SUMMARY OF A COMMUNITY MEETING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994

Mayor Broun convened the community meeting. Council Members in attendance were Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Lee Pavão, Barbara Powell, Jim Protzman and Rosemary Waldorf. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller and Planning Director Roger Waldon.

Mayor Broun said this evening session was a special community meeting on the Town's development review process. He stated that the purpose of the discussion was to accommodate an exchange of information about possible changes in the Town's development process. Mayor Broun noted that the evening's proceedings would begin with presentations by the Design Review Board, Planning Board and Alliance of Neighborhoods.

Design Review Board representative Bob Stipe said the Board's basic philosophy was to create a process for better coordination of design issues. He noted that the Board wanted to increasingly democratize the review process by providing more chances for input. Mr. Stipe also stated that the proposal attempted to free up other Town advisory boards and commissions to handle other matters. He noted that the Design Review Board favored the integration of presentations by developers to advisory boards and commissions, making the process more disciplined and coordinated. Mr. Stipe said the Design Review Board was proposing the creation of an advisory commission to the Council, rather than initiating a "power grab". He stated that public participation would commence at the very beginning of the proposed development review process. Mr. Stipe added that the Board was only proposing the elimination of the Design Review Board and Appearance Commission, making the overall process easier from beginning to end. He also said that any board could ask applicants to appear before them for review purposes.

Mr. Stipe said the proposed residency requirement was intended to ensure that board members were familiar with the Town's special character. Noting that some persons were concerned that the Board proposed too many professional designers, he said six of the ten members would be laypersons. Mr. Stipe stated that the Board's did not have a specific timetable for proposed review periods. Noting that the Board was deeply concerned about the Town's character and democratic values, Mr. Stipe said the Board had spent a good deal of time discussing and crafting its proposal.

Mary Reeb, representing the Planning Board, said the Board had four principles to critique the review process, rather than offering a specific proposal to the community. Ms. Reeb stated that the Planning Board's earlier proposal would have applicants come before the Design Review Board on one occasion. She emphasized the importance of keeping the public informed about development proposals. Ms. Reeb noted that environmental, social and economic values needed to be weighed carefully in the review process. Ms. Reeb cautioned that any radical changes to the review process might run up against the law of unintended consequences. She suggested that the Council consider making only small changes to the current review process.

Diane Bloom, representing the Alliance of Neighborhoods, said the Town was on the threshold of a great deal of development. Ms. Bloom said the Alliance wanted the Town to be a nicer place for children and their children's children to live. She expressed concern that public input would be reduced in the Design Review Board's proposal. Ms. Bloom stated that although the current process was not perfect, it did work fairly well. She urged the Council to maintain public participation early and often in the review process.

Bob Reda, representing the Alliance of Neighborhoods, suggested there was a need to fine tune the existing process, rather than overhaul it. He noted that the Design Review Board only saw about ten percent of all development projects. Mr. Reda said the Alliance favored a process wherein applicants would talk to staff early in the process and received early feedback. He added that the Alliance suggested having joint public information/Design Review Board meetings held during evening time to review conceptual development plans, including site analysis. Mr. Reda stated that joint board review of applications would provide for cross-pollination of information between boards such as the Planning and Design Review Boards. Mr. Reda urged the Council to keep in mind the importance of public participation in the review process.

Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that some speakers at the Council's June 20th public hearing had suggested slowing down, speeding up or leaving alone the Town's development review process.

He stated that the staff was looking forward to hearing more ideas from the public this evening.

Mayor Broun requested that speakers limit their remarks to two minutes or less.

Linda Convissor, a member of the Cross-County Neighborhood Association, said although she did not think neighborhoods needed a lengthy review process, they did need early notification of proposals. Ms. Convissor said neighborhood residents also needed ready access to Town staff and Council policies on delays and changes in development proposals. She suggested that the Council could consider placing non-controversial development items on its consent agenda. Ms. Convissor said she had some additional written suggestions about changes to the development review process. Mayor Broun said the Council would be happy to receive these proposals.

Council Member Protzman noted that his firm currently had a development proposal in process with the Town. Council Member Protzman said he was unable to deduce any significant differences between the Alliance of Neighborhoods and Design Review Board proposals, other than having two separate meetings instead of one meeting. Design Review Board Member Bruce Ballentine said all three proposals were quite similar and going through an evolution process. He noted that all three proposals recommended that review by the Design Review Board be mandatory. Mr. Ballentine stated that staff could report back to the Council on differences between the three proposals. He said that some people had the misconception that having designers sit on the Design Review Board favored the business community. Mr. Ballentine said a peer review process could be very rigorous for project designers.

