Just go ahead and start.

Oh, is that John?

There's John.

Great.

Okay.

So welcome, John.

Got everyone here.

We're going to start with roll call.

Wes.

Here.

Chuck.

It looks like Chuck is making, I'll just take that nod as uh here.

Yeah.

I will say that.

That's good.

Yeah.

I think Chuck's video may also be delayed.

Ah.

Chuck, can you hear me okay?

Oh, you're unmuted.

Chuck.

You want to say here?

Yes.

Yes.

Perfect.

John.

Here.

Is there another time?

I'm here.

Good evening.

Okay.

Okay.

And Libby.

Here.

And we're having some audio issues.

I think that might have been Mike, but he's now muted.

So looks like a couple people have not as great receptivity today, but let's hope it works.

So okay.

Thank you.

And Jeff is not here, and I am here.

So does anybody have any changes to tonight's agenda?

Does anybody have any changes?

Okay.

And any petitions from PC members.

Any petitions from the um from the public.

Okay, let's move to the minutes.

Um there are minutes and it includes um a um complete community matrix for the the one uh item that we voted on.

Anybody have any oh there we go.

There's the agenda.

Anyone have any uh comments on the minutes from September 16?

Any motions?

I'll motion to approve the minutes.

That's John.

Okay.

Okay, very good.

All in favor, put your thumbs up if you're in favor.

Okay.

And all opposed, put your thumbs down.

And all abstaining, wave.

Okay, and I don't think I saw Chuck.

If you that was a thumbs up, a thumbs down, thumbs up.

Okay.

So pass unanimously.

Okay.

Um don't believe we have any old business unless anybody knows of some.

So let's move to new business.

And we are going to um I imagine get a presentation on the LUMO omnibus revisions by Taz.

So we haven't seen you in a while, Taz.

Good to see you.

Likewise, thanks, Liz.

Um, it's good to see everybody.

Um just a second as I um get my my share screen set up and as usual.

I will ask for the uh customary thumbs up just to make sure everybody's seeing my screen.

Yep.

Excellent.

Um, as was mentioned, my name's Taz with the planning department.

Um, and purpose of tonight's presentation um is to share um the uh staff proposal around uh text amendments to a small part of the the town code and and primarily our land use management ordinance.

Um wanted to give you all just kind of a brief update before I get started on kind of the the main crux of the presentation brief update on kind of the LUMO rewrite more broadly.

Um all of y'all and you know other than Mike have been a part of the the journey of the LUMO rewrite for a long time now.

Um Mike, I'll just briefly mention you know we are um apart from the the text amendments I'm gonna be sharing this evening.

Um we're undergoing a comprehensive rewrite of our full land use management ordinance.

Um and um we have a a new consultant team on board to to help us kind of get that project across the finish line.

Um those consultants again are kind of fully on board and integrated into our our overall project team, and they're moving moving forward with that draft at a really good clip.

Um and we're planning to to share um really some of the the central elements of the new draft um in January.

Um we'll share it with with you all and with council um and and certainly start shopping shopping it around and workshopping it with um kind of key stakeholders in the public as well.

Uh with that being said, right, um this timeline for the LUMO is is delayed from our original projected project timeline.

And so because of that delay, um what we heard from from council members was an interest in um accelerating some portions of that broader rewrite effort.

And so that's what tonight is all about.

Um tonight staff are recommending a suite of text amendments um that reflect council member and planning commission interests um a lot of public discussions that we've had regarding LUMO.

Um at this point we've had 13 work sessions with council and and close to that number with with planning commission as well uh to discuss kind of the broad strokes of the LUMO rewrite.

And so what we're proposing tonight again are amendments that are um either things that we we spoke about directly during those uh one of those 13 meetings, um, or they're kind of closely related to interests that were discussed during those meetings.

And so um with that, we're gonna kind of shift gears, right?

I mentioned we've had these 13 work sessions.

Um this is, and you know, I'm kind of happy, excited to be able to say this is the first um official public meeting that we've had um regarding kind of broad based LUMO changes.

Um so unlike previous discussions uh and presentations to you all, um, tonight is part of kind of the official legislative process for these text amendments.

And so there are um more official procedures involved here.

Um recommendation for you this evening is that you you hold a public hearing, you both receive and provide comment.

And then most importantly, um we ask that you transmit comments to town council uh for their October 22nd uh public hearing on this project.

Um council is currently scheduled to have their first hearing on these text amendments on the 22nd, uh, and then come back um for their second hearing on the project on November 19th.

And we would ask that you provide your comments to council before that October 22nd meeting.

Um as you do with uh conditional zonings and and other text amendments, your recommendations are based on two things.

Um one would be the the consistency of the proposed text amendments with the comprehensive plan, and then uh the second would just be a general recommendation as to whether uh council should approve or deny uh the proposed text amendments.

Um the proposed text amendments have you see as you've seen in your packet um cover a lot of different topics.

Um this is kind of a Liz, did you have a question?

Um just quickly, do we vote on every amendment for those two, or do we vote on the whole suite?

The whole bus.

It would just be one um kind of decision.

Um for each of the two for the two questions, consistency and then the recommendation to approve or deny, um, you look at the omnibus as a whole.

Um it is just one ordinance that's going to council.

Um beyond that, you know, if you're if your comments want to get into more kind of granular detail, um, I think that would certainly be appropriate.

And if there's you know an issue that that really comes to an impasse for for planning commission and you want to kind of break it out issue by issue, um, you certainly could, but our intention is to present this as a kind of a complete package.

So um we would we would request that if at all possible you try to keep it to kind of uh a singular recommendation.

And um is so all right.

Uh you can finish.

I have another question, but you may answer it as you're going forward.

That was helpful, but I think Wes also has his hands up.

Just uh just a point in order, Liz.

I don't know if if there's a number there's a number of items here.

Do we want to go through each one and provide comments, questions, and comments for each one, or wait till the end and recall each of the topics.

I don't know how you feel about it, Taz and Liz.

You're muted.

Liz, I believe you're muted.

I am, sorry.

Why don't you finish what you were saying?

I apologize for stopping you midterm, and then Wes will agree on a process once we hear all of Taz's preamble.

But before you get into the actual amendments, we'll agree on a process.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Yeah, and that's that's kind of where I'm going next.

So these these omnibus text amendments are a practice that we're trying to kind of start going forward.

Um is going to be really important with maintaining a fresh new LUMO in the future is going to be this kind of um culture of continuous improvement, if you will.

Um so what we want to do is start to get um really everybody involved uh into the habit of being able to consider these these kind of packages of text amendments.

Um so tonight we're proposing text amendments that fall into kind of two major categories.

There's procedural improvements um and substantive improvements.

The procedural improvements obviously tie into how we as a town make land use decisions, and then the substantive decisions are tied to uh or the substantive improvements are tied to the the underlying rules that that dictate how those um those decisions are made.

Um and so here's kind of the full list of topics that we're gonna discuss tonight, which I think Liz um and and Wes speaks directly to to y'all's question.

Um I will defer to you all as to to how you would like to proceed.

Um I think really the big interest is time management.

Um so whatever you think works best on your end, um, I am happy to follow your lead.

Okay, Wes, did you want to or John?

Go ahead.

I was just gonna chime in that uh I think Wes's maybe implicit suggestion was a good one that uh this is complicated.

Why don't we just take it one at a time?

Number one, have a discussion when we're ready to move on, we go to number two, have a discussion, ready to move on, go to three, et cetera.

That's my two cents.

Yeah, I raised it because I thought it we'd spend time.

Oh, go back to page five of the document, or you know, every time I wanted to reference a section, so it might be.

Okay.

So why don't we do that and then at the end of each, just do a quick thumbs up or thumbs down whether this seems like we might want to return at the end and add some conditions or whether we're just ready to kind of accept it as is, and then at the very end we can see where we are.

