SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2003, AT 7:00 P. M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt. Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Engineering Director George Small, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Urban Forrester Curtis Brooks, Engineering Design Specialist Mike Taylor, Stormwater Management Engineer Fred Royal, Field Operations Superintendent Richard Terrell, and Acting Town Clerk Vickie Hackler.
Update on Debris Removal
Public Works Director Bruce Heflin gave an update on debris removal from the recent ice storm, including cost estimates and reimbursements. Town forces had handled all of the initial hauling, he said, but the task was currently being handled by five large contractors. Mr. Heflin explained that Town efforts were confined to Town limits and that a total of about 4,000 tons of material had been hauled over the past month. He pointed out that, typically, about 2,000 tons are collected during a normal year. Mr. Heflin estimated that the total amount hauled would be about 20,000 tons of debris. The Town had not yet declared a completion date for collection, he said.
Mr. Heflin explained that Chapel Hill would have to contract for removal of trees in its rights-of-way and for debris that is in its streams. FEMA regulations had changed, he said, and the rules now require that everything be contracted and that the Town hire monitors to over-see the work. Mr. Heflin gave a preliminary cost estimate of $750,000 for damage to property, emergency service response, and debris removal. FEMA would pay 75% of that, he said, and reported that contracts for debris removal thus far had totaled about $460,000. Mr. Heflin explained that the State had in the past paid the remaining 25% for such disasters. But, he said, there had been no indication of certainty about that this year.
Mayor Foy clarified that the Town was already obligated for about $120,000 and that it could go up from there.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Heflin to give the status of debris collection for those living within the Town's urban services boundary and its extraterritorial jurisdictions. Mr. Heflin explained that the Town collects within Town limits and that NCDOT was responsible for collecting on State-maintained roads. If the Town or State does not maintain a road, he said, then the property owner is responsible for removing debris.
Agenda Item 1—Continued Review of Proposed
Land Use Management Ordinance (Fourth Draft)
Mayor Foy explained that this would be the final public hearing before the Council’s scheduled action date on the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) on January 27th. He offered to expand the usual three-minute time limit for speakers who indicate in advance how much time they need.
Planning Director Roger Waldon gave an overview of the process thus far. He highlighted six main substantive changes that the Council had identified between the third and fourth draft and summarized them as follows:
1. Stay with existing parking regulations.
2. Remove the floor-area ratio for single-family homes.
3. Occupancy regulations.
4. Tree protection.
5. Resource Conservation District (RCD) adjustments.
6. How ordinance applies to state-owned property.
Mr. Waldon referred to additional ideas included in supplement #2 of the Council's packet. He said that the staff intended to make those changes in the final draft unless the Council directed them otherwise. Mr. Waldon flagged important issues that might come up at tonight's public hearing, such as recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Department, Planning Board, Public Works Department, and Chamber of Commerce. He asked Council members to give the staff clear direction tonight about what to include in the final draft.
Comments from Advisory Boards.
Scott Radway, speaking on behalf of the Planning Board, reviewed the following eight items from the Planning Board's report:
1. Suggest finding a way to bury as many utility lies as possible.
2. Support using the 5,000 square-foot threshold for both tree protection and stormwater management in single-family lots.
3. Recommend a 25% disturbance area for slopes in excess of 25% on the site and that the steep slope regulations be extended to existing lots that are undeveloped, no matter when they were created.
4. Strongly support a 50-foot zone of no disturbance regardless of what the RCD line is.
5. Recommend lowering the threshold from 13 to 5 lots on the small house affordable housing provisions.
6. Strongly suggest keeping the 25% provision that is broken into 10% and 15% with the 1,150 sq. ft. house and 1,350 square-foot house rather than simplifying it at 1,350 square feet.
7. Support the proposal to add an incentive of bonus square footage in mixed use projects in the Downtown area.
8. Support the Council's position to extend the existing parking requirements into this ordinance and to study Chapel Hill and determine what the next set of standards should be rather than eliminating standards or relying on national standards which probably would be inappropriate.
Council Member Strom inquired about the Planning Board's recommendation on the Small House Ordinance to increase the time limit for prohibition of expanding a size-limited house from one to five years. He asked if the Board had obtained the Town Attorney's opinion of the Town's ability to do that. Mr. Radway replied that they had not obtained a legal opinion but believed that five years would be a much more reasonable time period if the Town wants the reduced square footage to stand for some period of time but still let people expand when they have the opportunity.
