SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.  Mayor pro tem Lee Pavão was absent, excused.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Interim Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, and Acting Town Clerk Toni Pendergraph.

Piney Mountain Road Bridge.  Town Manager Cal Horton stated that getting the bridge  up and running was an urgent project for the community, and introduced Engineering Director George Small to report on the status of bridge. 

Mr. Small said that the Town had received several bids for the reconstruction project, and that they would be able to select one within the $200,000 budget.  He added that reconstruction should be completed by the end of November 2000.  Mr. Small asked Council members to read the summary of what had been done so far.  He assured them that the project had been the highest priority for the Engineering Department and for the Manager.  Mr. Small emphasized that the preliminary work had been done in a compressed time schedule.

Council Member Wiggins inquired about the possibility of following the reconstruction on the Town's website.  Mr. Horton replied that a camera could not be mounted on the site but that digital photos could be posted each day with a paragraph explaining the images.  Mr. Horton praised the suggestion, and Council Member Wiggins pointed out that doing this would allow those who have to take detours to see that there will be an end to their inconvenience.

Item 1 - Report from Consultant Working on Development Ordinance

Planning Director Roger Waldon reported that this project was proceeding according to the schedule that the Council had outlined.  He said that the staff had been waiting for this report from the consultant Lane Kendig, inc.

Mr. Kendig presented his Diagnostic Report, which he had developed in conjunction with Robinson & Cole.  The report outlined three major areas:

1.      Ordinance Organization and Readability, emphasizing user-friendliness.

2.      General Review, taken from comments received from the Town Council, staff, advisory boards, and citizens—plus the consultant's review of the document.

3.      Major Issues, those which the Council had identified beforehand as being critical to the review—such as mixed uses, low impact development, use intensity ratios, and affordable housing.

Mr. Kendig proposed that the ordinance be written simply with short sentences and concise sections.  He recommended that there be a clear order and that technical sections be placed at the back.  Mr. Kendig pointed out that currently definitions are scattered about, contain regulatory standards, and include duplications and obsolete terms that have not been updated to address evolving issues.  He suggested adding more illustrations, using tables rather than lists, simplifying tabular data, and changing to fonts that are easier to read.

Mr. Kendig said that 30 zoning districts was too many for a town the size of Chapel Hill.  He recommended reducing the Town Center from two to one, and reducing the Institutional/Office districts from three to two.  He also suggested reducing the number of single-family districts and consolidating or eliminating the overlay districts.

Mr. Kendig argued that too many of the Town's uses require special hearings, which he said creates an adversarial system.  He stated that many of the issues (noise, glare, buffers, and environmental protection) could be dealt with directly through written standards.  Mr. Kendig noted that an special use permit (SUP) process can create a bad image for the Town because it is too long, expensive and adversarial.  He added that the SUP process forces citizens to fight to protect their interests.  Mr. Kendig said that it would be better to have standards written into the ordinance that would provide protections.

Mr. Kendig indicated some minor use classification issues, such as how students can outbid low-income families for housing.  He said that the OI-3 and MX-150 Zoning projects should not advance until the Town and University can agree on mutual benefits. 

Mr. Kendig noted the recommendations in the report regarding parking, such as limits, aesthetics, and residential parking issues.  He agreed that protecting residential single-family neighborhoods from intrusion is critical, but cautioned that the Comprehensive Plan's call for mixed use and higher intensity development of the Town Center may cause opposition from adjoining single family neighborhoods.

Mr. Kendig listed four major issues for particular study:

·         Mixed-use districts.

·         Low-impact development regulations or incentives.

·         Land Use Intensity ratios (LUI).

·         Impact of regulations on affordable housing.

Mr. Kendig noted that in its current ordinance the Town allows "horizontal mixed use."  He suggested using "three dimensional mixed use," such as commercial on the ground with residential or other uses above it.  He also recommended examining how to get high intensity uses that reduce rather than exacerbate traffic.

Regarding the Environment, Mr. Kendig commented that the Town's stormwater retention requirement was primitive compared to others in the nation.  He recommended planning for the 100-year rather than the 25-year storm.  Mr. Kendig mentioned that the Town follows the State mandate on water quality, and described that mandate as "pretty soft."  He recommended stronger regulations to protect forests, individual trees, and habitats, and advocated a system that is simple, with set standards, rather than one that can be negotiated.