We could also do it in reverse order so we feel good about ourselves in the first 20 minutes, you know, miscellaneous sign regulations be quick.

That's true.

We could do substantive improvements first and then go to site plan, which are more uh I think the or you mean do the procedural and then well, that is No, do the substantive improvements, which I think will be faster.

Well, yeah, hard to say.

Yeah, we'll see.

All right.

We'll do it in regular order.

Yeah, yeah.

However, Taz whatever order you want.

We we do have it in an order in the power.

Okay.

Whatever order you want.

Got it.

Well, thanks, y'all.

I will um I'll start.

I'll just kind of go through it as as uh planned and um we'll stop after each uh topic and have the discussion.

So um I will start hopefully uh with a pretty popular idea here um of eliminating site plan review for most projects.

Um as we we know um, you know, site plan review is what we would consider a purely administrative process.

Um administrative processes are simply um land use decisions that that aren't based on discretion.

They are based purely on um whether or not a project complies with the written rules as explicitly stated in LUMO.

Um so that's kind of the the administrative portion of the site plan review.

We also know that site plan review is redundant in most cases of other review processes that a project has to go through.

The next step is to go through something called zoning compliance permit review, which involves essentially the same materials, the same staff, really looking at the project another time, but looking at essentially the same materials.

And so there's a really strong redundancy there.

And generally speaking, when we're dealing with administrative decisions, we know the best practices point us to staff being kind of the party that's best suited to make those decisions, as opposed to uh appointed or or elected officials.

Um the one caveat to what we're proposing is based on um the North Side and Pine Knolls N C D rules, um, which apart from LUMO's general requirement for site plan review, uh, those two NCDs do require site plan review for uh kind of a broader range of of projects.

And one of the kind of implicit um agreements that we had made as part of the scope of the the LUMA rewrite generally um was to not change really any of the rules of any of the NCDs.

Um because really once we start to open those discussions, it becomes a much more intense discussion than what we're kind of able to accommodate right now.

Um and so what we're not doing is is changing the rule in the pine knolls and north side NCDs uh that site plan review is required.

Uh what we are gonna propose doing is to kind of refocus what that site plan review looks like so that it's more closely aligned with kind of the core purpose of having site plan review in those NCDs.

Um and that core purpose is um really making sure uh that there's there's more opportunities for for neighbors and for community members to be aware of what is happening in their community.

Um, site plan review obviously exposes a project to a public hearing, which means that there will be mailed notices and other kind of official opportunities for for community members to learn about what's happening in their neighborhood.

Um so that's going to be kind of that refocused scope of site plan review within the NCDs.

Um the only kind of substantive rules that an applicant would be asked to demonstrate that they're complying with are the very basic NCD rules.

Um and so it's not going to require uh you know fully engineered drawings or or any of the kind of high level of technical um data or site plans that will come down the road.

Um it's just an opportunity to show that hey, your your single family home is going to comply with the um the kind of basic size and and other limitations within the NCD.

Um so that's kind of the the basic premise of site plan review.

Um remove it uh generally across the board, except where it's required by the NCDs and where it is required by those NCDs, we're gonna really limit the scope so that it fits uh better with the original intent.

Please you're muted.

Thank you, Taz.

Sorry.

Are there any clarifying questions from the PC members?

Are there any comments?

Oh, John, go ahead.

Uh, do we need to take uh public comments?

Well, I'm that's why I first asked for clarifying questions.

I was about to go to the public, but you raised your channel.

Oh, I I didn't know if you were asking us, sorry.

Yeah.

Um does the public have any comments.

Looks like uh so um Josh, will you keep an eye on the public if there's any?

Okay, so I assume there's not.

Let's go to any discussion of this point.

So also um Jeff has sent notes, and I think everyone on the PC and the staff have all received these notes.

The public would not, we can talk at the end of how to convey them, but um perhaps we can just summarize Jeff's comments.

He went to a fair amount of effort to um um convey them.

But John, go ahead, and if you don't refer to what Jeff said, I I'll summarize for anybody else on the call, but go ahead.

Thanks.

Sorry for jumping the gun there on the public.

Um I think Jeff's comments we should probably attach to the meeting minutes.

Um I mean, they were sent to all of us.

I think we're I would say safer publishing them in terms of open meeting loss.

But uh fair enough.

Jeff made a comment that I'm I'm gonna restate because uh I agree with it and had um had come to my own conclusion before I saw Jeff's comment.

Um first of all, on the non-NCD stuff removing the the need for a hearing, that's something a planning commission's been asking for for a couple of years.

So you know, of course um those of us who have been around um agree.

And um, but I don't understand the rationale for carving out NCDs.

And I know that the staff doesn't want to open a Pandora's box of other N C D revisions, but this is a procedural step where you're basically putting the planning commission in front of the public as the communications department or a receptacle for public comments that we can't disposition.

Um I'd prefer the planning commission not be put in that position or used in that way if the if the staff would like to ensure that folks who live in NCDs are provided adequate notice um of site plans um in NCDs, I would suggest uh finding another way to do it.

Okay.

Thanks, John.

Other thoughts on this?

Wes.

Yeah, I would I would tend to agree in the fact that one of the things I always am concerned about is being clear with the public what they can influence if they come to one of our meetings and make comments.

And so um my concern would be if people are being misled to think that they have a way to influence the project and spend a lot of time approaching us and the town thinking they have some leverage here.

But if if if it's in fact just letting them know, um, but staff is gonna make sure the site plan conforms, then um I just want to make sure we're doing a service to the public.

Okay.

Mike, did you have a comment?

I noticed you just turned off your mic.

Mike's mic.

I sure did.

Thank you for noticing that.

Yeah.

So um I, you know, uh it it sounded good when I read it.

It sounded like a procedure thing that can go away.

Um, but what I didn't have was kind of data to back it up to say, listen, by doing this, you know, we have done 50 of these, we want to save time, we're gonna improve the speed for developers to come and get things done.

I just would love to see a little bit of data to see an outset that looks good, but it's really saving you know time to take the you know to eliminate that process.

Mike, I would um I generally agree that um these arguments that uh these procedural changes are going to uh expedite things really deserve data.

I think in this case, part of the argument which uh John mentioned we've been asking for years is that the planning commission is required to see these site plans, but then we were it's it's just an administrative, we're not allowed to influence them.

Uh and so it seems to be unlike some of the other projects, you know, the other projects we've seen where we actually vote to recommend or not recommend.

Taz, do you want to clarify exactly uh that that issue again?

Sure, yeah.

So as I mentioned, um when we talk about quote unquote administrative processes, um it's really speaking to the the nature of the decision, not who is making the decision.

So an administrative process or administrative decision is one in which there's really no discretion involved.

Um there isn't an opportunity for a judgment call or for kind of independent expertise or opinion to play into the decision.

Um it's almost a mechanical decision, right?

If the project complies with the rules, it must be approved regardless of whether it's unpopular, unsightly, whatever.

If it complies with the rules, it must be approved.

And so that's why, again, it's better for those types of decisions to be made by administrative staff that are not out in the public in the same way that you all are.

Mike, to your question about kind of the underlying data, I think it would be it would be very easy for us to put together just a kind of quick tally of the number of site plan approvals that have come before planning commission in the last you know couple of years.

I can tell you, generally speaking, you know, every project is different, but it's not unit's not atypical or unusual for a site plan review from the time an applicant submits the application to the time it gets approved by planning commission to take anywhere from you know four to six months.

Okay, Taz, that was a much answer.

Appreciate that.

I would also just add in terms of data, we've never influenced one.

They've come before us, but we haven't changed its future course ever.

Thank you, John.

Okay, other comments on this.

So I don't feel strongly, but I am um swayed by John West and Jeff that uh this general proposal makes sense, but not necessarily with a carve out.

I wonder if we want to maybe come back to this at the end and decide how to deal with it since it was a pretty strong.

Does that make sense to everyone?

