MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1996

Mayor Waldorf called the work session to order. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck, Lee Pavão and Barbara Powell. Council Member Joe Capowski was absent excused. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Development Coordinator Jennie Bob Culpepper and Planning Director Roger Waldon.

Noting that there were many different viewpoints about the Town's development review process, Mr. Horton said the staff was ready to assist the Council as needed regarding the overall review process.

Mayor Waldorf noted that Council Member Capowski was unable to attend this evening's work session and had submitted his comments in writing earlier in the day. She inquired whether there were any suggestions from Council Members about how to proceed this evening.

Council Member Evans suggested starting with simple principles such as citizen involvement early and often in the review process, the need for better project review from start to finish, and offering reviews by citizens and a Design Commission prior to formal submittal by applicants.

Council Member Brown said one flaw in the current process relative to early and frequent involvement by citizens was the fact that meeting times of some boards conflicted with one another. She stated that this situation could be easily remedied by having applicants making presentations to combined boards and commissions.

Council Member Franck said although there appeared to be widespread agreement on the idea of having a concept plan early in the process, there appeared to be some disagreement about which boards or commissions would review the plans. He stated that the Council needed to take care not to put too much strain on existing Planning Department staff resources.

Mayor Waldorf said there was some question as to which projects needed to undergo early review, with the current focus being on somewhat larger projects.

Council Member Brown said having concept plans in the development review stage might lead to some types of problems. She suggested that the Council focus its attention on possible changes to the Development Ordinance.

Stating that she did not favor any major changes in the way in which development proposals were currently reviewed, Council Member Andresen suggested the possibility of "tweaking" the process by adding a concept plan step to the review process. She also suggested that the Council needed to firm up the matter of a final decision on whether or not the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board would be merged or kept separate. Council Member Andresen also said the Council might wish to address the question of whether or not the Design Review Board was reviewing a sufficient number of proposals. Noting that the chairs of the two boards were in attendance this evening, Council Member Evans suggested that the Chairs might be able to provide input in this regard. Mayor Waldorf said there appeared to be Council concurrence to hear from the two chairs this evening.

Appearance Commission Chair Diane Bachman said the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board had done an admirable job of working together over the past year. Ms. Bachman said she did not believe that the Commission was seeking to have its mission diminished from its current level of responsibilities. Stating that the Commission was not seeing a lot of projects at an early enough concept stage, Ms. Bachman stated that by the time the Commission saw the projects, it was costing clients a lot of money to implement any and all changes suggested by the Commission. She added that the Design Review Board got caught up in the same predicament.

Mayor Waldorf asked whether there was value in appearance issues being reviewed in early concept form. Ms. Bachman said that this was absolutely the case. Council Member Brown asked how this fit in relative to the Development Ordinance. Ms. Bachman said that landscape buffering requirements needed improvement in terms of providing greater flexibility and creativity to applicants. She added that it was not unusual for the Commission to come up against creative solutions which the Development Ordinance would not allow the Commission to implement.

Council Member Andresen asked whether the Appearance Commission wished to remain together as a separate entity. Ms. Bachman said even though the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board had worked well together, both groups needed to see concept plans early in the process. She also said that concept review by the Design Review Board should be mandatory for all projects.

Design Review Board Chair Bruce Ballentine said although the two groups had worked well together, this arrangement would not work well in the long term. Mr. Ballentine stated that the majority of development projects circumvented the current Design Review Board review process. He suggested that the existing process needed to be modified to permit the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board to review projects all the way through the development review process. Mr. Ballentine also noted that the number of members on the Design Review Board/Appearance Commission had declined from twenty to thirteen or fourteen, due to the uncertainty of the future of the Boards.

Council Member Pavão asked whether it was possible that one board with a reformulated charge could serve the community's needs.

Mr. Ballentine said this was possible if existing functioning bodies such as the Transportation Board, Planning Board and Parks and Recreation Commission continued in their existing capacities in the development review process.

Stating that the Design Review Board had not worked as broadly as originally anticipated, Council Member Andresen inquired whether Mr. Ballentine could cite instances where the Design Review Board had been able to improve specific project proposals. Mr. Ballentine stated that one convalescent care project had many neighborhood and site related problems which would have taken a long time to resolve if this proposal had not had an early review by the Design Review Board. He added that an incentive for projects to be reviewed by the Design Review Board was the applicant's knowledge that they had a good chance to receive priority status for expedited review.

Ms. Bachman stated that the Grace Church project proposal was not a well-designed project. Mr. Ballentine stated that the Appearance Commission had rejected the project's plans two or three times at the end of the review process due to design concerns. Ms. Bachman said this had cost the church more money than if the review had been earlier in the process. Mr. Ballentine noted that the church's congregation was nonetheless very happy with the revised design for this project.