Loren Hintz, speaking on behalf of the Transportation Board, recommended creating site and building design restrictions for buildings involving biological hazards. The Board continued to be concerned about the rules for in-fill, he said. Mr. Hintz recommended that the LUMO be clear about mandating sidewalks and ensuring that they connect to other streets and other neighborhoods when they are required. Regarding parking, he said that the Transportation Board supported the idea of having maximums. Mr. Hintz stated that the Board supported creating strong RCD regulations and the tree protection regulations.
Comments from Citizens.
Milton Heath described the RCD buffer and slope provision, with all its exceptions, as "not much more than a pie in the sky gesture by the Chapel Hill Town Council." He suggested that Council members initiate a study of at least the major streams in order to flesh out the buffer and slope goals. Mr. Heath suggested the following process:
· Direct planning staff to summarize all of the exception categories.
· Report regularly to the Council on proposals for development that involve extensions into the 150-foot buffer or infringe on the slope provisions.
· Start an environmental planning process to give the Council a plan element against which to judge what happens.
· Be prepared, if necessary, to consider a moratorium on development within the RCD in order to allow an orderly planning process.
· Move promptly toward adoption of the ordinance.
Charlie Nelson, Vice Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, asked the Council to keep the momentum on the LUMO going. He praised Council members for being generous and for listening to citizens' comments. Mr. Nelson said that the Chamber supported Mayor Foy's idea of implementing a year-long monitoring process to insure that recommended changes are heard and addressed as quickly as possible.
Phil Post, speaking on behalf of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Government Relations Committee, said that the Chamber supported the 300-foot wide corridor, but suggests that the development rights—particularly Floor Area Ratio’s—in the final 50-foot upland zone be transferable out of the RCD and into the remaining lot. Mr. Post explained that this would preserve business owners' current development rights and do a better job in the long run of totally preserving the 300-foot buffer. He asked the Town Council to consider incorporating language that the Chamber had written to achieve this.
Kari Palazzari, speaking on behalf of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said that Chamber members supported the staff's recommendation to set the land disturbance threshold at 5,000 square feet but were concerned that limiting stormwater runoff volume to predevelopment conditions on non-residential lots would be a hardship for property owners. The costs of this would be prohibitive for small businesses, she said, as well as for non-profits, churches, and other community institutions. Ms. Palazzari proposed that the Council delay implementation of stormwater volume requirements until strategies of implementation could be set out in the Design Manual. She also asked to delete paragraph B of Section 5.4.6 on page 168 of the Fourth Draft. Ms. Palazzari requested that the Town set up a work group so that engineers and other professionals could assist in devising stormwater strategies that will work in the Piedmont.
Developer Anne Stoddard, a member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, spoke about a residential development bonus for Downtown and flexibility in height regulations. She suggested that the language in Section 3.8.7 (incentive for residential construction in Town Center Districts) be changed to read: "The amount of floor area reserved for residential uses on new or expanded lots, and redevelopment of existing lots, shall be excluded from the Floor Area Ratio calculation as follows: up to 33% of floor area for both multi-family dwellings and vertical mixed use dwellings."
With respect to height regulations, Ms. Stoddard argued that better quality development in some situations would result from flexibility on height restrictions. She recommended that the Council add the following purpose statement to the LUMO to indicate its intent to be flexible on height regulations for specific purposes: "The intent of the Town Council by permitting additional floor area in the Downtown and along transit corridors to encourage residential development as well as on lots which include resource conservation districts or intermittent stream buffers is: one, to allow flexibility in height limits to permit an increase in density in appropriate area; two, to create pedestrian and transit friendly development, and three to encourage a sustainable economy."
Public policy consultant Charlie Fisher, a member of the Governor Relations Committee of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, asked the Council to state specific community objectives on conditional use zoning so that an applicant could have a clear sense of what the Council values in redevelopment. He predicted that this would encourage property owners and developers to redevelop their properties in creative ways. Mr. Fisher noted that there was such a statement under 3.5 (Special District), but not under 3.4 (Conditional Use).
Mr. Fisher suggested the following language: "It is the intent of the Town Council to encourage more residential development in the Town Center and designated transit corridors, with an affordable housing component, to encourage development and redevelopment that is oriented to sustaining a vibrant local economy, encouraging use of public transit, increasing walkability, and preserving sensitive environmental areas. If a project can meet one or more of these goals then applications will be favorably considered for conditional use zoning."
