUTION IN CHAPEL HILL, TO REQUEST COOPERATION FROM VARIOUS UNC EXPERTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BIOLOGISTS, ECOLOGISTS, ARCHITECTS, DESIGNERS, SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, PHYSICISTS, ANTHROPOLOGISTS, LAWYERS FROM BOTH THE LAW SCHOOL AND THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THESE PEOPLE WORK WITH THE VARIOUS TOWN DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS, THE TOWN COUNCIL, CITIZENRY, AS WELL AS A SELECTED CONSULTANT, IN REWRITING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
Council Member Wiggins said she was concerned about where the Comprehensive Plan would be in this case.
Council Member Brown said she hoped the Council would listen to what these people would say, as they were all involved in the dimensions of the community. She said it could broaden the perspective of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Evans said the diversified group Council Member Brown was referring to were certainly a good resource, but they were not knowledgeable of Town development or in writing development ordinances.
Council Member Foy said he seconded the motion, but he felt that the idea would function best as an advisory committee.
Council Member Pavăo asked if the Council adopted Council Member Brown’s motion, how much longer would it take to complete a final draft of a Development Ordinance. Mr. Horton said the appointment of a committee usually took a couple of months, and he had no idea how much time beyond that.
Council Member Pavăo asked Council Member Brown how long it would take such a committee to draft such an ordinance. Council Member Brown said she did not know.
Council Member Foy suggested the committee could be formed while the consultant firm was being chosen, about two months.
Council Member Wiggins asked if this would affect the price for the consultant. Mr. Horton said the more meetings a consultant would have to attend, the more it would cost. He said there would have to be many meetings for all the experts to be heard.
Mayor Waldorf said the Comprehensive Plan process had been very public and many hours were spent working on it, with several members of the community involved, and she felt the Plan would not mesh with the committee Council Member Brown was suggesting.
Council Member Pavăo said it might be advisable to have this committee work with the next revision of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Brown said she felt it meshed very well, by drawing on the expertise in the community, adding it provided the opportunity to work with the University community.
Council Member Strom agreed, but said he was ready to move on with the Comprehensive Plan and the processes for development. He stated he was ready to get the Design Manual written in a parallel path to the Development Ordinance and to begin to implement some of the proposals.
Council Member Foy said he felt it was necessary to find someone with the technical expertise to rewrite the Development Ordinance, and the people suggested by Council Member Brown could act in an advisory capacity. He said he did not want to reopen the Comprehensive Plan, but these people could help the input into the Design Manual. Council Member Foy suggested that the committee could meet four times with the consultant.
Council Member Strom said if the Council had a broad-based group available to meet with the consultant to look at the broad-based aspects, and it met four times, he could support that idea, and he felt it could make for a better ordinance.
The Mover and Seconder agreed to the inclusion of the stipulation to place a limit of four meetings to the motion.
Council Member Ward asked how the Development Ordinance rewrite committee would be formed, and would it work as the Comprehensive Plan Work Group had worked or with the staff. Mr. Waldon said the staff would typically use the Planning Board for advice and feedback to the consultant. He said the consultant would work with the staff and the Planning Board, and at several points during the process there would be public meetings and forums with the consultant. Mr. Waldon added that at several points during the process, the staff would be giving feedback to the Council and using the Comprehensive Plan as a guideline.
Council Member Ward asked Council Member Brown if she expected her group to work with the Planning Board. Council Member Brown said not necessarily with the Planning Board, but she hoped there would be people who would be interested in the community discussion.
Council Member Ward said he was in support of broadening the base of people who could participate and provide some new and different types of perspectives. He said these were examples of the types of experts the Council would like to participate, with the end result of trying to broaden the perspective of input on the Development Ordinance.
Council Member Brown said she had included in the language, “including, but not limited to” in the motion. She added one group of participants, writers, to the Motion.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Waldon if he could see how a group such as Council Member Brown had suggested could fit into working with a consultant for four sessions and to keep it moving. Mr. Waldon said it could work along with the process.
Council Member Evans felt that bringing together experts to work with the consultant, but who had limited knowledge of zoning, may result in the group wanting to rewrite the Comprehensive Plan. She said a lot of time had been spent with a very diverse group of people to write the Comprehensive Plan, and she hoped this proposal would not derail the Council’s adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Evans said she hoped that a brand new group of people would not have such a major role. She suggested that the Council members who went to the Conference with the experts might share their information with the Planning Board.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO AMEND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN’S MOTION TO ADD TO THE MOTION AS STATED THAT THE MOTION BE REFERRED BACK TO THE STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE CONVERSATIONS BY THE STAFF AT THIS MEETING, AND BRING BACK A REPORT TO PUSH ALONG THE COUNCIL’S REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.
Mr. Horton said, as he understood it, that the staff would bring back to the Council a proposal that would outline the elements for a request for a proposal that would go out to consultants. He said, in that request, the staff would spell out that there would be a committee as discussed by the Council, describing the role of the committee and suggesting a pattern of meetings of a limited number.
Council Member Foy added that the staff should see what assistance the Institute of Government might provide.
Council Member Ward suggested that the group of experts work with the Planning Board, rather than as a separate group, in order to give its expertise and to move the process along.
The suggestion to amend the Motion by Council Member Ward was accepted by the Mover and Seconder.
THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf said the main motion was for the staff to come back to the Council with a proposal for drafting a Request for Proposals for consulting services to rewrite the Development Ordinance, and that part of the scope would include four meetings with the group of specialists who would be working in concert with the Planning Board.
Council Member Brown said she would like the group of experts to work, not only with the Planning Board, but also as a separate group.
Council Member Bateman called the question.
THE MAIN MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).