Ms. Bachman suggested that the Appearance Commission needed to review projects on three separate occasions, the first time to provide an overall conceptual review, the second time to see that proposed changes from the first review were incorporated and a third time to assure that the Commission's wishes were properly executed. Ms. Bachman said it was very important for input from other boards to get back to the Design Review Board/Appearance Commission prior to the second review. She also said that if the Appearance Commission had been able to work with Grace Church on its plans earlier in the process, it might not have been necessary to bring back the project three times for revisions.

Council Member Chilton stated that some projects came before the Council without particular commitments on specific items, with project plans tending to be conceptual in nature.

Stating that she was somewhat uncomfortable that only the Design Review Board and Appearance Commission were making comments this evening, Council Member Brown said she would like all boards and commissions to have an opportunity to make comments on this matter. Council Member Andresen also said it was important to receive input from other advisory boards and commissions. Council Member Franck said it was important for the Council to agree on what it found to be acceptable. Mayor Waldorf noted that this evening's meeting was a work session, with no specific action or decisions necessary.

Council Member Powell expressed appreciation for Ms. Bachman and Mr. Ballentine's comments. She inquired how other advisory boards and commissions would fit into the review process.

Council Member Evans said conceptual plans would go to the Design Review Board/Appearance Commission, with plans also being reviewed by other advisory boards such as the Parks and Recreation Commission, Greenways Commission and Transportation Board, with final reviews and approvals being made by the Planning Board and Town Council. She added that specifics in this matter could be molded by the Council, including possible changes in the Council's charge to commissions such as the Appearance Commission.

Noting that some development proposals came to the Council for two reviews at present, Council Member Chilton said he found it hard to imagine the Council's work load if all projects over a certain size had to come to the Council for review.

Council Member Powell asked whether Council Member Chilton was suggesting that some boards should perhaps not be combined. Council Member Chilton said he was addressing whether or not boards should be reviewing projects a certain number of times, rather than whether or not boards should be combined.

Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council could possibly attempt this evening to answer the question of whether or not the Design Review Board and Appearance Commission should be merged. She also suggested that the Council could possibly explore the types of functions that a merged committee could handle. Council Member Andresen also suggested the possibility of the Council asking the Appearance Commission to review its role and make recommendations to the Council about its future role in the development review process. She said that two other questions for the Council to consider were: (1) whether or not the Design Review Board should review all projects? and (2) does the Council want other boards to continue their present functions?

Mr. Ballentine suggested having three project reviews only for major projects, with the third review being optional.

Council Member Franck said he concurred with Council Member Chilton's concerns about the amount of time it might take for project reviews. He suggested that the three review stages could be labelled as concept plan, formal application and final building elevations. Council Member Franck suggested that the Council could reconstitute the Design Review Board/Appearance Commission for continuity purposes and make concept plans mandatory for special use permits, master land-use plans and subdivisions having more than twenty-five lots. He added that a streamlined version could include having the Design Review Board review concept plans and the Appearance Commission review final building elevations. Council Member Powell inquired whether Council Member Franck was proposing continued input from representatives of other boards on the Design Review Board. Council Member Franck said that this was correct.

Referencing the two-tracked process suggested by Dr. David Godschalk, Council Member Evans said if applicants did everything right, a third review would not be needed.

Council Member Brown said it was important for the Council to think about the need for changes to the Town's Development Ordinance. Council Member Franck said consideration of the Development Ordinance was much more important to consider than the question of the development review process.

Council Member Andresen said that it was important to get the matter out in the public domain, possibly by means of a future Council agenda item and possibly a future public hearing.

Council Member Chilton asked whether or not it was correct that there was no support for having a combined Appearance Commission and Design Review Board. Council Member Brown said it appeared that Mr. Ballentine supported merger of the boards. Council Member Chilton said he believed that Mr. Ballentine was referencing the two boards meeting together. Mr. Ballentine said he believed that the current structure could be left in place if conceptual plan review were made mandatory. Ms. Bachman stated that if the two boards were to continue to meet together, the Council would need to give the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board the same charges they presently had.

Council Member Chilton said the Council could choose to make no large changes in the status quo, combine the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board into one board or have two separate boards. Council Member Franck said that there appeared to be fairly widespread support for concept plan submittals.

Mayor Waldorf said that the Council had received feedback from some boards that some applicants were so interested in getting through the development as fast as possible that they sometimes failed to give sufficient attention to appearance matters.