Chandler Burns, Board Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, suggested modifying the language in Sec 3.6.4-1 to allow up to 70% impervious surface in non-residential zones with stormwater management tools. He described this as a small modification that would send a positive note to the business community while still fulfilling the Council's goal of managing stormwater runoff. Regarding the neighborhood conservation districts, Mr. Burns asked the Council to restrict the 51% threshold to areas that are entirely residential in character. He said that neither a group of residential property owners nor a group of commercial property owners should petition for regulation of the other. The Chamber had understood this to be the Council's intent, he said, but the language in draft four had not been changed.
James Carnahan spoke in favor of the "modest" changes the Chamber had proposed, adding that these modifications support the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed support for the following recommendations in particular:
· Increasing the incentive for a residential component in the Downtown and in commercial areas.
· Retaining underlying Floor Area Ratios and height limitations.
· Stating policy guidelines about flexibility when trying to achieve community goals.
Nick Tennyson, representing the Homebuilders Association of Orange County, discussed the concept of "rough proportional impact," arguing that pushing the Small House Ordinance down further would go beyond that rule. He said that site by site regulation of things like stormwater will force members of the Homebuilders Association to "charge, collect, and force to be spent great deals of money for very little benefit." Mr. Tennyson added that Association members enthusiastically supported the idea of monitoring what happens after the LUMO is passed. He asked that they be included in that conversation.
Planning Board Chair Scott Radway, speaking as a private citizen, stated that the Planning Board's proposal regarding the outlying 50 feet of the RCD was a fair tradeoff between development and environmental protection. Regarding affordable housing, he noted that the economic impact of providing one unit was substantially different for a seven-lot than for a thirteen-lot development. Mr. Radway proposed a method the Council could use consider payment-in-lieu that would address proportionality.
Retired urban planner Martin J. Rody, who specialized in land use planning ordinances and regulations, described the new LUMO as an improvement over what the Town previously had. He said, however, that there were a number of quirks in the LUMO document that needed careful editing. For example, he asked if the flood plains actually were shown on the official Zoning Atlas, as the Fourth Draft says they are on page eight. He also questioned how two-family dwelling units with accessory apartments and duplexes would be put in vertical buildings, and he pointed out several others.
Mr. Rody stated that the 60% -85% floor area being devoted to office in an R-1 zone probably was a mistake. Regarding variances, he noted that very heavy responsibility would be placed on the Board of Adjustment for areas in which they have no expertise. Mr. Rody argued against permitting places of worship in all residential districts. He suggested adding "high density residential" to the transfer of development rights section. The LUMO refers to timing indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, he pointed out, but added that he knew of no reference to timing in that Plan. Mr. Rody offered to work with the staff to edit the document before it is adopted.
Engineer Bruce Ballentine pointed out that the Town's RCD regulations already were more restrictive than anywhere else in the State. Mr. Ballentine referred to volume control as the most problematic item in the ordinance. He described it as having high cost with little benefit. Mr. Ballentine said it was not practical to infiltrate so much water into Chapel Hill's soil since very few developments will be able to use it. He suggested deleting the volume control from the LUMO and studying its impact. Mr. Ballentine questioned the correction on item #10, page 88 of attachment #3, and asked the staff to discuss this with him.
Dan Risku, Vice President for Strategic Development for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina, stated that Blue Cross/Blue Shield was in favor of reasonable controls on development that protect the beauty, character and natural resources of the Chapel Hill. But, he said, his company was concerned that the proposed LUMO would prohibit them from doing any additional development in Chapel Hill. Mr. Risku predicted that the ordinance would prevent them from effectively developing the 32 acres next to its existing commercial development in Eastowne, even though they have an approved Master Plan from the Town. He said the proposed run-off control requirements would be commercially impractical to meet. Mr. Risku asked that the LUMO grandfather the standards under which master land use plans had been approved.
Former Council Member Julie McClintock, an air quality specialist with the EPA, former member of the Chapel Hill Stormwater Advisory Committee, and former chair of OWASA, urged Council members to enact the LUMO swiftly. Leaving it open for comments for another year, she said, could cause it to lose all of its progressive elements and leave it much like the one that the Council had sought to improve. Ms. McClintock thanked the staff and Council for the many public forums and workshops and long hours that they had invested. She said that she did not know of any other draft ordinance in the country that had received more attention. Ms. McClintock stated that some of the concessions the Council had discussed, regarding future subdivisions and Special Use Permits (SUP), go too far and do not serve the public interest at large.