Mr. Kendig stated that density should be controlled in some instances by the percentage of resources on the site.  He suggested designing to enhance natural elements, noting that impervious surface is a major factor.  Mr. Kendig recommended clustering as a matter of right rather than requiring those developers to go through a special process while the "cookie-cutter" developer does not have to do so.

Mr. Kendig explained that LUI ratios is a system designed by HUD, which is based on values for existing high rises.  He said that the system is difficult to understand, and suggested making it simpler and more flexible.  Mr. Kendig also recommended replacing that system, noting the examples of how to do so in his report.

Regarding Affordable Housing, Mr. Kendig advised the Town should first decide what it means by "affordable."  He said that it should be defined as a tool that allows the market to reach a larger share of the population and create diversity.  Mr. Kendig also recommended providing more niches, incorporating mixed uses and planned developments, rewarding smaller units, and considering whether including affordable housing will be mandatory or voluntary with some incentive attached.

Mr. Kendig summarized his recommendations:

·         Reorganize the Development Ordinance and make it more readable.

·         Eliminate LUI ratios and substitute performance standards.

·         Reduce special uses and reserve for really difficult uses.

·         Use performance standards to protect neighborhoods or neighboring uses.

·         Provide flexibility and rigid standards of protection for critical areas.

Comments by citizens.

Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said that the Board had a vested interest in this item and had rehashed many of the same issues they had discussed when developing the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated that the board would like to hear more from the consultant on how other college towns handle student housing.  Ms. Eddy explained that the Board had divergent ideas on how to solve many of these issues and had spent two hours going over the diagnostic report section by section.  She said that they were impressed by the report and by how the consultant had "zeroed in" on the Town's problem areas.

Ms. Eddy reported that Board members were encouraged to see a broader perspective on how to solve some of the Town's problems.  She urged the Council to decide early on where it stands on what kinds of decisions will be appropriate for the staff and advisory boards to make and what decisions the Council wants to make itself.   Ms. Eddy suggested that the Council ask for conceptual options on how the decision-making process works in other places.

Ms. Eddy reported that the Board had agreed that there were too many SUPs and that the situation had become adversarial and highly political.  She added that they were intrigued by the idea of performance zoning and encouraged the Council to explore that further.  Ms. Eddy expressed support for the consultant's comments about updating and strengthening environmental ordinances and weaving them into the developer's plan early on.  She said that the Planning Board liked the idea of allowing mixed uses in more districts, as well as encouraging vertical mixed uses, allowing smaller scale, and making residential a mandatory part of the mixed use.

Ms. Eddy stated that the Board had agreed on the desirability of making the Land Use Intensity system more user friendly, but thought the two recommendations in the report were too complex and therefore not user friendly themselves.  She concluded that the Board's reaction was optimistic and they look forward to the next steps in the ordinance revision process.

Historic District Commission Chair Catherine Frank explained that other members of the Commission had not yet had the opportunity to examine the diagnostic report, and she hoped her opinion would reflect their views.  Ms. Frank agreed with the Planning Board's point that some of the things that were intended to be "user friendly" were still difficult to understand.  She praised the notion of having performance standards to protect neighborhoods but said that the Commission wanted to understand the process for obtaining input.  Ms. Frank expressed uncertainty about how the information about overlay districts relates to historic districts, and said that she would like to see the Commission continue to be a Town board that provides an interface for citizens.

Milton Heath, a retired consultant and trainer, addressed the issue of subdivision approvals and standards for "paper subdivisions" that are not subject to current standards as Chapel Hill now interprets the subdivision ordinance.  Mr. Heath made three suggestions to address problems posed by these subdivisions:

1.      Voluntary compliance with current subdivision standards by developers of paper subdivisions.  Mr. Heath asked the Mayor and Council members to try and promote this idea for the good of the Town and developers.

2.      Developers who did not elect voluntary compliance would be asked to meet for a limited period of time with a Council/staff committee to consider alternatives to voluntary compliance.  Mr. Heath encouraged the Council to create a package of alternative strategies.

3.      If steps one or two do not produce results during the specified period of time, then the developer would be required to comply with the modernized ordinance.

