SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2001, AT 7:00 P. M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Council Member Flicka Bateman arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 1—Development Ordinance Text Amendment:
Second Draft of the Development Ordinance
Mayor Waldorf explained that due to a particularly hectic week she and other Council members had not had enough time to study the Development Ordinance draft as closely as they would like. She suggested hearing from others tonight but postponing the Council's discussion to another evening. Mayor Waldorf added that Council members and others wanted to be home by 9:00 p.m. in order to hear President Bush's speech regarding the recent terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D. C.
Mr. Horton agreed that it had been a difficult week for all. He described the Development Ordinance as "massive," and said that it would require much time for review. Mr. Horton stated that the original schedule had been overly optimistic and had not taken into account the Town's challenging work on the University’s Development Plan review nor anticipated the recent national events. He said that the Planning Director would discuss changing the schedule as part of its presentation. Mr. Horton pointed out that there was ample time to continue working on this issue at a slower pace.
Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had received written comments from citizens on this second draft of the Ordinance. He noted that many had signed up to speak tonight and that more comments would follow tonight's meeting. Mr. Waldon suggested first hearing from the consultant and from citizens who had signed up to speak tonight, and then recessing the public hearing to be reconvened at the Council’s Regular Business Meeting on October 10th. He recommended that the staff synthesize public comments for the Council and that the Council then give the staff and consultant guidance at the October 10th meeting. The staff could then return with a third draft for the Council's consideration on November 12th, Mr. Waldon said, and the Town could enact a new Development Ordinance by the end of November.
Council members agreed by consensus with the proposed schedule. Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the Council would also take further public comment at its October 10th meeting.
Mr. Waldon noted that the consultant had suggested some aggressive language regarding Inclusionary Housing in the draft document. This language would turn guidelines into requirements, he said. Mr. Waldon also explained that there was information on legal ramifications in the Council's packet that might help to justify becoming more aggressive about Inclusionary Housing.
Mr. Waldon pointed out the suggestions from Carol Ann Zinn regarding the Small House Ordinance. He stated that the Council would have to decide on an effective date for the Ordinance, and noted that questions such as how passage will affect applications in process will need to be considered at the October 10th Council meeting.
Mr. Waldon stated that revising the Development Ordinance would not be an isolated act but was part of a series of events that had begun with revision of the Comprehensive Plan. The main point of the Development Ordinance revision, he said, was to try and implement the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the staff was bringing this to the Council with a fair degree of confidence that it would achieve that goal.
Presentation by the Consultant.
Mark White, a consultant with Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, said that the Development Ordinance begins with the concept that the Town wants to separate substantive criteria from procedures and to relegate technical and legal matters to back pages. He outlined the Ordinance structure from Articles One through the Appendices. Regarding Article 2, Mr. White noted that height had been limited to four stories for commercial retrofit, and that this had been done in response to comments. He also pointed out that a Transit-Oriented Development District had been added to Article 3.
Mr. White explained that his firm had added provisions for nonconforming uses within Historic Districts. Homeowners can build within their original footprints as long as their nonconformity does not increase, he said, and they can reconstruct without meeting the minimum parking requirements as long as they do not put additional parking between the building and the street. Mr. White explained that Historic Districts could also continue for any purposes it was used for immediately before the Ordinance was adopted.
Regarding the Resource Conservation District (RCD), Mr. White explained that the draft Ordinance has added spacing requirement, lessened widths of streets and bridges, and allowed flag lots and shared driveways. He noted that it also includes a Disturbed Area Ratio that ranges from 0% t0 50%. Mr. White pointed out that the draft Ordinance has added a comment that playing fields that do not use fertilizers can be permitted anywhere in the streamside buffer and that fertilizers require a SUP and are not allowed in the streamside buffer.
Mr. White pointed out that several changes had been made regarding the Small House Ordinance, including adding unoccupied space to the "floor area" definition and extending the period where the unit cannot be enlarged from one year to five years. Regarding Inclusionary Zoning, he noted that he had given Council members a memo that would clear up some of the potential legal issues. Regarding Article 4, under Procedures, Mr. White noted that the major issue continues to be the interplay between getting early review by the Town Council while at the same time respecting the role of the Community Design Commission. He pointed out that a number of alternatives were set out in the draft Ordinance for consideration.
Regarding Access and Circulation, Mr. White said that reference to bicycles had been added to the pedestrian reference throughout ordinance, and that TIA would be enforceable through building permit process. Under Parks and Open Space, he noted that benefit areas would be established and that this would be applicable to multi-family housing.
Comments from Advisory Boards.
Planning Board Chair John Hawkins explained that his Board was experiencing some of the same "fatigue factor" as the Town Council while trying to review the Development Ordinance and UNC's Development Plan at the same time. Overall, he said, Board members were enthusiastic about the Ordinance and thought it would be much more effective than the present one. Mr. Hawkins emphasized, though, that the Town Council should scrutinize the fine print and look carefully at tables because there are significant policy measures buried there, and some mistakes as well. He pointed out that the Council would need to exercise discretion to address those subtleties.