Regarding steep slopes, Ms. McClintock expressed support for Council Member Harrison's suggestion for the 25% impervious surface limit on a 25% slope, describing it as a reasonable and minimum approach to prevent stormwater runoff and other problems from occurring. Regarding an appropriate threshold to trigger stormwater controls and the tree ordinance, she implored the Town Council to retain the 2,000-foot disturbance threshold. Ms. McClintock pointed out that damage to the environment is incremental and recommended "holding the line" on this issue.
Ms. McClintock asked Council members to extend the Small House Ordinance to apply to all major subdivisions and not to allow payments-in-lieu to the Land Trust. Doing so would not accomplish the goal of having different kinds of housing spread throughout the Town, she said. Ms. McClintock proposed adopting the maximum parking limits, since that is part of progressive transportation planning. She wondered how the Town proposed to prevent the trend of tearing down structures in neighborhoods and replacing them with large houses if they are no longer require Floor Area Ratios. Ms. McClintock thanked the Council for setting rigorous impervious standards and quoted Dan Oken, who once said, "the amount of impervious surface that one allows is inversely proportionate to water quality." She praised the Town for beating State standards, adding that the Town cannot rely on the State to protect the environment.
Civil engineer Warren Mitchell noted that the LUMO had incorporated many of the changes he had recommended. He expressed concern, though, about the stormwater volume component. Mr. Mitchell asked Council members to delay adoption of that component (sec 5.4.6b) until the staff could do further work on specific measures that will be in the Design Manual. Mr. Mitchell gave examples of how lots would be adversely affected and argued that the Town would benefit from delaying this section. He recommended that the Town fully investigate low impact design methods, test them against the area's clay soils, adopt them into the design manual, and then decide which projects need to come under the regulation.
Linda Convissor, speaking on behalf of UNC and the UNC Healthcare system, asked that page two of the introduction to the ordinance (Article one, General Provisions, Sec. 1.4, Applicability) include the following language: "Notwithstanding the forgoing regulations established in this chapter, as enacted on January 6, 2003, shall not apply to valid special use permit and development plan and preliminary plat applications approved by the Town Council and valid site planning review applications approved by the Planning Board prior to the effective date of this enacted chapter." She noted that "and development plan" had been added after "special use permit." Ms. Convissor stated that the University fully supported the Chamber's recommendations, particularly the one involving internal transfer of development rights within the RCD.
Homebuilder Peter Thorn asked Council members to support the staff's recommendation in draft four to allow up to four unrelated persons in a duplex dwelling unit. He shared his experiences as a landlord, which illustrate that good and bad tenants cannot be determined by a test involving the number of unrelated persons. Mr. Thorn recommended that the Town regulate the undesirable behavior directly, such as prohibiting parking in front yards.
Comments and questions from the Mayor and Town Council.
Mayor Foy recommended that the Council give the staff guidance on the questions they had asked in Attachment #2 (page 1-10) and Supplement #2 (page 2-3). He noted that the staff would review tonight's comments and come back with recommendations on January 27th. Mr. Horton requested that the Council give the most detailed guidance possible this evening.
Regarding Attachment #2, page 1-10, Council Member Strom suggested proceeding with reducing the threshold of the Small House Ordinance to five. In the range from five to twelve, he said, it would make sense to have a payment-in-lieu option. Council Member Strom also recommended keeping the 1,150 square-foot houses in the mix and asked for the Town Attorney's opinion at some point on whether the Town could increase the time limit for prohibition of expanding a size-limited house from one to five years as the Planning Board had suggested. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos noted that this already had been included in the Fourth Draft.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that applicants might come in just under the threshold no matter what it is set at. But the consequence of lowering the threshold, she said, is that fewer and larger units might be built within the city limits. Council Member Evans recommended leaving the threshold at 13 and implementing the payment-in-lieu option.
Council Member Verkerk expressed discomfort with the five-year restriction. She described it as "intrusive," even though someone might buy and sell a house for a quick profit.
Council Member Wiggins suggested a less than five-year restriction, arguing that a young family that wants to grow would be prohibited from expanding for five years.