Alliance of Neighborhoods representative Bob Reda said Mr. Ballentine was correct in the sense that the Design Review Board only saw a small percentage of all development projects. Stating that the Design Review Board's proposal was to review projects on three separate occasions, Mr. Reda said only the ten Design Review Board members would have this Board would have the greatest influence in the review process. Planning Board representative Mary Reeb stated that the Planning Board thought that the Design Review Board's proposal to review projects three times would be enormously difficult to accommodate. Design Review Board member Bob Stipe stated that fellow Board member had begun to analyze differences between current design review process proposals. He added that the Design Review Board's proposal would permit boards and commissions to request presentations by developers throughout the review process. Mr. Stipe also noted that although the Design Review Board had a proposal similar to the current Planning Board

proposal about a year ago, the Design Review Board did not think the Planning Board would accept that proposal.

Gay Eddy said the establishment of a permanent long-term planning group appealed to her personally. She inquired why this was not addressed. Mr. Stipe said the Design Review Board's proposal contained explicit references to such a possibility.

Ken Williams, representing the Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Center, requested that the Council remain mindful of the development-related needs of non-profit organizations. Mr. Williams said it cost about $10,000 more to develop a project in the Town, compared to similar projects in Henderson or Asheville.

He stated that the cost differences were attributable to high OWASA connection costs and higher land and development review costs. Mr. Williams said applicants were required to produce twenty-sets of plans at a cost of $25 per set. He stated that this was a lot of money, especially for non-profit organizations. Mr. Williams requested the Council's continued support of non-profit development projects.

Transportation Board Chair Richard Franck said there were several drawbacks to a long-term planning commission. He stated that the current process did a fairly good of handling long-term planning matters. Mr. Franck said it was not possible to make good long-term plans unless current developments were examined. He noted that several boards currently saw long-term plans and interacted well with one another. Mr. Franck stated that two themes from the June 20th public hearing on development review were that Town residents did not feel that design expertise was needed on boards nor did the public want to limit input from existing advisory board members.

Planning Board member Scott Radway said the Board was handling long-term planning well through processes such as development of the Town's southern and northwest area plans. Mr. Radway stated that the Design Review Board's proposal suggested taking away one step of the current feedback loop from the Planning Board and giving the Design Review Board greater capability for instant decision-making.

An audience member said she had a disabled child and worked for a local organization assisting disabled persons. She urged the Council to make housing more affordable and the review process less stringent, especially for grant-related, non-profit projects.

Alliance of Neighborhoods representative Julie Andresen said she was not sure that it was legally defensible to have different standards for different types of development projects. Ms. Andresen stated that the Design Review Board proposal focused primarily on design review matters. She said the Alliance of Neighborhood's proposal looked at a number of issues in addition to design concerns.

Cliff Sanford, President of the Mental Health Association of Orange County, said over two hundred adult citizens in Orange County suffered persistent and profound mental illness. He stated that housing for only six of these two hundred persons was currently available in Orange County. Mr. Sanford stated that U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations required that approval for these types of housing projects be completed within six months. Mr. Sanford said Town staff had indicated that the minimum review period for a current application for a twelve-unit mental facility would take at least seven months to review.

Bob Stipe stated that the Design Review Board was seeking much stronger input on design criteria for most projects. He said nothing that the Planning Board was concerned with did not have design consequences. Mr. Stipe also said the primary question was how the Planning Board and Design Review Board could work together on design concerns. He noted that design input was also limited by the relatively small size of the Town's planning department. Mr. Stipe stated that the Town had "bargain basement" planning, with excellent planning staff and management. He urged the Council to

consider hiring additional planning staff to assist with expediency of development reviews.

Pat Carstensen, President of the Cross-County Neighborhood Association, said it was important to determine what was good development relative to transportation concerns, especially along the U.S. 15-501 corridor. She urged the Council to help the community move in the right direction.

Ralph Abrahams, co-president of the Chandler's Green Neighborhood Association, inquired who's responsibility it was to ensure that developers followed conditions of approval. Mr. Horton said Town staff made sure that permits and other conditions were carried out properly. He added that the Town had the authority to stop jobs when the conditions of approval were not being met.