Mr. Hawkins explained that the issues his Board had taken up were outlined in its memo to the Council. He pointed out a typo in a reference to page 3-38 in items 29 and 30, and said that should be 3-48 rather than 3-38. Mr. Hawkins reported that the Board's discussion had centered on Articles 2 and 3, and said that they had found in some instances that the Use Patterns in Article 2 were too prescriptive and that the data in the Design Ordinance might be more appropriately contained in the Design Manual. With regard to Use Patterns, he emphasized that the Town should really understand what it is encouraging and make sure that this is what it wants.
Mr. Hawkins noted that, for example, there were no requirements for maximum/minimum parking or for buffers in new development in older areas. Pointing out that the Board would be relinquishing several levels of control, he stressed that they wanted to make sure that these issues were addressed. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that the only level of administrative control would be that a developer would need to get a Building Permit. There would be no Council or other review, he noted, adding that one Board member had used the word "dangerous" in relation to the ease with which a builder could do a project under these conditions.
Mr. Hawkins proposed that the Council review the Ordinance, but hold Article 2 for some group of people appointed by the Council to actually perform modeling with each of those Use Patterns to see how it would work. The Town Council would then gain the level of confidence in this vehicle that they should have, he said.
Mr. Hawkins pointed out that having a maximum limit to parking was a new item. He recommended that the Council have some flexibility in adjusting either the high or the low limit in exceptional circumstances. Mr. Hawkins remarked that some of the maximum levels were too low by any standards, adding they need adjustment. He pointed out the dimensional matrix on page 373, and said that it needed careful scrutiny. Mr. Hawkins added that, for example, the interior setback is zero for several residential zoning classes, which means that houses could theoretically be built right against the lot line.
Mr. Hawkins stated that the Board had questions regarding Transfer of Development Rights in Article 3, such as where the sending areas are to be. He pointed out that it might be inappropriate to act unilaterally on the issue without Orange County being involved, and recommended reserving that as well, rather than officially adopting it before resolving the questions.
Mr. Hawkins asked that the Planning Board be given a chance to see the final draft of the Ordinance and an opportunity to share additional comments with the Council.
Transportation Board Chair Loren Hintz recommended that people with time and expertise look carefully at the numbers in this draft Ordinance and make sure that they make sense. He mentioned that the Transportation Board had gone on record as supporting the Community Development Commission's (CD) proposal to keep the current system review. Mr. Hintz said that his Board finds it useful for their liaison to go to CDC meetings and to get preliminary feedback.
Mr. Hintz said that the Transportation Board was concern that the adequate facilities concept had been removed from the Development Ordinance. He proposed that something specific to transportation be incorporated in the Ordinance, as well as a statement that there should be a requirement that transportation facilities exist - such as making sure that bus stops and bikeways are built, sidewalks are installed, and that larger developers are assessed something to help pay for the capital expenses of bus service. Mr. Hintz repeated that the Transportation Board wanted something in consideration of transportation included in the Development Ordinance.
Mr. Hintz said that the Transportation Board was pleased with the revision of maximum parking spaces, which are close to the 110% mark, and they hope that number will be retained. He asked that the staff or the consultant explain which ideas from the Transportation Board were incorporated in the draft, and why others were not incorporated. Mr. Hintz said that the Board was concerned because details of the requirements for infill development did not seem specific and did not include the need to help improve the infrastructure. He asked that sidewalks that merely dead-end be improved, and he recommended looking harder at conservation of the RCD.
Mr. Hintz stated that the Transportation Board would be better able to comment once they know which of their ideas had already been incorporated. He agreed that having additional meeting times would help his Board as well.
Catherine Frank, Chair of the Historic District Commission (HDC), commented that section 2.5 on New Development in Older Areas was vague and might create conflicts with the design review with the HDC. She commented that neighbors in older areas that are not historic districts would not have opportunities to review these plans before developers could move ahead with them. Ms. Frank suggested clarifying the way the HDC would overlap with other boards and commissions, specifically the Urban Design Guidelines, which she said the HDC would like to have input into. Regarding section 3.6.2, she suggested mentioning some of the HDC's guidelines, such as a Standard of Congruity. Regarding section 3.6.5 (Conservation Districts), Ms. Frank stated that it was not clear how historic districts would overlap with Neighborhood Design Review Commissions. She asked why 75% rather than 50% of neighbors must agree to this, noting that requiring 75% would ensure that it would rarely be implemented as a planning tool.