Mr. Heath asked the Town Council to direct the Manager to bring back a proposal that would embody these suggestions and whatever changes the Council thinks appropriate.  He urged Council members to do this soon and to receive the Manager's report by the end of the year 2000.  Mr. Heath stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Waldon, who had been concerned that it might create nonconforming use situations.  Mr. Heath added that most of the proposed changes involve nothing more than the proposed change to the present ordinance and enabling statute.  He urged the Council to consider his suggestions and to view them as different interpretations.

Laurie Flowers, Director of Government Relations for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, asked Council members to consider simplifying the ordinance language and implementing a site plan approval process in lieu of the SUP process.  She also asked the Council to consider the complexity of the approvals that lead to an unnecessarily long process and to set deadlines for staff and Council as well as the applicant. 

Ms. Flowers said this would help applicants continue to want to work with the Town.  She also asked the Council to provide meaningful incentives that achieve Town goals (such as affordable housing) and to address signage and parking issues.  Ms. Flowers asked the Town to review rules that allow real density in transit corridors, and she asked the Council to direct the Manager's office to investigate areas that create bottlenecks and adversity, and to address some of the issues that might be systematic but are not outlined in the ordinance.

Roy Fauber, a Cameron/McCauley district resident, applauded the effort to simplify the ordinance and noted the need for further clarification and simplification so that critical aspects of the Development Ordinance will not be open to conflicting interpretations.  He praised the overall guiding mission of the ordinance (to be in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan) and said that a crucial aspect in maintaining the character of neighborhoods is resident involvement with issues which directly affect them.

Mr. Fauber noted that lack of involvement leads to apathy, which leads to loss of sense of community, the cornerstone of neighborhood character.  He expressed concern about implementing "a system to make neighborhood development decisions less adversarial" praising the goal but cautioned against removing interested parties from the process.  Mr. Fauber argued that Chapel Hill citizens' insights and opinions have resulted in more informed and better decisions by Town boards and the Council.  He added that neighborhood character is determined in large part by its residents, whose input must be respected and valued when implementing public policy.

Dan Coleman raised three questions regarding the report. 

1.      He disagreed that developers were not bringing the Town their best plans under the current process.  He pointed out that developers know the Town has high standards and make a great effort to know what the community wants in order to avoid a long process.  Mr. Coleman said that he had served on the Design Review Board and had always had a sense that developers came into those meetings at the very early stages because they wanted to know what the community was looking for in order to fine-tune their plans.  He suggested that Town standards not be seen as minimal ones because the product may not be as good as it is now in the rigorous review process.

2.      Regarding maximum parking, Mr. Coleman pointed out that there had been much work done on envisioning what kind of town Chapel Hill wants to be.  He noted that people will want to do business here when that kind of community has been created.  Mr. Coleman pointed out that the Town's sustainability goals were absent from the report.  He said that ideas on the kind of "life space" that the Town wants to create should be in the forefront.

3.      Mr. Coleman stated that some of the adversarial nature of Chapel Hill is beyond Town control because the U.S. Constitution enshrines certain powers in the holders of property that the Town cannot challenge.  He pointed out that there also are democratic rights of citizens to have property development that meets the best needs of the community.  Mr. Coleman pointed out that it was the role of the Council and the role of these ordinances to strengthen and preserve those sometimes conflicting democratic mechanisms. 

Aaron Nelson, representing UNC, said the University was pleased that the Town was reviewing the Development Ordinance and hoped to be an integral part of the review process.  Mr. Nelson pointed out that the Town and University have had an informal system for handling University development that had worked well.  He asked that the University be permitted to fully participate in the revision of the Development Ordinance, which he described as a complex document that regulates the University's development in a way that does not always support the Town's needs and sometimes impedes the University's operations.  Mr. Nelson requested that the University be permitted to work with the Town and its consultant directly on developing a new ordinance that recognizes the complexity and constraints of the University's development while promoting the goals and aspirations of the Town and the University.

Questions by the Mayor and Council Members.

Council Member Foy asked if the MX-150 zone was performance-based zoning.  Mr. Kendig replied that there had never been closure on that.  Council Member Foy ascertained from the staff that the Town had not actually adopted it.  He then asked about the consultant's suggestion to implement performance-based zoning as a substitute for the special use process.  Council Member Foy pointed out that the Council has had the experience of citizens coming to them very upset about some aspect of a development near them and that the Town has had no authority to change the situation.  Council Member Foy asked for advice on how to address this side of the equation.