Yes, I'll keep some running notes uh and try to work on a wording for a resolution that the planning commission can move forward with at the end.

Great.

Okay.

All right.

So um moving on to the next topic is concept plan review.

So um our proposal would uh eliminate concept plan review um as a precursor to both special use permit applications and conditional zoning applications.

Um just as a quick primer, you know, right now, concept plan review is is a mandatory step before a project, um, before most projects can get to either a special use permit or a conditional zoning.

Um and depending on the size of the project or the nature of the project, um, that concept plan review is handled either by planning commission or by town council.

Um regardless of whether the project goes to planning commission or town council, it's um the the process looks relatively the same, right?

Um the body that it's in front of provides comments to the applicant about their project.

Um, and then the applicant um is kind of given the green light to move forward, or rather, they're not given the green light per se, but they then have the opportunity to move forward with submitting an official uh application, whether it's a special use permit or conditional zoning.

Um critically, uh, you know, none of the the comments that are provided during concept plan review um have to be addressed by the applicant.

Uh, they're just suggestions from either the planning commission or uh or council.

It's also pretty typical for um applicants to uh consult with staff during the same time that they're going through concept plan review, but that's not an official part of uh of the review.

And so um part of the context um when it comes to concept plan review is that um concept plan review as Chapel Hill practices it uh is not something that's widely used in North Carolina.

Um I can't say this definitively, but I'm certainly not familiar with any community um, you know, a peer community or a neighboring community that practices concept plan review in the way that we do, and that um you know an elected or appointed public entity uh is the one that comments on these on these projects.

And so what we know is that when we have these sorts of you know additional touch points with with public bodies, um, what we're essentially doing is reinforcing um what the complete community strategy and a lot of the work around that identified as this notion of a of a project by project uh decision making culture.

Uh that's really something that the complete community is trying to move Chapel Hill away from.

Um we also know that the generally speaking, when you have additional process, uh when you require developers to put up kind of more money, more effort earlier in their pre-development process, you're increasing the risk and cost associated with that project, um, which creates kind of an additional barrier to entry for work in Chapel Hill.

And so one of the things to think about when it comes to concept plan review is that it popped up in Chapel Hill in the late 90s.

We've had it for kind of over 25 years.

And in that time, uh Planning Commission and Council have supported a lot of changes and a lot of improvements to other elements of how we uh help guide projects through the development review process.

Um we've upped our staffing, right?

We have kind of broader and deeper expertise when it comes to uh our staff ability to guide applicants.

Um we have more clearly defined policies and adopted plans that speak to things like our uh expectations for affordable housing, um, our um our future land use map that speaks to a much more granular level about uh building form uh than plans uh in the past did.

Um those are you know just some of the types of improvements that um again, planning commission and council have supported over time that give us an opportunity to kind of step back from this process that's really a vestige of a time when Chapel Hill had very different priorities around development.

Um but the core interests around concept plan review um can still be uh you know very well served.

Um I think some of those core interests are again kind of giving the public kind of an early look, an early opportunity to know what what might be happening in their community, and then also making sure that we as a town are you know letting developers, letting home builders know what our priorities are.

Um and those interests, right, can can really be met, I think, better, more effectively through kind of strategic community engagement, which is a major push for the town, and meaningful collaboration with town staff.

Um as I mentioned earlier, it's not unusual for applicants to informally consult with town staff when they submit a concept plan.

Um, and it is become almost um uh you know regular course of business for applicants to have really meaningful consultations with planning department staff, with the town's urban designer, with affordable housing staff, any number of staff that are able to speak to uh town priorities and help an applicant make their project better uh before submitting it for a formal application.

Um so because we think we can meet those interests in a more efficient way, um, our proposal would be to eliminate concept plan review going forward.

Okay, thanks, Taz.

Questions, clarifying questions of Taz.

Okay, Taz, I have a few questions.

Um first of all, the concept plans have actually changed quite a bit in the last I don't know, two years, the requirements so that when I first started, they were really quite extensive, and now they bring forward a much um uh much more rudimentary plan for for kind of early feedback.

Do we have any data on the amount of time, the amount of costs of this new the effectiveness of this change?

Have we monitored that?

We haven't tracked the the cost differential.

Um it's always hard to get those kind of clear figures from from developers that are uh generally wary to kind of open up the books, so to speak.

Okay.

And um have is this something you're hearing from developers that they want to get rid of the concept plan that they really dislike having a concept plan?

Yeah, we've heard that interest pretty broadly.

Um I think some of the things that have made it easier for developers, I think, to be comfortable with giving it up.

Um, is the fact that you know now that conditional zoning is the kind of primary tool that we use to entitle these larger projects, um, they're still free to talk to you all.

They're still free to talk to individual council members and gauge um your your individual opinions on these topics outside of a public um meeting.

Uh we know that many developers do try to engage with um elected officials.

I don't know the extent to which they engage with planning commission.

Um, but we know that they engage with with council members um outside of public meetings.

Um so they have that venue if they if they want to or need to uh kind of test the waters with council members.

And so there really is less of a value add uh to that public forum at this point.

Okay.

And um I I'm not quite clear from the amendment if a developer said, you know what, I think it'd be really helpful to send this to the planning commission, send a con, you know, have a a meeting with the town council.

Is this an option or or it's not is this optional or it's not even feasible under this regulation?

Could they request it?

Yeah, the regulation doesn't um kind of anticipate or even create an opportunity for an optional process.

One of the dangers we're always wary of is that when you create and kind of officially endorse an optional process, um, over time, those optional processes I think have a tendency to become kind of de facto mandatory processes.

And so this by not creating that optional pathway, I think we we more strongly guard against that.

That being said, um, even without kind of something official in the ordinance, um, it may still be possible for a developer to you know, for example, petition council and say, hey, we're we're really eager um to put ourselves uh kind of in front of you in a public setting.

Um could we do that at a work session, for example?

Um kind of just um speculating here.

I don't I don't know whether something like that would be appropriate.

Um I certainly don't anticipate that that a developer would be likely to pursue something like that.

Um my last clarifying question is you said strategic cooperation is a better way than uh with the public is a better way than concept plans, and I didn't know what that meant.

Yeah.

Clarify?

Yeah, absolutely.

So, you know, one of the things that we are we're really trying to do.

Um I think the um 860 Weaver Dairy project is is an example of our early steps towards this.

Um we know that there are um you know certain kind of demographics in the community that um are going to be very well informed, very well engaged and very active in uh town development review processes, um, whether or not there is uh proactive engagement from the town.

Um we also know that there's a lot of demographics in the community that that are the exact opposite of that.

Um for a lot of kind of structural and and cultural reasons, they've been kind of left out of a lot of our decision making.

And so with with 860 Weaver Dairy, um, one of the things that the town staff really took a strong lead on was making sure that the Lakeview Mobile Home community directly adjacent to that project um got a lot of additional outreach.

Um Josh and another couple of our our staff members met with um residents of that community on multiple occasions to get their feedback and to help them understand what the project um was going to look like.

Um so that's kind of a model of what we could potentially do going forward as a replacement to these public hearings that we know are again attended and kind of paid attention to by folks that are typically going to be involved in our processes anyway.

Okay.

Are there any other clarifying questions for Taz?

Is uh Josh, is there any are there any questions or comments from the public?

Nope.

Okay.

Um does anybody have any comments on this?

Mike.

Yeah, I do.

I was I think it was very clear what Taz just explained as far as the um the interaction that uh elected officials have and interactions that um you know uh the you know, folks, the developers or applicant have with the um town council to get what they need to get done.

I wasn't sure how the public communication part of it happened.

But I didn't know if there was a process, you know, just so the public, you know, uh, and I heard, you know, uh the model that's just explained, but is that a process, or is it just a one-off thing that that happened?

Yeah, the 860 Weavered Area example was I think a an example of implementing a strategy that we're building out.

So it's not a kind of defined process.