Regarding Concept Plan Reviews, Ms. Frank pointed out that the HDC acts as the Community Design Commission for projects in the Historic Districts. Regarding minor subdivisions, she asked that the HDC's standards be made clear to landowners. Ms. Frank asked that there be ways of clarifying the relationship between the Planning Board and the HDC. She also asked for an opportunity to review any final drafts of the Ordinance.
Dorothy Verkerk, Bicycle and Pedestrian Board Chair, noted that she had given the Council her Board's written recommendations, which discussed the lack of precise language in the draft Ordinance. She suggested that the Ordinance distinguish between foot, bicycle and vehicular traffic when discussing transportation, traffic or transit. Ms. Verkerk remarked that her Board probably would disagree with the Planning Board regarding parking limits. She added that reducing parking would force people to use public transportation. Ms. Verkerk expressed appreciation for the delay in the scheduled and pointed out that more comments would be coming from Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Board members.
Weezie Oldenburg, Community Design Commission Chair, reported that the CDC had adopted two items, with attachments, which she distributed to the Council. She stated that the Board felt the most important change was that the Council rather than the CDC would review concept plans. Ms. Olderburg stated her Board feels that the CDC is uniquely structured to conduct a review of a project in its infancy, adding that they would like to continue to be involved in this original stage of the process. She stressed that the CDC could serve as a valuable resource to the Council by providing preliminary groundwork. Ms. Oldenburg said that this would fit Alternative Five in the block on page 4-2 in the revised Ordinance. She reported that the Board recommends that the revised ordinance be designed to maintain the existing concept plan review by the Design Commission followed by the opportunity for the Council also to review concept plans.
Comments from citizens.
Scott Maitland, a Chapel Hill resident and local businessman, requested that there be an opportunity in addition to the extra day on October 10 for citizens' input. He suggested perhaps holding an interactive workshop at which all could discuss this Ordinance.
Josh Gurlitz described the Ordinance as a distinct improvement over the present one because it contains more specific language and is a lot less ambiguous regarding how new development will be expected to perform. He added that the Ordinance reflects the Town's desire to experience itself as neighborhoods rather than sites. Mr. Gurlitz advised the Town to include meaningful incentives that will encourage developers to consider these patterns.
Regarding issues within the historic district, Mr. Gurlitz suggested considering specific zoning districts with dimensional and other standards that capture the areas' unique community character attributes. He recommended that zoning district designations, along with dimensional standards and other standards within the districts, be tailored specifically for the historic districts. Mr. Gurlitz suggested that language in the Applicability section, which states that houses must be "legally demolished," be simplified and made more direct. He pointed out that accessory apartments are common in the historic districts and suggested finding a way to make these legal without increasing lot size. Mr. Gurlitz noted that putting the licensing program into effect would keep these apartments controllable.
Elizabeth Pringle spoke about new development in older neighborhoods. She said that she did not think that people in the outer areas of Town understood that this section applied to them as well. Ms. Pringle agreed with the Planning Board's suggestion that Article 2 be delayed. She urged the Town to include more neighborhood input before acting on this, noting that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that they do so.
Ruby Sinreich, a Planning Board member, suggested simplifying the Ordinance's language. For example, "infill" would be better than "newer development in older areas," she said. Ms. Sinreich noted that some of the language was redundant. She pointed out that the standard in the Neighborhood Conservation Districts should say "75% of the owners of the property" rather than "75% of the affected property," that way, it would not be weighted toward those who own more of the properties, she said.
Ms. Sinreich stated that it makes no sense for huge development plans to be reviewed in 90 days. She stressed that the 15-day staff review should be longer too, and that off-site parking should be reviewed as well. Ms. Sinreich asked the consultant and/or the Council to respond in the next round to the Planning Board's major comments so that the Board can know why some of them were not reflected in the Ordinance.
Scott Radway expressed agreement with the statements made by Josh Gurlitz. He recommended that Inclusionary Zoning be built as strongly as possible into the Ordinance, and recommended that non-residential development support the development of affordable housing. Regarding the concept plan process, Mr. Radway noted that it would benefit the Council to not have to sit through preliminary meetings. He expressed support for the RCD concept, but noted that there are elements within the details of the zoning ordinance where things do not fit. Mr. Radway suggested that some group of people really sit down and try to build a few projects with this Ordinance so that they can discover the flaws before passing it.
Ed Harrison supported the resolve to slow down and take time with the Ordinance. He recommended that the Council watch for exemptions of different kinds. Mr. Harrison commented that the Ordinance had not addressed noise and appears to exempt certain residential development from stormwater planning. He suggested that the Council look carefully at what it wants to exempt from examination.