Mr. Kendig suggested looking back and analyzing what the citizens had been concerned about, noting that if the issue was lighting, for example, that could be controlled.  He said that the idea behind making a plan is to make decisions about what your ultimate land use is going to be and then designing standards so there will not be adverse impacts on neighboring properties.  Mr. Kendig noted that many communities around the country are frustrated by the special review process since there is "always a loser."  He added that once people realize that their concerns can be met in the ordinance, then the issue will have been dealt with.  Mr. Kendig pointed out that the Town must have a SUP process for something like a landfill, but not for many other uses.

Council Member Foy expressed disagreement with Mr. Kendig's conclusion that there is "always a loser" in the SUP process.  He noted that a negotiation includes give and take, and though some may not be satisfied with the outcome he did not think that there is always a loser.  Council Member Foy then asked Mr. Kendig to name communities where performance based zoning is working.  Mr. Kendig replied that townships and boroughs in Bucks County have had it for nearly thirty years.  He also mentioned New Castle County in Delaware, and said that he could provide a list.  Council Member Foy said that a list would be helpful.

Council Member Brown commented that the present system makes citizens feel that they are part of the process.  She asked if there was a way to have standards but also retain the public part of the process, particularly when the use involves something in their neighborhood.  Council Member Brown also asked Mr. Kendig if he knew of communities that have performance standards as well as a vigorous public process. 

Mr. Kendig asked, rhetorically, if the process deals simply with the layout and design of the project or if it forces totally different decisions.  He said that the history of SUPs is that the process gets changed from meeting the standards to developers asking for variances to the standards to neighbors asking for additional controls to be put on.  Mr. Kendig noted that planned development was intended to solve that problem but had become in most cases a negotiated process.

Mr. Kendig said that few communities can keep high standards in a negotiated process and pointed out that much can be done to identify what should be protected.  He pointed out that if citizens come to the Council with complaints because the same conditions keep cropping up again and again then the ordinance needs to be amended to deal with that issue.

Council Member Brown noted that the consultant had advised putting technical information at the end of the ordinance.  She explained that Chapel Hill citizens frequently delve into the technical information, and asked if the back section would include technical terms that would not be part of the readable section.  Mr. Kendig replied that the back section would provide technical information about how a piece of land is laid out, for example, rather than what can be done there.  He added, though, that the technical section would be written in understandable language.

Council Member Brown, referring to page 11, asked if there were communities that had other than on site environmental constraints.  Mr. Kendig replied that Council Member Brown was referring to "infrastructure," and explained that there were a variety of tools available —from adequate facilities to impact fees—to try and make sure that no development takes place unless the infrastructure and environment are adequate to support and sustain it.

Council Member Strom pointed out that the recommendations ask the Town to change the way it does business in Chapel Hill.  He asked where in the process is the chance for the little messy interactions and differences of opinions that the Town values.  Council Member Strom wondered how Council members could tell their constituents that the Town is going to honor these standards.

Mr. Kendig said he agreed with the Planning Department's recommendation that the Council give guidance early on concerning who will make decisions.  He added that when someone comes in and says that he absolutely must have a parking lot, for example, then that would be a review action on whether that individual's hardship is severe enough to warrant that.  Mr. Kendig stated that once he gave the Council examples of what kinds of standards might be on at least a couple of uses, then the Council would give him concrete guidance on what will be a limited use and what will remain a special use.  He said that the purpose of a design review should be to get the project done right, but not to change it. 

Council Member Wiggins commented that she had pulled back from her initial optimism after hearing other Council members comments because citizen input is such an important part of Chapel Hill's process.  But, she said, a very important place for citizen input would be during the development of standards that will be as high as the community can agree on.  She agreed that the process had become too adversarial, and expressed hope that some major steps could be taken to diminish that.  Council Member Wiggins requested information about other communities that have adopted the performance standards way of doing things.

Council Member Evans expressed excitement over the report.  Noting that performance standards may differ for new development and redevelopment, she asked Mr. Kendig to address that at a later date.  Council Member Evans also asked how the Town could have high standards for streambeds, for example, when OWASA has their stormwater and sewer mains in what the Town would call environmentally sensitive areas.  She asked if the Town can have performance standards that would affect that issue.  Council Member Evans noted that the Town receives much input from citizens through its many advisory boards.  She asked for information on ways that other communities gather citizen input other than through a SUP process.  Council Member Evans also requested more ideas about student housing.