Transportation Board member Ruby Sinreich said although citizen's concerns about HUD projects were important, this was not directly related to the topic being discussed this evening. She stated that the Alliance of Neighborhoods proposal appeared to be a good middle ground compromise.

Dan Coleman said he had been intimately involved in the development review process as a Design Review Board representative for the last few years. He stated that the Design Review Board was suggesting the need for more design input in the development review process. Mr. Coleman also said the Alliance of Neighborhoods proposal addressed concerns about the need for expediency of review and not reducing citizen input in the development review process.

A newer Town resident inquired about when Town residents were eligible to serve on Council advisory boards and commissions. Planing Board representative Mary Reeb said the Town did not have specific requirements in this regard. She noted that the Design Review Board was suggesting the possibility of requiring members to have a minimum of five years Town residency. Mr. Reda said he had only resided in the Town for only one and a half years. Council Member Chilton noted that three current Council Members would be unable to serve as Design Review Board members under the proposed Board residency guidelines. Council Member Evans said although the Council Committee to Review Committees was currently reviewing appointment processes, she doubted that residency would be a requirement.

Council Member Capowski noted that the Design Review Board proposal suggested that all development proposals eventually came before the Council for consideration. He requested that staff provide information on the impact of this proposal on the Council's overall workload. Council Member Capowski suggested appointing a

Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board representative to the proposed board.

Mr. Stipe said a continuing frustration of the Design Review Board was that proposals were limited to the parcels themselves, rather than providing information about surrounding properties and the relation of proposals to adjacent properties. Mr. Stipe also said that although the Council's responsibilities might be increased under the Design Review Board's proposal, the recommendations coming to the Council would be much more crisply formed.

Ed Harrison, a member of the Cross-County Neighborhood Association, said the Town was generally ahead of others in terms of public input processes. He added that time was not necessarily an issue on public input matters. Mr. Harrison also said public participation was very important.

Barbara Valessi, representing the Sierra Club, said everyone was concerned about the community's quality of life. She also said the primary issue was not really who which groups had the most input.

Ms. Valessi emphasized the importance of good public notification processes.

Stick Williams said the current debate had evolved because the business community had complained that the Town's development

review process was onerous. Mr. Williams stated that the Town's development review process was tough and needed to be changed.

Mr. Williams also said he did not like the notion that the Design Review Board was being categorized as a power player. He emphasized the importance of talking about long-term planning rather than reacting to individual development proposals.

Planning Board member Marianna Chambless said she was not so sure that the Town was so slow in reviewing development proposals. Ms. Chambless also said she did not favor expediting review processes.

She emphasized the importance of getting citizen input in the review process.

Linda Convissor said she had been told for fifteen years that it took a long time to get through the Town's development review process. She inquired why the process took so long. Planning Director Roger Waldon said some projects went through the process quickly while others went through very slowly. He stated that expedited review projects such as the Intimate Bookshop went through the design review process quickly. Mr. Waldon said special use permit projects typically took between six and nine months to completely review.

Council Member Protzman said he intrigued by some of the ideas in "Resolution D" offered by the Alliance of Neighborhoods.

Scott Radway said the Town and its advisory boards struggled with development proposals such as the Meadowmont proposal. He stated that the original purpose of the Design Review Board might have been to capture a better quality of design for projects in the community. Mr. Radway said it was possible that the Design Review Board might be asking for items similar to those proposed by the Alliance of Neighborhoods. He also said the Town might not be meeting its development objectives due to inflexibility in existing development regulations.

Commenting on the Town's overall land-use plan, Bill Davis inquired about the conflict between the proposed and recommended use of the Meadowmont property. Mr. Waldon stated that the Town's current land-use plan was adopted in 1986. He said some refinements were needed in the plan, including updating road capacities and addressing other matters. Mr. Waldon suggested that the Town should reconsider what was happening in the vicinity of the Meadowmont development proposal.

Design Review Board member Alice Ingram suggested that the Town reexamine its Comprehensive Plan and bring it up to date as soon as possible. She stated that development review checklists tended to make the system tighter and tighter. Ms. Ingram stated that diversity was the keynote of the Town and its development.