Council Member Ward determined that five years would be from the time the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. He agreed with the proposal to reduce the threshold to five or more lots and to add the flexibility of payment-in-lieu. Council Member Ward stated he was undecided about the five-year timeframe.
Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed support for lowering the threshold and adding the payment-in-lieu. He spoke in favor of the five-year rule because that would prevent a quick turnover and windfall to the short-term purchaser.
Council Member Wiggins also supported lowering the number of lots to five and the payment-in-lieu, but repeated her argument that five years could hurt a young family that needs the space to grow.
Council Member Bateman noted the counter argument that expanding a home might price out the next young family that would like to buy it.
Mayor Foy suggested taking these matters separately, and asked for a preliminary vote on reducing the threshold.
PRELIMINARY VOTE TO REDUCE THE THRESHOLD TO FIVE LOTS AND ACCEPT PAYMENT-IN-LIEU PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor pro tem Evans spoke against the five-year proposal, explaining that "the strong arm of government" made her uncomfortable.
Council Member Strom noted that there had been broad consensus during implementation of the Small House Ordinance that although the Council did not like this approach they were dedicated to achieving the Comprehensive Plan's goal to increase housing options. He noted that the Town's preferred tool was to put houses into a Land Trust, which permanently insures their affordability. But, Council Member Strom explained, the Town cannot do that on these SUP situations, adding that increasing to five years makes sense in terms of insuring long-term affordability.
Council Member Wiggins countered that this would not insure long-term affordability but just delay it by four years. Council Member Strom replied that it would create an entry-level threshold of housing and use square footage to control it.
Council Member Wiggins pointed out that what is affordable can vary, noting that some two professional couples, for example, cannot afford to start their family in Chapel Hill but do not qualify for other affordable housing. She acknowledged that one year was short and suggested a compromise of two or three years.
Mayor Foy agreed that this was a crude tool and that five years seemed like too much of a burden. He added that the Council needs to balance the needs of a person who just wants to quickly expand and resell the house with those of one who legitimately bought it because they could not get into the affordable market otherwise. Mayor Foy suggested splitting the difference and making it 30 months.
Council Member Verkerk agreed that 30 months would stave off the opportunistic while allowing flexibility.
Council Member Kleinschmidt described the difficulty that he has finding anything affordable in Town, pointing out that he does not qualify for Land Trust properties. Even so, he said, making the rule less than five years would offer too much opportunity for someone to go in and snap up a cheaper house, add a floor, and turn it over to make a windfall.
Mayor Foy suggested a preliminary vote, and Council Member Verkerk offered language proposing a 30-month limit.
PRELIMINARY VOTE TO FOR 30 MONTH LIMIT ON BUILDING PASSED (6-3) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, WARD AND KLEINSCHMIDT VOTING NAY.
Mayor Foy expressed support for eliminating minimum parking requirements but said the Town might be better served by addressing this issue comprehensively.
Council Member Harrison said that this complicated issue needs much more discussion than the Council could do this month.
Council Member Verkerk agreed that the item should be delayed.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had made the decision earlier to leave parking as it was in the old ordinance and to try and establish Chapel Hill-based numbers, which would be more appropriate than national numbers. They would then discuss the issue again separately within the next six months, he said.
Council Member Ward spoke in favor of eliminating minimums and continuing the longer study of what is right for Chapel Hill.
Council Member Bateman described the Council as trying to decide "whether no guidance was better than unclear guidance."
Mayor Foy replied that the guidance was clear but that the Town did not agree with the national figures.
Council Member Bateman proposed leaving the ordinance as it was and doing the study. Council Member Ward agreed.
Mayor Foy asked for clarification on the Council's position on raising the maximum impervious surface limit outside the watershed protection district from 50% to 70%. Mr. Horton pointed out that the Town would have to obtain the State's approval to raise it to 70%. Mayor Foy noted that the increased impervious surface would be coupled with strict stormwater management.
Council Member Strom suggested proceeding with this, given the Town's commitment to maintaining a tight urban growth pattern. He added that it would be a good trade-off to allow more square footage on existing commercial sites as they improve their stormwater management techniques. Council Member Strom described the proposal as sound, both environmentally and economically, and said that it would serve the citizens of Chapel Hill well to have these additional options.
PRELIMINARY VOTE ON RAISING THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMIT TO 70% PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Ward noted that this will serve a broad range of constituencies, from the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce.