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf commented that the speakers had indicated that the Council needs to look at improving the Town's processes and having the processes meet the needs of both neighbors and applicants.  She said that Ms. Eddy had put it well when she said the Town needed to look at conceptual options about process.  Mayor Waldorf underscored that suggestion and advised against getting too far down the road without seriously thinking about some of those fundamental decisions.

Council Member Brown requested maps indicating which areas this ordinance might apply to and which areas someone might target for redevelopment. 

Council Member Foy asked if making affordable housing an average lot size would be permissible under North Carolina statutes.  Mr. Kendig replied that they had not yet received the legal reviews but that he had never seen a statute that would disallow it or anything that would be troublesome on the surface.  He agreed to obtain confirmation of that as they go through the process.  Council Member Foy asked, regarding the last bullet on appendix A, to broaden the parking lot section to ask that parking areas be pedestrian as well as vehicle oriented.

Council Member Bateman encouraged Mr. Kendig to come back with every tool that he can recommend for promoting affordable housing.  Mr. Kendig agreed that the difficult issue of affordable housing must be approached from every conceivable angle.  He said he would recommend putting all tools into the system and then revisiting it after five years.

Mayor Waldorf noted that the Council had received a letter stating that the University wanted to have a member on the Ordinance Review Team.  She noted that there was no such team but stated that the Manager had an idea about how to bring the University into the process.  Mr. Horton, pointing out that the University had brought ideas forward to the Council tonight, suggested that they continue to do so in that manner and also communicate directly with the Manager, the Planning Director, the staff, and the consultant.  He explained that the University cannot sit on a committee because the Council is the committee in this case.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Wiggins asked what would happen next in the process.  Mr. Waldon explained that the consultant would put together an annotated outline of how the ordinance might be written.  He said that the staff would attempt to respond quickly to Council members' requests for information and that the consultant would flesh out some alternative options regarding process.  Mr. Waldon said that the staff would bring back some of that information at the end of November when the consultant brings back the annotated outline.

Item 2 - Comprehensive Plan Implementation:  Zoning of Areas

Within the Town's Jurisdiction

Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had adopted a new Comprehensive Plan on May 8, 2000.  One component of that, he said, was the land use plan and the related issue of contraction of the urban services boundary.  He noted that contraction had left several properties that used to be within the Urban Services District outside that district.

Mr. Waldon stated that the Council had wanted to hold public hearings to consider rezonings that might be called for by their actions.  Most of the contracted Urban Services Boundary's current zoning matches a low density (no water and sewer) type of land use and zoning, Mr. Waldon explained.  But, he said, because that was not the case for a couple of properties, the Council had called tonight's public hearing.  Mr. Waldon said that the Council would also consider the same kind of action for rezoning of properties where the Town shares jurisdiction with Orange County. 

Mr. Waldon explained that the two issues before the Council tonight were:

* Consider zoning that will bring the Town's Zoning Atlas Amendment into conformance with the land use plan that the Council adopted in May. 

* Land Use Amendment for two-parcel site (56 acres) that the Council removed from the urban services area in May 2000.  It is currently zoned R-1, which allows three units per acre, and is designated Low Residential (1-4 units per acre) on the 2000 Land Use Plan map.  Mr. Waldon  argued that two of the three justifications for amending the Development Ordinance (changed conditions in an area, and to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan) had been met.  He

pointed out that the Council had removed this land from the Urban Services Boundary, which is a changed condition.  He added that future development outside the urban services area would require septic systems, and that rezoning this property to lower its level of intensity would directly achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.


Mr. Waldon noted that the Council had requested a range of zoning options:

·         Residential-Low Density 1, 1 unit per acre.

·         Rural Transition, 1 unit per 2.3. acres.

·         Residential-Low Density 5, 1 unit per 5 acres.

·         Flexibility for subdividing R-LD5 lots.

Mr. Waldon said that the staff recommended Residential-Low Density 5, but pointed out that there is a particular feature with that option regarding flexibility for future subdivisions.  He explained that when the Council created this district a few years ago it had built in a "safety valve" for owners of large tracts who might want to carve off small parcels.  Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council had added a provision that the landowner could subdivide up to three two-acre lots.  After that, all lots would have to be a minimum of five acres, he said.

 

Mr. Waldon noted that if the Council were to rezone to R-LD5, then the staff suggested one additional change to the Land Use Plan so that the land use category there would be five acre zone.

The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.