It's uh it's a strategy to ensure that when the project is proposed, and if we know that there are underengaged communities nearby, um, making sure that we are we're kind of meeting them where they are.

So um the tools that we use to engage with those communities might look different just based on the needs of um whichever community may end up kind of falling within that um that lens.

Um the other thing that that is kind of a major part of the process would be our public information meetings.

Um, you know, we currently require, and I didn't mention that with the 860 Weavered area example, but um at the outset of a conditional zoning application, um, we do require a public information meeting.

Um it's an opportunity for for the public to learn about a project and to speak directly to a developer um about their concerns and kind of aspirations for the project.

So that would be an element of our current process that continues forward even without um the concept plan review.

Wesley um I would just say I also like this from the standpoint of the the public, the people I talk to don't necessarily understand that a concept plan can be a long time before the end of a project, and sometimes the concept plan review becomes a placeholder for what it's gonna be or what it looks like.

So I think it actually can help clarify uh for the community where the project is at and where it's not at.

So I'm just saying when you have these complex concept plans way ahead of the final product and in a position where um it's in the concept phase, people can get confused or not certain about what's actually being done.

So I like the idea of uh removing it so it's more clear when people need to show up, when people need to respond, that'll really impact the project that they care about.

Okay.

Other comments.

John, I'm uh okay with this change.

I I think Wes is right that the concept plan process has been a bit confusing to the public.

Um I think it has provided value in terms of giving uh in some cases, maybe not most cases, but in some cases, and giving developers uh some signal that they can use to um revise proposals to avoid to avoid a denial later on, but um nevertheless, I think the the proposal here is okay because um in the end, this is a legislative process, conditional rezoning, and the whole point of the legislative process, which we didn't always have uh in the state for this sort of thing, is so that officials and applicants and staff members can um meet behind the scenes before a public hearing and work things out and negotiate hopefully a better outcome than they might have negotiated if they were sort of jammed in a public meeting and considering all this complicated stuff for the first time.

So um I would hope that you know, assuming this change goes forward that individual council members would feel free to um meet one-on-one with applicants.

Um that staff would I know staff already feels free to do that and and that applicants would would not be shy about seeking out input and um taking temperatures if they feel uncertain about whether what they're gonna propose uh is gonna get denied later on.

Anyone else?

Okay, I'll give my comments.

I actually have to say I I disagree uh with Wes and John and with this amendment.

Not strongly, I'm not gonna go to the mat, but um in my time on the planning commission, I've seen a lot of projects that were vastly improved from the concept stage to the to a later stage.

And this is this was at a different time when also the CDC was weighing in.

But a lot of issues were raised.

I when we see projects, uh, we often bring up issues of of parking.

And if you're dealing with developers, which aren't many of the developers are the same ones that come many a time many times through Chapel Hill.

But if we get new developers, they really don't know what complete community is, they don't know what we are really after.

Um I actually feel like Taz, your comment the concept plans uh are the antithesis of the complete community.

I feel like if they're done well, it's a very uh easy way under the current under the current um um status where the concept plans are pretty bare bones to hear from staff, hear from whatever, whether it's town council or planning, but also neighbors and here early on before they get too vested in one particular direction or another.

Uh and yes, it it is a way that neighbors can you know get up in arms and that may get them upset, but it's actually better to hear that early on rather than after you've you think you've a developer is thinks that they've met with every town council member, and then those town council members are have um rotated off the town council, and they thought they lobbied them and had their support, but in fact it's a different town council.

The neighbors will pretty much still be the same, and the issues and what we're trying to achieve will be the same.

So uh I think this is of all the different processes.

I would continue to try and make concept plans better, which I think is what you were trying to do, make them less onerous, but put in a process where there is some early engagement of neighbors, public, but also the different, you know, bodies, such as the town council and or planning.

I we said earlier, I know I said earlier, I think it's more valuable for the planning commission actually to be engaged at this stage than at the end when the plan is coming for final review, because this is when we can uh say something.

It's remarkable how many people have to be told that you know we care about parking, etc.

So anyway, I think early is actually an efficient way of doing this, and we should try to keep making this better instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That's my personal opinion.

Umless anyone want uh Libby.

You're muted.

Uh Liz, you articulated what I was thinking as well.

That's where I have felt we have uh it was good.

That was my question.

How has this review improved projects?

And I believe it could site specific issues, especially as we get down to fewer and fewer developable parcels, and it just seems like it's better.

I agree with you that it's better for these issues to come out in a more public and transparent way, uh, and maybe with better engagement with all of our community, but but I I don't think throwing this out is the best plan right now either.

So thank you.

Okay, unless anyone has any uh more comments, why don't we?

We've got a couple different opinions here.

Why don't we table this and this is one of the ones we'll come back to at the end?

Does that work for everyone?

Unless anybody wants to respond to my comments or to the earth or Libby's.

I I did want to uh point out one thing that I I kind of feel about the same as you in that regard, that there was seems like there was value associated with this process, but sounds like it also is creating is it's cumbersome.

Just like you said I think you know early early um bring in an early concept and getting some feedback is to the benefit of the applicant as much as anybody else.

Okay.

So how do you kind of look at a trim version of it that it doesn't go away.

It just becomes you know a good value to everyone thanks Mike and that was sort of the point I was also trying to make that I think the town has tried to do that.

They've actually vastly reduced what the requirements are so they're bringing forward a much more bare bones and that was sort of behind my question to Taz of have we evaluated whether this is solved the the burden problem and um I think Taz said they haven't collected data on this but it sounds like maybe developers are still telling you even this is too much.

Taz would that be accurate or or are you not hearing anything one way or the other yeah I think it's accurate to say that we uh we don't have you know a a figure in terms of how much are developers kind of typically spending dollars and cents wise to to go through the process.

We are hearing from most folks that they would rather spend the time uh talking town staff and kind of getting into the weeds on a project with town staff um rather than going before kind of a public body um that's something to kind of reiterate here the the early collaboration the early feedback would still be happening um it just wouldn't be public right it would be with town staff um that again have kind of a really good track record of of helping projects evolve um from the time they're first seen um to the time they actually get before um planning commission or council for official decisions and I will second that point that I think that town staff really does help a lot a lot of the improvements definitely are recommended by staff.

All right why don't we come back to this and let um Taz go on to the next oh John Liz, I just thought I'd respond real quick to what you said and and um I'm not sure um I don't know if it's gonna make it more efficient for us to come back to this rather than just sort of dispositioning it you know as we go one way or the other we could have a vote on this item or decide on some comments.

But let me before we get there, let me let me just respond real quick to what you said.

I think the points you made are reasonable and astute.

I think that the um in the past the concept plan process has been a reasonably efficient way um for applicants to receive certain kinds of feedback you know early in the process and I think that if we remove the concept plan process other things need to adjust to fill the void and I understood Taz is saying that um staff agrees with that and has been trying to do that in the form of more robust uh staff sort of vetting of things before they get to the council and also an attempt by the town to um make its own standards more formalized and and transparent so there's less guesswal and um it also strikes me that um the concept plan process has been a way to sort of um take pressure off of staff to to vet projects because you know it's gonna go to the council for a read anyway and then the council just gets to decide you know early on if they like the concept so it's sort of like um minimizes the potential room or the role of staff to to vet projects and I guess my overall feeling I'm not sure I'm right about this.

I could be prudent wrong empirically but um I would love to see staff sort of step up and fill the void that would be left if if the concept plan process disappears and sort of um take on the responsibility and be held accountable for um projects being sort of influenced in a positive way in accordance with complete community um before they get to the council so that council isn't you know looking for the first time at a you know formal rezoning hearing at something that's really bad and and that really shouldn't have gotten there or that the the developer should have known you know didn't stand a chance okay so John the first part of what you said was you think we should just go ahead and make a determination now it's pretty clear we're not gonna just give a thumbs up or down on the entire omnibus since we've already uh with at least the first one said we're probably interested

Okay.