Mayor Foy asked the staff for a brief review of the payment-in-lieu option on pages 2-3. Mr. Waldon explained that developers had historically been reluctant to make a payment-in-lieu for recreation land because of the way the ordinance specifies calculating the land's value. He said that this was the result of the Town not wanting a payment-in-lieu. Mr. Waldon said that the Parks and Recreation Department was arguing, however, that payments-in-lieu give the Town resources to make improvements to land already in hand. The Department was therefore requesting that the ordinance be designed to encourage that, he explained. Mr. Waldon noted that lowering the value basis would mean less payment in some cases where the Town can require a payment-in-lieu. Mr. Horton added that the staff was recommending keeping it as it is for two reasons: In the case where the Town can require a payment-in-lieu, it is best to get it at the higher value; and, when the Town cannot require it, getting the land is often more important than having the money.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked about the percentage difference between pre- and post-development costs. Mr. Horton estimated that it was about two and a half times, and Mr. Waldon concurred that the difference was considerable.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT THE MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION AND LEAVE THE POLICY INTACT. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Regarding tree protection regulations, Mr. Waldon explained that since there is no substitute for walking the site the standard is not as straightforward as some others, such as stormwater. He noted that the suggestion to offer an incentive to landowners to save trees might involve fewer site visits and staff resources.
Mayor Foy clarified that this recommendation was separate from the one in the Fourth Draft.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Waldon to review the proposal. Mr. Waldon explained that a homeowner can cut down one or all of the trees on his lot if he wants to. He said if a landowner came in for a building permit to add to his home, however, he would be asked how much land he would be disturbing. Under the current ordinance, Mr. Waldon said, disturbing more than 2,000 square feet of land triggers tree protection requirements. The staff was proposing that 2,000 was too low, he explained, and that 5,000 square feet was reasonable because in most cases the addition to someone's house would not involve that much square footage. Mr. Waldon explained that triggering the requirements would mean that a tree inventory would be done, to identify specimen trees in particular. Then there would be dialogue, he said, and protection measures would be put in place for the trees selected to remain.
Council Member Bateman asked why the staff should make the decision regarding a single house rather than letting the homeowner present a statement from an arborist or some other professional. She wondered why taxpayers should be asked to pay for a position. Town Forester Curtis Brooks replied that the implication of using this on residential projects was uncertain because it had not been done in any other community in North Carolina. He explained that the assumption is that the staff can represent the public concern for the preservation of trees better than someone who has been hired by a property owner to make that decision.
Mayor pro tem Evans commented that the Council had decided to enact this in a "pretty sterile environment" without looking at costs associated with it. She read a November 25, 2002 memo from the staff, which described this as the most labor-intensive part of the proposed changes. Mayor pro tem Evans referred to page four, in particular, which described what the Town would regulate in regard to single family development. She stated that she did not see the benefits of many of the regulations in the context of the cost associated with them. Mayor pro tem Evans praised the Public Works Department's idea to offer incentives for preservation and recommended trying that.
Council Member Harrison, who explained that he had once enforced a tree ordinance for a local government, agreed that the Public Works proposal for incentives was worth trying. He proposed using the higher thresholds for both tree protection and stormwater management, adding that the public will let the Council know if it is not working. Council Member Harrison stated that the two most serious situations were when someone clear-cuts his land and when landowners do not keep to the tree protection associated with the SUP for that development. The staff's suggestion, he said, would address both of those situations. Council Member Harrison added that the higher threshold would be more practical and feasible for the staff to implement.
Council Member Verkerk moved that the Council support the Public Works proposal, and Council Member Wiggins seconded.
Council Member Bateman explained that she would not support this for the reasons she had given.
Mayor Foy expressed support for 5,000 square feet.
Council Member Strom noted that the Comprehensive Plan gives the clear message that the Town was not doing enough to protect trees during development. He pointed out that the Town Council had been frustrated by its inability to achieve low impact development goals. Council Member Strom asked Mr. Brooks to again summarize the proposal. Mr. Brooks explained that the goal was to review a plan on paper to see if the property owner meets criteria based on the size of the lot and the percentage of trees removed. The goal of this incentive approach, he said, is to give property owners some numerical level to try and achieve.