Former Council Member Julie McClintock asked the Town Council not to exempt single-family homes and duplexes from the requirement to submit a stormwater plan. Collectively, she said, single-family lots and developments add up to a huge impact on the Town's stormwater system. In addition, there is a measurable impact on wildlife if good stormwater plans are not in place, Ms. McClintock pointed out. Regarding the RCD, she expressed support for the proposed phasing of limits within the RCD and urged the Town to consider the impact of permitting steep slopes next to streams. Ms. McClintock implored the Council to put intermittent streams on the RCD maps, and to outlaw detention ponds in the RCD, which would save the woods and retain impervious surface. Ms. McClintock asked if the standards that are in the draft plan would be applicable to the University's site plans. She expressed support for the Inclusionary Housing requirements, and suggested that the Town staff print copies of the draft Ordinance and make it available to citizens.
Sally Greene said that the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhood was eager to take advantage of the Neighborhood Conservation District concept. Regarding section 3.6.5 of the draft (application procedures), though, she noted that such designation would be initiated by the Town Council or at the request of property owners of 75% of the property within the proposed district. Ms. Greene objected to 75%, arguing that the 51% in the first draft was more in line with the rest of the country. Furthermore, she pointed out, if that means 75% of the landmass rather than the people then it would present problems in her neighborhood where two undeveloped parcels make up almost 25% of the land. In order to get 75%, she said, 100% of the homeowners would have to sign on just to begin the process. Ms. Greene recommended keeping the figure at 51% and adding a third means of initiating: "At the request of 51% of the property owners within the proposed district."
Anne Stoddard, representing the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Government Relations Committee, urged the Council to choose Option #3 and to vote on the recommendations that they send back to an applicant. In section 4.17, regarding parking, she pointed out that the words "or less than ten spaces" had been deleted. Ms. Stoddard said that would be a potential problem for small business owners who would have to come back to the Council for one or two spaces. She agreed with the Planning Board's point that the maximum parking spaces in many cases are unreasonable. Ms. Stoddard added that there might be a benefit in making a distinction between the Downtown and outlying areas in this regard, since some of the retailers and restaurants might need more parking when facing stiff competition from malls. Regarding lighting standards in section 5.11 on page 5.68, she noted that safety is not mentioned as part of the purpose. Ms. Stoddard explained that banking members were concerned about this as it relates to outside ATM machines.
Phil Post, representing the Government Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, noted that it would take the Chamber another 45 to 60 days to get through all the details of the Ordinance. He requested an interactive workshop for citizens where they can ask detailed questions and get clarification on important aspects of the Development Ordinance.
Regarding parking, Mr. Post stated that the matrix in section 5.9 gives maximums that are hurtful for small business use. He explained that the Chamber likes the current system, with review by the CDC, but urged that the Council adopt Option 3 (concept review) if it must review this.
Regarding Payment In Lieu for Subdivisions, Mr. Post noted that the Parks and Recreation Department had previously suggested putting the recreation equivalency fee on the annual fee schedule so that it would not be subject to debate and potential conflict.
Mr. Post described the Conservation Subdivision as a "great concept," but noted that setting the open space threshold at 50% would make it higher than the rest of the world, and recommended setting it at 40%. Mr. Post stressed that the effective date of this ordinance must allow projects that are in the pipeline to move out, and recommended a date of five and a half months after adoption.
Adam Zinn, of Chapel Hill-based Zinn Design Build, discussed section 3.8.6 regarding Restricted House Size. He recommended that all lots accommodate 1,350 square-foot homes and that none be as small as 1,000 square feet. Mr. Zinn displayed a 1,000 square-foot plan, which he described as a second-class space, and showed how it would barely address the needs of a typical family. He also displayed a prototype 1,350 square-foot home, and pointed out that it would be a much more livable environment even though it is only 250 square feet larger. Mr. Zinn said that the inability to expand and change one's space reinforces the concept of second-class housing.
Alan Rimer spoke in support of extending the time for the review process. He asked that all members of the Comprehensive Plan Committee be informed as the process develops. Mr. Rimer alluded to concerns about the RCD, lot sizes, stormwater, and the effect on low-impact development. He praised the effort, though, and suggested getting as much input from the community as possible in a structured way.
Bob Reda agreed with Mr. Rimer, adding that they had worked very hard on the vision that is contained in the Comprehensive Plan and was glad that the Town was slowing down in order to get the details of the Ordinance correct. He said that he agreed with all that John Hawkins had said on behalf of the Planning Board and offered his support to the CDC's position that it should be an integral part of the concept review process. The CDC would be a true asset for the Council when a project comes for early review, Mr. Reda said.
Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council.
Council Member Jim Ward asked if the staff or consultant could run some examples through the Ordinance as some speakers had suggested. Mr. Horton suggested bringing options regarding that for the Council's consideration on October 10th. He added that the staff would welcome the expertise of engineers and architects in the community who would be interested ion taking a crack at it.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER 10TH AND TO HEAR FROM THE STAFF AND CITIZENS AT THAT TIME. ALSO, THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER POSSIBLY EXTENDING THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p. m.