So John, the first part of what you said was you think we should just go ahead and make a determination now.

It's pretty clear we're not gonna just give a thumbs up or down on the entire omnibus since we've already uh with at least the first one said we're probably interested in a carve out.

So I guess if Josh wants to type up what he hears in terms of the different positions, we can come back to it if he just wants to buy a little time to work on that.

Um but I don't know that we need to come back and discuss this a second time in this meeting.

No, it's just how we want to vote on it.

We're gonna have to there's some differences of opinions so we can maybe pull these out and take a vote or agree on some language that see if there's some compromise language or else pull it out and take a vote.

Yeah, and we could do sort of a straw poll, you know, in each one.

We've done that in the past just to get an idea.

All right, why don't we do that?

Uh who would like to uh approve this as is raise your hand.

Wes, I can't see you.

Okay, one, two.

And then I can't see, hold on.

Everybody on my screen.

Okay, Chuck, I can't see if you're aone put either a thumb up or a thumb down or flat if you're you're gonna abstain.

So I've got okay, one, two.

Uh Mike, is that flat or is that down?

Flat.

Pardon?

Flat.

That's flat.

Okay.

So we have two up, two down, and Chuck.

Was Chuck up or down?

Chuck, are you there?

Or put in the um uh chat.

Okay, well, at the moment we have two, two and one.

And Chuck is uh so maybe um Josh, if you can put maybe we can come back and identify what the issues are and point out that this was a split decision.

Okay.

Um yeah, I think right now.

Or I can do that afterwards if that's helpful.

Yeah, I'm I'm hoping to have this uh early something that planning commission can take action on tonight.

I think right now I can include it in a comment section rather than a here's what planning commission recommends as a modification to the text amendments brought forward by staff.

Okay.

Um looks like Chuck is uh coming in on another.

Hey, Chuck.

Chuck, did you have the vote was two in favor, two opposed, and one abstain.

Did you have a uh Oh um I think I'm in favor?

Okay, so we've got three in favor, two opposed, and one abstaining.

So a slight majority there.

Uh or a slight I guess majority without the abstention.

All right.

Why don't we go on to the next one?

Sure.

Thanks, Liz.

Um so the next topic I want to talk to about talk to you all about is um kind of our big tool, right?

Um conditional zoning, um, which we know is the most powerful tool we've got uh to entitle new develop large new developments.

Um so what we're proposing is to streamline the overall conditional zoning process in a couple of in pretty impactful ways.

Um the first would be to allow uh emphasis on the allow, certainly not require, but just allow council uh to approve a conditional zoning project after just one meeting, as opposed to having a mandatory two meetings uh before council can approve a project.

Um the next would be to kind of right size the application submission requirements to better fit where conditional zoning fits um in the broader scheme of of a development review.

This was almost a year ago now.

Talked to, I think you all and council about different models for what a conditional zoning application can look like.

Chapel Hill currently requires a pretty high level of detail for a conditional zoning application for most conditional zoning applications.

We've tested out models with our affordable housing expedited review and then kind of in an ad hoc basis with other development applications.

We've tested out models where there's a much much lighter lift for applicants where they're just giving us kind of the broad strokes of a project.

And then there's Durham.

Durham's conditional zonings really don't involve site plans at all.

You just kind of illustrate the outline of the development site, uh, identify the natural features, and then you make text-based commitments uh to community benefits and and other things of that sort.

And what we got so was some you know good uh good feedback that that middle of the road approach that we're we've already kind of successfully used on a few projects in town is is where uh we want to be headed.

And so um that's what this idea of kind of right sizing application submission requirements would be based on, uh moving to a more middle of the road approach for for what's asked of an applicant uh in a conditional zoning application.

Then there's this question of flexibility.

Um we have heard and seen kind of firsthand on multiple occasions.

Um after an application gets approved by council, um, time passes, right?

Um projects uh evolve, um, the actual conditions that a project might be subject to can change, whether it's market conditions or just on the ground uh site conditions, and projects need to be able to adapt to to be able to stay feasible in light of those uh either new or kind of revealed conditions.

And so what we want to do is broaden the scope of what is allowed as uh quote unquote minor modification to an approved conditional zoning.

Again, to give application or applicants the ability to kind of push and pull a little bit more to adjust their project as it continues to mature, again, with an eye on the fact that conditional zoning happens really early in the life cycle of a project.

And so the more uh tightly uh kind of fixed the project is, the harder it is for it to move forward.

Um then the final kind of major change would be to um remove any advisory board review after council approval.

And what we're talking about here is um final plans review by the CDC.

Um currently CDC um reviews elevations and other kind of site layout elements of a project after it's been approved by council.

Um, but CDC has no statutory authority to um deny the project at that point.

They're just making recommendations.

And what we have found is that um it isn't really a value add for for either CDC that oftentimes is just frustrated at the fact that they they know they're sharing these opinions without any statutory authority to do so, and applicants that are are oftentimes getting uh you know told to do things that aren't just aren't feasible given the the project scope.

Um so those are kind of the the key um elements of the changes.

Um I think some of the things to just focus on here is that um even with these changes, we're not changing the town's ability to negotiate uh for community interests.

Uh you could make the argument that by streamlining the process, kind of the technical elements of the process, we're actually putting more emphasis and strengthening our ability to negotiate for things like affordable housing or the provision of greenways or open space, um things that don't necessarily need to go through strict technical review.

Uh they just need to go through sometimes difficult negotiation.

Um, like I mentioned, you know, we have seen that this um this process can work.

Um it's been tested through uh several previous projects, and we know that it substantially reduces the um the risk, cost, and time associated with moving through our processes, um, all with uh an eye towards um making sure that that we're still getting what we want as a community.

Thanks.

Taz, are there clarifying questions?

Um I'm just looking at Jeff's comments, and I'm um curious the particularly for the reducing the level of detail.

Does it matter, Taz, the size of the project, or uh also if the project is phased, sort of like university place was phased.

Does that change how it is addressed?

It wouldn't change either based on the size of the project or phasing.

I will just point out uh university place was a special use permit and is just by statute subject to different requirements.

Um but actually brings up you know a good point.

Um our conditional zoning process and our application requirements, um, again for conditional zoning, um were borrowed from the special use permit process.

Um just because we didn't, when we enabled conditional zoning back in 2018, um they were seen as kind of a replacement for special use permits, and we pulled a lot from the special use permit process.

Um there's no real it doesn't have to be that way, right?

Special use permits are are a different beast.

Um, and conditional zoning just by its nature allows for a more high-level holistic review.

Um and Jeff wrote for certain projects before approving a project, particularly one that is larger with phase development or more significant impacts, the town council may choose to require similar level of detail as required today.

Is that that's just an ad hoc thing that they could do that you would find that acceptable?

It's possible, but I I wouldn't encourage it.

Um, and that's because you know, the the town council is seeing a conditional zoning, obviously at the end of a month's long process where an applicant has um has already been through staff technical review, um, has really been through the ringer.

Um and so it would be cumbersome, I think, and certainly uh a major expense for an applicant to um to be asked to then provide more detail once they get to council.

Um that being said, um it it wouldn't be outside of council's prerogative to say um that they were not comfortable making a decision on an application unless they see more detail.

Um and that goes back to that question of um, you know, even though the proposed amendments would allow council to make a decision on just one night or after just one night, um, they wouldn't be required to do it.

Um if they felt that they didn't know enough about a project, um, they could certainly ask for for more information.

Of course, if they had seen the concept project or concept plan early on, they could have asked then.

Okay, that was just a joke referencing the last discussion.

Uh Libby.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I just have two uh some clarifying questions.

One under the minor modifications.

Um I'm just wondering if any minor modifications with conditional um rezoning should perhaps exclude any additional encroachments into the RCD.

It's specifically mentioned in I think just the third.

This is section uh 4.4.5k.

So it mentions the RCD in one of those items.