Council Member Ward asked for clarification of the numbers. Mr. Brooks explained that the Town would require a property owner to retain 2,500 square feet of undisturbed land on a 10,000 square-foot lot. If the lot is 15,000 square feet, he said, the Town would require that 5,000 square feet be undisturbed. Mr. Brooks pointed out that the threshold moves towards half the lot as the lot gets bigger. If people cannot meet these thresholds, he said, the Town would go through the longer process. Mr. Brooks predicted that having such a level of expectation would enable the process to move more smoothly.
Council Member Ward inquired about the difference between this and the present process in terms of staff resources. Mr. Brooks replied that this is difficult to determine because it is difficult to predict how many people would request exemptions. He expressed hope that individual site inspection would be reduced by about 50%, adding that the goal would be to use staff time most effectively.
Council Member Strom explained that he did not intend to vote for the Public Works proposal because he felt that nothing compared with having an individual go to the site and make a judgment. He described the 5,000 square-foot threshold as reasonable to start, adding that he favored the "growth pays for growth" approach of setting fees in a way that recovers staff time for making surveys. Making field calls with Town staff would be a worthy investment in the community, Council Member Strom said.
PRELIMINARY VOTE ON THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSAL PASSED (5-4) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, FOY, WARD AND STROM VOTING NAY.
Council Member Strom asked, regarding 1-15 of attachment three in the December 9th memo, if the Council needed to give guidance on 3.8.6 about income levels for people purchasing under the Small House Ordinance. If so, he said, he would move to proceed with the changes in the memo. Mr. Waldon replied the staff would proceed with the changes unless the Council instructed them otherwise.
Mayor Foy verified with Mr. Horton that the staff would bring back language that could be incorporated into the LUMO and acted upon that evening. Mr. Horton added that options, if necessary, would also be available for the Council. In many cases, he said, the Council could change a number or make other simple provisions.
Council Member Harrison inquired about how to address some of the recommendations and the recommended language from citizens, such as Milton Heath's concept of an environmental plan for the stream corridors. Mayor Foy recommended that the staff bring back suggestions regarding those ideas in a separate report. Mr. Horton replied that the staff would list and address each item that had been brought up and the Council could then vote on them. He suggested that the descriptions be simple, but said that the staff could bring back more detail if the Council wished.
Council Member Ward voiced support for fleshing out the process for the one-year review of the LUMO. He spoke in favor of allowing duplexes within R-1 for new development when they are put in the Land Trust, and wondered if there was support on the Council to direct the Manager to incorporate that. Council Member Ward recommended including the suggested purpose statements, particularly those recommended by the Chamber.
Mr. Horton asked Mr. Waldon to comment on the duplexes in R-1 districts. Mr. Waldon explained that he was not optimistic that the Town could find a good way to do this within the next couple of weeks. He noted that the new LUMO would give Council members flexibility to modify regulations when someone comes before them asking for a SUP application.
Council Member Bateman asked the staff to look at the issue again, adding that allowing no restrictions on duplexes in any zone provided they are placed in the Land Trust should cover this.
Mayor Foy pointed out that Mr. Waldon was explaining that the issue would come before the Council with the SUP, which the Council could then permit if it is placed in the Land Trust. Council Member Bateman clarified that she had meant established R-1 development.
Mr. Horton mentioned the challenge of determining whether or not that was a lawful distinction. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos stated that the entire duplex issue would be revisited in the spring.
Council Member Bateman said that she had wanted to be certain that it would be discussed before June 30th.
Mayor pro tem Evans mentioned careless errors in the LUMO and suggested combining and reorganizing material to make it more accurate and consistent. She pointed out various mistakes and omissions and asked that the document be edited before it comes back to the Council. Mayor pro tem Evans expressed concern about the recombination of lots and wondered if the Council was meeting its goals by giving these newly platted lots all the requirements of single-family lots. She supported Mayor Foy's proposal for a monitoring process, and suggested that it be reviewed at six month intervals.
Council Member Wiggins asked who would take responsibility for editing the document, and Mr. Horton replied that he would.
Council Member Ward voiced his support for the concept of increased incentives for residential components within the Downtown and along transit corridors. He also supported the internal transfer of development rights, he said, describing it as a win-win situation for the environment and development.
Council Member Bateman expressed concern about Blue Cross/Blue Shield's statement and asked for a staff opinion on that. She also asked how many other master plans had already been approved.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO REFER COUNCIL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 22, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.