Council Member Chilton said that there seemed to be a lot of citizen support to keep the current development review scheme.

Council Member Brown requested that staff put the options proposed this evening in writing. Council Member Franck suggested getting possible draft ordinances in the follow-up report on options. Mayor Waldorf said the staff only needed to provide the options in outline form.

Council Member Franck said that option number one would involve:

(1) combining or reconstituting the Design Review Board and Appearance Commission, including representatives from other advisory boards, (2) requiring concept plans for projects meeting certain thresholds and (3) requiring that formal applications go before this proposed board. Mayor Waldorf inquired about the feasibility of joint board and commission hearings on development applications. Council Member Chilton said although such joint hearings would be helpful, there might be some logistical difficulties. Council Member Chilton asked whether mandatory conceptual reviews were being proposed. Council Member Evans said these could be required for some projects. Council Member Chilton asked how many visits to the Board were being proposed. Council Member Franck said a total of three: conceptual, formal application and a final review.

Council Member Chilton said he had counted about seven steps in the process being suggested by Council Member Franck. Council Member Franck suggested that the Design Review Board could review a mandatory conceptual plan, other board reviews could remain in the current form, while the Appearance Commission would be responsible for reviewing signs and building elevations.

Council Member Andresen suggested that the Council consider drafting new charges for the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board, regardless of whether the boards were combined or kept separate. Council Member Brown inquired about the possibility of having joint board hearings for development projects. Council Member Chilton said this could be done to the extent feasible.

Council Member Brown noted that she was suggesting joint presentations to boards, rather than joint discussions by boards. She said that developers and citizens might benefit from this approach. Stating that there was a fair amount of give and take between developers and board members during development presentations, Council Member Chilton said it might not be very convenient to have joint presentations. Council Member Andresen said the Council could have further discussion on this point when the item came back to the Council. Mayor Waldorf requested staff comment on the logistics of joint presentations. Noting that sixty or seventy persons might attend some joint hearings, Mr. Horton said the level of interaction between boards and applicants was likely to decline with very large groups. Noting that the Parks and Recreation and Greenways Commissions currently held some joint hearings/presentations, Council Member Pavão suggested that the Council could explore options for more combined board presentations.

Council Member Franck said plan one would eliminate the concept of expedited review and the majority of Appearance Commission and Design Review Board members would be required to have professional expertise. He suggested that members of other Town boards might have transferable experience which could be used to substitute for direct professional expertise.

Council Member Brown asked what would happen after the matter was referred back to staff. Council Member Franck said the options could be sent to boards and commissions for review and comments. Council Member Andresen said it was important for the Council to firm up decisions on this matter in the near future. She requested that include one or more options in its follow-up report.

Mr. Horton said he was hearing the Council request that staff draft a scheme and circulate an informal draft to the Council. He stated that after this review, the matter could be placed on a regular Council meeting agenda as soon as possible.

Mr. Ballentine asked whether it would be possible to schedule the matter on a regular Council agenda. Mayor Waldorf said this was possible.

Council Member Brown said it was important to allow sufficient time for these proposals to go to applicable boards for comments.

Council Member Evans said the options would not be new to advisory boards and commissions. Council Member Powell said she believed that appointments could be made to the Appearance Commission and Design Review Board while the Council consider possible changes in the two board's roles and the possibility of their merger.

Growth Management

Council Member Andresen said that she and Council Member Brown had met recently to outline growth management tool options. She stated that some of the Council goals identified were: preservation of open space, promoting mass transit, preserving wildlife habitats, promoting a village form in fine grains with a mix of residential uses and accommodating retail uses on a small scale, providing for stormwater management controls and striving for aesthetics which were compatible with the Town's unique built environment. Council Member Andresen noted that she and Council Member Brown had also discussed possible strategies to move forward on implementation of these growth management goals.

Council Member Andresen said possible implementation tools for the Council to consider included: a 40% open space ordinance, amending subdivision ordinances to encourage clustering of houses for open space, measuring air quality impacts, development of a new mixed use zone for commercial/residential uses and developing a model to assess fiscal, social and environmental impacts on the Town, schools and natural resources.

Stating that Currituck County had a policy whereby new developments had to pay for themselves, Council Member Andresen said this was a really interesting concept. She also noted that Currituck County's program had an exemption for affordable housing projects. Council Member Brown stated that the focus of this program was on schools. Council Member Brown said she would be pleased to share additional information with the Council about this program.

Council Member Andresen inquired how well the Town's Resource Conservation District (RCD) Ordinance was working. She also asked whether or not hardships could be defined, since the Board was not currently receiving legal guidance about findings of fact.