Uh oh, I might have brought up the wrong one.

No.

And um and my other question is just in general, how will RCDs be handled in conditional zoning?

Maybe you haven't proposed any specific changes yet.

Yeah.

And then the final one more question is what are the final plans that it says an applicant may subsequently submit.

Um then it refers to the district specific plan.

So how do these detailed plans differ from the district specific plan?

Yeah, so I will I'll take those in reverse order and Libby, excuse me if I forget anything, if you could just remind me if I don't address one of your questions.

Um today basically says that after, and I think this is what you're referring to after a project is approved by council.

I think some of the language in LUMO says, you know, an applicant may submit final plans for more detailed review.

What that's basically saying is you are once you get your council approval, um, you have the green light to move to the next major step in the process, um, which is what we call a final plans ZCP, a final plans zoning compliance permit.

Um, and that is an extremely detailed um technical staff review um where um all the things that we talk about, you know, not being necessary to look at at the conditional zoning phase, those are absolutely necessary to look at at the final plans phase.

Okay.

Um I mean, we're talking about um, you know the very detailed calculations and sizing of your stormwater, all of those technical level of detail.

Okay, I get it.

And maybe it would be helpful to refer to a specific um subsection of the LUMO in that paragraph.

Sure.

Yeah.

Just to avoid, I mean, plan, you know, confusing language.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um and then your other question about RCD.

Um, you know, we we deal with R C D in a couple of different ways.

Um one is by you know, putting some parameters in LUMO itself um around what's allowed as a minor modification.

The other is you know, each conditional zoning is essentially its its own ordinance, right?

It's literally called an ordinance, right?

Um, and what that gives us an opportunity to do is on a case-by-case basis, if there is, for example, R C D on a site that is um, you know, thanks to our natural features viewer, we know that the R C D on that site is is particularly environmentally sensitive.

Um, we have an opportunity to put concrete and kind of inviolable um limits on R C D disturbance.

They're in some cases way lower than what LUMO would allow.

Um, and that becomes a condition of the ordinance.

And one of the um major limits on any sort of minor modification is that a condition of the ordinance can never be changed by staff.

Um if it's specifically enumerated in the ordinance, um it it cannot be amended after the fact.

You should never use putting concrete with um RCDs, bad bad uh use.

Um so are so when you talk about this ordinance, is this related to this conditional?

Are you talking about this conditional zoning or a different one?

I'm getting confused.

What ordinance you're referring to?

I I believe Libby was talking about the the actual ordinance a um that y'all are kind of considering tonight.

Um in the specific ordinances that accompany individual conditional zonings, um, we can place those very um deeply rooted um limits on RCD encroachment um that can't be changed through a minor modification.

Okay, got it.

Um other clarifying questions?

We're gonna go to the public, but before I do that, Mike, I know you need to leave early, I believe.

And so if you had any comments about this or any of the few other upcoming that you wanted to convey before you leave, feel free to either say them now or raise your hand, you know, right before you have to go.

I do want to give you a chance to weigh in if there's anything you felt strongly about.

No, no, thank you.

Um I'm also wanted to point out that was good at this one.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Josh, anyone in the public um with a hand raise.

Yeah, but just a second, but uh don't believe so.

Okay.

Um discussion on the conditional zoning amendment.

Uh John and then Wes.

Thanks, Liz.

raise it just a second but uh don't believe so okay um discussion on the conditional zoning amendment uh John and then Wes Thanks Liz so um this is a process streamlining item with a bunch of elements in it in in general I think we've the town has um used its dragged out conditional rezoning process as a bit of a crutch uh and that is removed potential motivation to formalize more of our standards and um for staff to serve more of an informal gatekeeper role and I think um I support moving beyond that I think there's a better way to do this um a more streamlined way without um causing worse results um I do think that the what I'm calling a dragged out nature of our conditional rezoning process deters I think it likely deters the beneficial development activity and I think um over the long term we'll be better served with a more you know streamlined process combined with more formalized clear transparent standards for development and and a more robust give and take behind the scenes uh between developers and staff so uh for for that reason I'm um generally supportive of this I had two uh sort of low level questions or comments one is um on the three month the change from one year to three months for refiling minimum period between um I just want to make sure we're not setting up I don't think we are but I want to make sure we're not setting up a system where developers have no disincentive to like keep trying again and again and see what sticks and I assume the disincentive is it costs money to refile.

Am I correct?

It does cost money to refile um I will say I have not included that particular change in this presentation because as of yesterday morning um there's a state law change that actually eliminates any refiling waiting period um that was passed it yeah it was ratified by the General Assembly last week um or on the the 25th excuse me um and it was um it it passed into law without the governor's signature after the requirements were preempted period um so my other question and I think um there's probably nothing to be done about this question in the lumo amendments maybe this would be more of a um a request for a guidance to the council and to the planning commission in the future but I've noticed that both in the planning commission's conditional rezoning hearings and in the councils questions repeatedly arise about what's kosher to negotiate can you negotiate affordable housing can you negotiate the size of units can you negotiate the mix of units can you negotiate rental versus purchase and some of these answers are known it's not like there's a running log of them but people who pay attention which is very few people sort of accumulate um answers to these over time but I think one source of I think significant inefficiency in our conditional rezoning process is a lack of knowledge on the part of decision makers of what they're allowed to negotiate and what they're not allowed to negotiate.

So if it doesn't go in the lumo and maybe it can't this is too nuanced and interpretive and there are things we can't anticipate I think at least at the very least perhaps the staff working with uh and particularly the town attorney whoever that is in the future could put together a um some guidance to decision makers on the sorts of things that are typically negotiated and not typically negotiated because they're not allowed to be negotiated okay thanks Jen Wes Yeah and that and that guidance wouldn't be just for decision makers it would actually inform the public too so then yeah what they can expect which leads me to my comment on this is you know I'm concerned about allowing the council to approve after one meeting um I would want some real assurance on how notified and engaged the public was before that one meeting because I think it's important that uh the council has an opportunity to hear from the public directly in a public meeting and have time to have questions answered from experts who may or may not be attending that meeting and then having sufficient time to draft an ordinance that gets what we want but then also there's time to review the ordinance that we wrote so I feel like I feel like there's power in the two meeting process for making sure that we engage the community and I also see it as like I'm happy that I'm happy to get rid of concept plans but if if if the public is only going to talk directly with the council in one meeting and then council's going to try to figure out the ordinance that night um I I would just it's a cautionary thing for me and I would just want to make sure that it's spelled out to the public on um what's going to happen.

So uh I'm kind of cautious about number one but the rest of it um this is a movement in the right direction.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts I will add um I actually agree with Wes.

I think that's a really important point and I certainly know that we've seen examples of uh developers just sort of agreeing during a meeting and it not being written down and then you know when things come to pass maybe years later it was never um mandate w you know there was no written record and so it essentially wasn't done.

And so having that meeting in between allows greater chance for at least that sort of feedback and I will also reiterate uh I promise this will be the last time that taking it down to one meeting reducing the amount of requirements and eliminating the concept plan is really you know reduced what information is flowing so suddenly the town council ha is essentially kind of making all this on less data in one event and so I'm I think most of actually this reduction in the conditional zoning makes a lot of sense.

It's only number one but I still feel like by doing this that's all the more reason why a concept plan is really important.

So um but I will stop being a broken record on that.

Um so any other thoughts let's do a a check with who thinks put your thumbs up if you think that you want to pass this as is uh flat if you're abstaining or down if you don't want to pass this or you want to add some sort of modification such as what Wes has um described.

So if you want to pass this as is put your thumbs up actually everyone just put up whatever uh thumbs up, down or flat I'm I mean I'm up with transmitting the comments about concerns about number one.

Right.

So then let's that's number two.

So there's a majority that so what about an up conditional on revising that one meeting or removing the one meeting um the one meeting element does that does that work for you Wes No I mean it's it's tough because like as a whole, you know, we're gonna have two other public hearings on this and I feel like part of this process is is moving in a direction that we've been trying to move in for a long time.

