MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up Report on Development Ordinance Revision Project
DATE: October 10, 2001
INTRODUCTION
The Town Council held a Public Hearing on September 20 to consider a Development Ordinance text amendment for the second draft of the revised Development Ordinance. The Town’s consultant, Mr. Mark White of Freilich, Leitner, & Carlisle, was on hand to present the 2nd Draft, answer questions, and participate in the discussion.
We noted at the Hearing that, because of events of the week of September 10, and because of work on our evaluation of the UNC Development Plan application, we were not able to provide the depth of description and analysis that is typically included in Public Hearing memoranda. The Council discussed changes that had been made in the 2nd Draft as presented by Mr. White, and heard presentations by Advisory Boards and citizens.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council asked the Town Manager to prepare this follow-up report with suggestions about next steps.
A copy of our September 20 memorandum is attached, which reviews the background and context for this project, highlights key new ideas that are being proposed with this Development Ordinance Revision, and highlights the changes between Draft #1 and Draft #2.
Paper copies of Draft #2 have previously been distributed, and are available for review in the Town Clerk’s Office, the Planning Department, and the Chapel Hill Public Library. Electronic versions are available on compact disk (available in the Planning Department at no charge) and on the Town’s website: www.townofchapelhill.org.
We have one new attachment to offer, a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission. We have heard from other organizations and individuals that comments on the 2nd Draft are not yet ready but would be ready soon, and that review of the draft is continuing.
This memorandum discusses procedural options. A resolution is attached that would adjust the schedule for this project. A budget ordinance is also attached, which would make funds available for additional consultant work on this project.
A number of comments were offered at the September 20 hearing, both substantive and procedural. Several speakers suggested the need for an “interactive workshop,” in which local designers and citizens could discuss how the proposed new regulations might work, and what kinds of development might result from the changes.
We offer three alternative procedural options for the Council’s continuing consideration of these materials and ideas. The first option would keep the project on schedule, with possibility of achieving the Council’s target of adopting a new ordinance by the end of November. The second and third options would result in adoption in the spring of 2002.
Option A: The 2nd Draft was presented on September 20, and the Council heard comments and recommendations. The next step is for the Council to give specific direction to staff and consultant on a variety of key points. Examples of the types of direction that would be helpful include:
· Which model for Concept Plan Review should be included in the Ordinance?
· Are the maximum parking specifications acceptable? Should they be reconsidered?
· The Planning Board proposed deferring action on Article 2 for now. Acceptable?
· Which of the suggested changes to the RCD ordinance should be included?
· How much Council discretion and flexibility should be written into the Ordinance?
· Should Transfer of Development Rights be included, or reserved?
· Should there be stronger requirements for sidewalk construction?
· Is the “Neighborhood Conservation District” model one that should be included?
· Should stormwater management requirements be applied to single-family lots?
· Should the “Inclusionary Housing” provisions be included?
· Should the alternate approaches to “small house” provisions be incorporated?
If the Council is ready to offer policy guidance tonight, a 3rd Draft could be prepared and brought for consideration at the November 6 Planning Board, and to the Council for consideration at the November 12 meeting (with possibility of action on either November 12 or November 26). The advantage of this approach is that the target schedule would be met. A disadvantage is, as noted above, the 2nd Draft is still under review by some organizations and individuals who still would like to offer comments. Another disadvantage is that several advisory boards (in addition to the Planning Board) asked for a chance to review the 3rd draft when it is prepared, and this option would not allow that. Finally, this option would not allow the kind of “interactive workshop” that was suggested by several citizens.
Option B: Options B and C would both allow more time, both for the workshop that was suggested and for review of a 3rd Draft by all Town Advisory Boards. Both would lengthen the process for working on this project into 2002, and both would require extension of the consultant’s contract. Both would result in a set of workshops for a date in November.
We suggest that, if a workshop is to be scheduled, it have two components: a morning-long session, aimed at designers and technical professionals (but open to all), to go over possible applications of the proposed regulations; and an evening session, geared more broadly to citizens in general, allowing review and discussion of what is being proposed. We would try to arrange to have our consultant here for both of those sessions.
Option B would then involve going back to the Council with a follow-up report on November 26, asking the Council to make policy guidance decisions. The consultant would then take the guidance and produce a 3rd Draft, which would be ready in January for review by Advisory Boards, with a Public Hearing scheduled near the end of February, with possible Council action in March or April.
Advantages of this option are that it allows more time for policy guidance by the Council and some additional review by citizens and advisory boards. A disadvantage is additional cost for extension of the consultant’s contract (estimate: additional $20,000). We note, also, that the Council has stated its objective that work be completed prior to the end of this particular Council’s service.
Option C: Option C is a variation on Option B, with the key difference being that the follow-up report after the workshops, and the accompanying policy guidance session, would be scheduled for a Council meeting in early January. This would result in a 3rd Draft being ready in February for review by Advisory Boards during February and March, with a Public Hearing scheduled in April, and possible Council action in May.
The main advantage of this option is that it allows the most time for review by citizens and advisory boards. A feature of this option is that the policy guidance would be provided by the new Town Council in January. A disadvantage is additional cost (estimate: additional $20,000).
We believe that Option A contains many disadvantages, and that the calls for more time for review and discussion are reasonable. We believe that additional time added to the schedule for this project would result in additional depth of review, with accompanying increase in the quality of the final product. Accordingly, we recommend that the Town Council select either Option B or Option C.
Adoption of the attached resolution and budget ordinance would set this process in motion.
1. Copy of September 20 Memorandum (p. 6).
2. Recommendation from Parks and Recreation Commission (p. 16).
A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE PROCESS AND TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETION OF A REVISED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (2001-10-10/R-7)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has initiated a project to revise Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance, with a target date of completion by November, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that additional time is needed for review and discussion of draft materials;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council directs the Town Manager to adjust the schedule for this project as described in Option C in the staff memorandum of October 10, 2001.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Manager to extend the Town’s contract with consultant Freilich, Leitner, and Carlisle to perform work as described in this option.
This the 10th day of October, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001” (2001-10-10/O-3)
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, 2001” as duly adopted on June 25, 2001, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Planning 1,053,028 20,000 1,073,028
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Fund Balance 1,611,201 20,000 1,631,201
This the 10th day of October, 2001.