Council Member Brown said that Council Member Andresen and herself would be pleased to receive any Council comments or suggestions about community goals and the related process for implementation.

Council Member Evans said the memorandum prepared by Council Members Andresen and Brown was a very interesting one. She stated that the identification of the need for growth management tools pointed out the need for revisions to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Stating that the Council needed to examine its existing goals and objectives, Council Member Evans suggested referral of the matter to staff for development of a memorandum about how the Council could initiate a process of reviewing these items. She stated that although the Development Ordinance called for separation of uses, this had not worked especially well in the past twenty to thirty years. Council Member Evans also stated that the Development Ordinance could encourage more usage of reclaimed water.

Council Member Franck said the list of goals suggested by Council Members Andresen and Brown was very good. Noting that he had read through the goals and objectives portion of the Comprehensive Plan earlier in the day, Council Member Franck said possible additional growth management tools included: the uses of transportation overlay zones for areas such as the U.S. 15-501 corridor, conducting a survey of open space and forested areas to identify areas for protection and passing an open space bond to buy more land. Council Member Brown asked whether or not staff had anything to report on the survey of open space and forested areas. Mr. Horton said he was not aware of any staff or citizen efforts in this regard. He noted that aerial photographs of the Town had been taken as late as 1993. Council Member Franck said these photographs could possibly be analyzed for this project.

Council Member Brown said she concurred with Council Member Franck about the importance of the Council looking at the Development Ordinance and providing an opportunity for public input on possible changes.

Noting that major pieces of land were continuing to be developed as traditional subdivisions rather than cluster subdivisions, fine grain mixed-use or affordable housing, Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council devote some time to examine zoning. Council Members Brown and Franck expressed their concurrence with this approach.

Council Member Pavão asked how the Council could determine what was economically viable in a village concept. Council Member Franck stated that the Council would need to make a subjective decision about what would be desirable. Council Member Pavão noted that some existing mixed-use development projects around the nation had experienced viability problems with their retail and commercial elements. He stated that the Council needed to be very careful about this element of mixed-use plans. Stating that tradeoffs were involved, Council Member Andresen said that Fearrington Village appeared to be quite successful, despite having a somewhat limited amount of commercial activity. Council Member Pavão noted that highway visitors from U.S. 15-501 tended to help in keeping Fearrington Village retail establishments commercially viable.

Council Member Brown reviewed items suggested for addition by Council Members including a review of the Resource Conservation District, zoning, transit overlay zone, open space and forested areas. Council Member Evans noted that she had suggested adding separation of uses, reclaimed water and regional transit. She also noted that crime and safety related concerns needed to be addressed in the Town's Comprehensive planning process. Council Member Evans said her inclination was to refer the matter to the Manager for receiving information on options on how to proceed. Council Member Evans also requested that the Council receive more information, possibly from University staff, about fiscal impacts.

Council Member Andresen said it was up to the Council, rather than staff, to provide direction. She suggested that Council Members could prioritize items for further consideration in the process. Council Member Evans said it would be difficult to assess some technical items such as measuring air quality impacts. Council Member Andresen said that it might be helpful to have more detailed descriptions of individual proposals. She added that having some outside professional expertise might be helpful in addressing some matters.

Mayor Waldorf inquired how the Council wished to follow up on this item. Council Member Andresen said that she and Council Member Brown could put together a of list of items with a little more detail. She stated that this list could be used to survey Council Members about their priorities for the items. Council Member Chilton suggested that Council Members wishing to do so could add topics to the listing.

Mayor Waldorf noted that Council Member Evans had made the suggestion that the Council consider possible revisions to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Andresen said this item could be added to the proposed listing. Council Member Evans stated that preliminary indications were that the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force final report would not be ready until 1998. Council Member Brown said it was possible that information gathering by the Task Force might not take as long as originally projected. She added that the process would not be an easy or short one.

Council Member Andresen said she believed that staff was in the process of preparing a report about the resources need to undertake a review of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Chilton said he believed that the Council had decided not to take any action on the Comprehensive Plan at its January 13th planning session.

Stating that she could not fathom it being a good idea to operate from a fifteen year old plan, Council Member Evans said she thought it was very important for the Council to start looking at the Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible.

Council Member Franck said he endorsed Council Member Andresen's concept of surveying the Council about topic areas of interest relative to the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Andresen said the Council would be forwarded a list with more detailed information in the future. Council Member Brown said any other suggestions would be welcomed. Council Member Franck suggested the possibility of breaking out zoning-related items from those which were not zoning related.

The work session concluded at 8:17 p.m.