So I just want to you know so I'm saying approve it with the condition that they consider removing number one consider.

Yeah I mean I want the comments I want the comments included so it's a conditional approval essentially essentially yeah.

Okay.

With that being the comment okay all right so who so put thumbs up flat or down with a conditional approval with that caveat.

I need my thumbs out.

All right good so we're set on that.

Josh is that clear I believe so we can uh review the language at the end.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right Tez.

Yeah thanks Liz.

Um I'll try to move through this next one um a little faster.

I think it's a little bit more straightforward.

Um we're basically proposing is to kind of peel back the impact that an existing SUP or special use permit has on a property.

Um what that means is that um if you've got an existing SUP on your property and you want to add an additional use or some additional development that on its own would be compliant with LUMO you can kind of go forth and and do that.

Um some of the examples of you know situations that that might facilitate um would be you know an an older office building that through all the only reason some of these older commercial sites have special use permits is because they're big.

They they tripped the 2040 rule, they're 20,000 square feet of floor area or 40,000 square feet of land disturbance.

But the uses themselves within those buildings aren't quote unquote special uses.

They're just permitted uses within that district.

But the special use permit for that site might only enumerate office reuse or general commercial use.

And if that special use permit wasn't written broadly enough, it could, for example, require that if an office use, something that's kind of less intense than retail space, that couldn't happen unless the special use permit was modified.

Something that is gaining a lot of steam around the country is this idea of places of worship being able to build housing on their sites.

Old Hot of Places of Worship have just tremendous amounts of land available to them, but they almost all have special use permits that don't any don't allow anything like a residential use on the site.

But they're all in zoning districts where residential uses are allowed by right.

Um through this process, right?

You would still have to go through uh the special use permit modification process, so that it would still be subject to that higher level of scrutiny.

What we're really just talking about here is if we've already said that something can happen by right, um, there's not an issue with that being added to a site with an existing special use permit.

Okay.

Thanks, Taz.

Clarifying questions.

Any questions from the public or comments?

Okay.

Uh discussion.

Okay, I'd say this seems pretty reasonable to me.

Anybody feel this needs.

Okay, why don't we do a straw vote?

Who thinks that this is good as stands?

Okay.

Moving on.

Yep.

Thank you, Liz.

Um, so next bit is about subdivisions.

So this is kind of getting back to that idea of who's making administrative decisions.

And so our proposal would be that all subdivisions, um, kind of regardless of the context or their size be approved, reviewed and approved by the town manager rather than either planning commission or council.

Um, and again, like I said, this is um uh another classic case of making sure that um administrative decisions um which by law can only be based on whether a project complies with with the letter of the law, um, making sure that those decisions are being made um by the folks that are the best equipped to make them.

Um and that in this case is going to be staff and and the town manager.

Um it also, like we've talked about in a couple of different contexts, it makes sure that there's clear expectations for for the applicants um for members of the public that I know you know this body and council have seen instances in which members of the public with strong opinions about whether a subdivision should move forward or not, um, kind of share those opinions with with planning commission and with council, and both both bodies, you and council are are left kind of explaining the context, right?

That um unless the unless those opinions speak to whether or not the application complies with LUMO, um, they're just legally not allowed to take them into account.

And so we just want to make those those expectations and those roles and responsibilities uh more clear with this amendment.

Okay.

Um are there clarifying questions to TAS?

Any questions um or comments from the public.

Okay, discussion.

John.

This one seems similar to me um to the site plan review item that we started when we kicked off this meeting.

And um, I think uh I see in our briefing materials as a reference to the equity and zoning policy guide only which says only require public hearings when there's a genuine need to use discretion and applying zoning criteria and standards to the facts of a specific development.

That seems right to me, and I would just add that um it's also just a matter of good governance and not wasting people's time, totally apart from the equity issue, which seems right as well.

Okay.

Other comments.

So um Taz, we've been going to numerical order, but we seem to have just skipped a couple.

Is that from the way you presented the staff report?

Is that correct?

Uh the yeah, I think the order in the staff report is gonna be a little bit different than the presentation.

Um in the presentation I tried to uh front load stuff that I thought would be more ripe for discussion and the last few items I think will be uh less discussion heavy.

Maybe okay.

Um this was number seven on your earlier in case anybody's going back and forth.

Any other comments, discussion?

Okay, who why don't we just go ahead and do a straw poll who thinks this is fine as is.

Okay.

All right.

Yep.

All right.

Thanks, Liz.

So um we're shifting gears a little bit now and moving more into the substantive standard.

So like the underlying rules um tied to LUMO.

Um the next little bit and the next couple of items are still related to the subdivision process, but um again, we're we're talking about uh substantive rules no longer about process.

Um and so uh one of our big proposals here is to uh decrease minimum lot sizes in our um most of our residential zoning districts.

Um and along with those changes in lot size, we would also be uh proposing kind of proportional changes to things like lot width and setbacks.

Um, because ultimately those those dimensions are all kind of tied together and and adjusting one without the other can result in some just odd uh outcomes.

And so you know our motivation behind this is really um about trying to create more opportunities for for infill development.

Um we know that historically um minimum lot sizes have have hurt affordability.

Um they essentially create a price floor um below which you you just can't drop below a certain price on land um if we are requiring that land be sold off in uh in certain size chunks.

Um so we know it's had an impact on on affordability.

And we also know that when you look at kind of the history of how things like minimum lot sizes, um, which not necessarily in our community, but but certainly in in others, have um been associated with with other kind of exclusionary rules like minimum home sizes that again kind of place a price floor um on a on new development.

We want to make sure we're we're peeling that back.

Um we also, like I mentioned, know that that reducing lot sizes enables incremental growth um in areas that are already going to be well served by town services and infrastructure.

Um and that is, I mean, that is straight out of the complete community strategy that one of the areas in which we want to allow more development is where development already exists, and opening up previously kind of unusable land um through smaller lot sizes is a is a really important way of doing that.

Um thing I'll you know, I will mention here, and this is a little different than some of the other slides.

Um there is kind of a clear trade-off, right?

We know that um minimum lot sizes on the one hand are going to promote things like infill development and the additional walkability, the reduction in vehicle miles traveled, the support for local businesses that that all of that comes with.

Um we also know that there may be some impact on kind of overall pre-canopy and impervious surface.

Um I don't know that you know there is no right answer to to how we weigh those trade-offs, um, but it is kind of a a trade-off that is, I think is more stark um with a question like this.

So I just wanted to kind of pose that or put that out there that it is something that we are aware of, um, but ultimately that um you know there isn't necessarily a right answer of of how you value one or the other.

Um there is some information in your packet about um kind of what our tree canopy looks like town wide.

Um and unsurprisingly, um parts of town with very large lot sizes um have a lot of tree canopy, um, well in excess of kind of uh recommended um ideal standards.

Um so that's just again one kind of thing to look to um when we think about this trade-off, but we we know that there isn't a right answer.

Um, but changing these minimum lot sizes really could unlock some useful opportunities for incremental infill development.

Okay, clarifying questions.

Thanks, Tez.

I was wondering if you could um shed some light on how the new standards in the uh table table uh were arrived at, it looks kind of like the minimum lot size standards are just sort of round numbers going down to the nearest round number, and that but for some of the other things like interior setbacks, I couldn't quite follow like what the calibration methodology was.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um so it all starts with um the future land use map has kind of general guidance for um for residential density.

And what we what we tried to do is roughly match up the flumes residential density guidance um with minimum lot sizes that kind of get you roughly in that realm.

Um hold on.

The flume it provides height height guidelines and then like a typology, you know, like multifamily or townhomes, that sort of thing.

Are you referring to something else?

No, so um so the Flume does offer the things you're talking about, um, height, typology, um, in the focus areas, but outside of the focus areas and just kind of the um like truly the the big map, the future land use map, um, there's these different land use types.