Council Member Waldorf said the Council was going to try very hard to meld the concepts offered and come up with a politically comfortable solution. She stated that there was not a tremendous amount of developable land in the Town limits. Council Member Waldorf suggested that one possible change in current processes was to free the Council of making site-related decisions.

Bruce Ballentine said the Town had struggled for a long time in dealing with issues surrounding the development review process. He noted that the Town had originally created a task force to examine proposed design guidelines. Mr. Ballentine said that the Design Review Board had evolved as a result of this process. He stated that the Design Review Board reviewed projects in their entirety and worked with applicants from the beginning to the end of the review process. Mr. Ballentine stated that the prime objective of the Board's proposal was to enable the public to look at projects at the early, middle and end points of the development review process.

Paul Aloisio said the discussion of development review procedures had initially evolved from concerns about housing affordability. Mr. Aloisio inquired about the goals of the Town's development review process. Mayor Broun said the most important concern was assuring a good quality of life for all Town residents. Mayor Broun stated that the Town staff would prepare a follow-up report

on the development review process for the Council's October 24th regular business meeting.

Bill Bracey sensed he sensed a number of concerns about design standards. Mr. Bracey said he hoped that setbacks could be swales instead of curb and gutter. He also said that making the development review process might make the Town twice as desirable to live in.

Haven Wiley, a UNC faculty member said the Town had some extremely critical virgin lands. He stated that development proposals could have a major impact on the community's landscape forever. Dr. Wiley said he and some colleagues were thinking of some proposals to help mold the Town's unique landscape. He urged the Council not to forget about the importance of preserving virgin lands.

Julie Andresen inquired about the status of design standards for Town streets and other types of infrastructure. Mr. Ballentine said standards could be changed somewhat. Mr. Horton noted that Town staff had recently completed a revision of Town design standards. He added that adoption of Town design standards originally suggested by former Council Member Andresen had recently been adopted by the Council.

A citizen asked how non-profit developers could get expedited review of projects such as those pertaining to the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Waldon stated that when the Council found that a public interest was involved, it was possible for the Town to grant special processing status to individual development projects. He added that a number of non-profit developers had approached the Town requesting special expedited reviews.

Bruce Ballentine asked whether the staff's role in the development review process was being examined. Mr. Horton said there was an ongoing internal process to simplify development reviews by staff. He noted that the number of reviewers had reduced been by about two-thirds, with department heads managing the overall process.

Linda Convissor inquired about the length of the Council's summer recess. Mayor Broun said this recess generally lasted from the first week in July through the third week in August. Mr. Horton stated that the Town had a tradition of avoiding controversial decisions when many citizens were out of town.

Dan Coleman said the proposals of the Design Review Board were somewhat ironic since they were made by design professionals. He emphasized the importance of carefully examining structures and specific wording in individual proposals.

Council Member Chilton noted that the Council made a special effort not to roll over development projects to the fall. He stated that the Council scheduled extra meetings if necessary to assure that development projects were not unnecessarily delayed.

Diane Bloom urged the Council to take aspects of the different proposals and seek out strengths. Mr. Stipe expressed his concurrence.

Mr. Stipe said he was delighted to hear Dr. Wiley's comments about the importance of preserving virgin land. He stated that the development review process needed to be given more attention in terms of what was working well and should be left alone. Mr. Stipe noted that the developers of Meadowmont had a very different idea of how land in this area should be developed, as contrasted to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stipe stated that the Comprehensive Plan was the essential ingredient in planning the Town. He also stated that the Town's planning staff was too small.

Mary Reeb said everyone wanted a more streamlined development process and the provision of more affordable housing. She stated that since design was valued equally with other values, none should dominate and all values should be considered. Ms. Reeb said the current development review process was relatively concise compared to what it might become in the future.

Bob Reda said Mr. Stipe was absolutely correct that the Meadowmont proposal should be carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board. He stated that the Alliance of Neighborhoods proposal put everyone on an equal footing. He added that applicants would only have to go before the Design Review Board twice and other boards once under this proposal. Mr. Reda said the Alliance of Neighborhoods recommended that only the Design Review Board and Planning Board review site plans, rather than having final consideration resting with the Council. Mr. Reda also stated that the Alliance proposed that developers make four presentations to advisory boards and commissions, rather than seven at present.

Mayor Broun invited all interested persons to continue the community's dialogue about the Town's development review process.

The session concluded at 9:06 p.m.