Um and those offer some rough guidance um for uh units per acre.

And it's it's all approximate, right?

It's kind of like a a typically looking for four units per acre, for example.

Um, which if we if we assume that in a lot of and one of the important assumptions here was that um you know, even with these new lot sizes, um, we're not gonna radically transform what you know all of our R1 zoning districts look like.

We're gonna allow for some incremental changes here and there where it makes sense.

So we can we can kind of again use the flumes general guidance and arrive at lot sizes that um that are in the ballpark.

Um so that's how we got.

Okay, thanks.

I admiss that because basically everything we hear at the planning commission is in a focus area.

So I just really focused on those.

It just never had occasion to look at.

Yeah, exactly.

That's a good point.

And certainly something I can uh point to more clearly uh going forward.

Um that's how we started with the the lot size.

Um the other two things that we looked at to start tweaking all of the other numbers, like lot width and setbacks.

Um these aren't kind of official standards, just kind of made up metrics that I think speak to the most important elements of lot dimensions.

Um one would be aspect ratio.

Um if any of you are like Cinephiles or photographers, you're you're familiar with this idea of aspect ratio, which is basically just the ratio of the the width and the depth of the lot.

Um if you just change the lot size, um, but you don't change the lot, the minimum lot width, um, you create unusually wide but shallow lots.

Um and so as we reduced overall lot size, we reduced the minimum lot width uh so that that overall ratio in each zoning district, the overall ratio um of width to depth stayed the same or roughly the same for all of the lots, um, so that we didn't just get these like wide and squat lots.

Um the next thing that we looked at in tweaking the um the setbacks was kind of the buildable ratio.

So when you think about a a lot, uh once you subtract all of the the setbacks, you're left with an area in the middle of the lot um where you're allowed to put a building.

Um you are not allowed to fill up that entire space with building because of impervious surface coverage and and other rules like that.

But you have an area where you have kind of free reign to to put your building.

Um and again, this is one of those things where if you reduce the total lot size, but you don't proportionally reduce the setbacks, that buildable area shrinks relative to the size of the lot.

And so what we did was again kind of proportionately dial back some of the setbacks, um, so that with those smaller lots, that ratio of buildable area to overall lot um stayed roughly the same.

Uh and this is really getting in the weeds, but there's one additional kind of adjustment that we made in that there's currently in our current rules, there's kind of a quirk once you get to like R3 and R4 zoning districts, where under our current standards, that buildable area of the lot, um, the ratio is actually lower than it is for say an R1 district.

Umce you subtract setbacks, you have less relatively speaking of your lot to play with um in those kind of medium density zoning districts.

And um, so we we adjusted for that.

So kind of across the board now, um, even with the setbacks, that remaining buildable space is at least half of the uh of the lot.

I just have one other question.

This probably quick list, sorry.

Um, no, go ahead.

So Taz, I just want to um repeat back to you what I think you're saying about the trade-off with um the separate question with uh impervious and tree canopy, and just for maybe just a yes or no if I'm getting this right.

Um so you're saying there's a trade-off when you allow um you know smaller lot sizes and and particularly when you open up uh flag lots or um what are they called zero frontage lots, you're making buildable pieces of land that currently um are not buildable practically speaking.

So therefore you're gonna get some uh decrease in tree canopy when people build on them and uh increase in impervious.

And so that you're saying that raises a concern that it could, you know, um decrease uh you know, increase heat islands and and uh increase stormwater problems, that sort of thing.

And in weighing the trade-off, at least with tree canopy, you're looking at this independent standard of uh um what's the organization called UTC, urban tree canopy, the tree equity score.

Um, and you're saying w currently in the at least the relatively lower density single family neighborhoods where you would get this sort of infill.

Um above those minimum thresholds.

Um and so you wouldn't expect the incremental development that would occur as a result of these lumo changes to bring us below those minimal minimum thresholds.

We were so probably gonna be above, and that's sort of like a back of the neck and sort of calculation to sort of a sanity test to see how much this is actually gonna move the dial.

Is that right?

Am I getting that right?

I think that's that's spot on, John.

I think you know, with with tree canopy, it's just such a hard standard to quantify um what we're what we're willing to change.

You know, it would be one thing if the town it it likely would not be advisable for the town to take a position where any decrease in tree canopy is um is unacceptable if we have all these other aspirations about becoming more dense and more walkable um, you know, reducing car dependence and and things of that sort.

So uh I think like you said, a sanity check is kind of the the best uh best way to describe the the role of that information.

standard to to quantify um what we're we're what we're willing to change you know it would be one thing if the town it it likely would not be advisable for the town to take a position where any decrease entry canopy is um is unacceptable um if we have all these other aspirations about becoming more dense and more walkable um you know reducing car dependence and and things of that sort so uh I think like you said a sanity check is kind of the the best uh best way to describe the the role of that information and for impervious there's not some separate standard that we're benchmarking to you know obviously this would result in more impervious you you said we have these stand the 25 year standard applies to four plus subdivisions um otherwise uh there's no requirement um so how do you how do you actually assess that trade-off and whether it's a good one it's really hard to assess um there there isn't kind of uh a clear benchmark for us to use relative to where we are today um you know we know that that we can we can talk about you know at a sub-watershed level we we know how much impervious surface there is in town uh in different parts of town um but we we don't have a clear way of um comparing these very different things right uh increased walkability versus some incremental increase in impervious surface they are parts of the puzzle we just don't have really a an objective way to to compare them okay understood thank you other questions for Taz Libby so this is may seem out of left field but it does seem like well one question what percent of the town lots do are large enough to have buildable area to subdivide I mean do you have or what amount of the area of already developed Chapel Hill do you have some you must have some idea of these metrics area or parcels.

We we do have an ability to kind of pull that data um it's just of limited benefit and I and I say that because just the fact that a lot is large enough to subdivide um in and of itself does not really tell us whether it is likely to subdivide um some of the things that might or that would come into account are you know the the topography of the lot the location of kind of existing homes on the lot um it's possible for example if you have a lot um that that's technically big enough to subdivide but like a lot of our lots there's kind of challenging topography or if the home the existing home is kind of snack dab in the middle of the lot um there might not be a way to kind of carve it up into um multiple lots and still maintain that existing home um we've also got things like R C D R C D for example um and that's actually one area where um peeling back standards actually means that more intense R C D rules would apply um if we make it easier to subdivide we actually trigger a situation where um modern RCD rules would apply as opposed to existing lots being grandfathered in to older less stringent rules um so again it it there there is a way to to get the data you're asking for Libby but I would just I would caution against using it um because it's it tells such an incomplete uh story yeah I I think I'll throw out the example uh that pretty much every lot that backs up to Morgan Creek has the space but because it contains Morgan Creek you you couldn't build on it may I make a further comment you could conceivably pull all those data together to do the assessment the analysis.

Yeah with this yeah we definitely could it would just be a it would be a yeah a pretty significant undertaking.

Okay.

All right so one further I guess we're not to comment yet right we're still in no comments yet okay um so on that point you said earlier this could unlock a lot of development so what is that based on if you all haven't actually looked at I mean a lot of development meaning what?

Yeah.

It is hard to say um I think when we say a lot it's all kind of relative you know we know kind of a just a gut check from you know something to know about planners is that we we are staring at maps of Chapel Hill all day.

Something to know about planners is that we we are staring at maps of Chapel Hill all day.

And so it's it's not difficult to just kind of get these kind of like gut check um senses of all right, there are there's no shortage of lots that potentially um could be redeveloped.

Um but that's again looking at it from without the benefit of those really detailed site-specific um considerations that you would you'd have to go through um to figure out really what we're talking about in terms of yield um and then the other thing is there's that intangible element right none of these changes force somebody to change um what they do with their land they just give them an option um and so whether or not somebody a property owner or homeowner chooses to do this um is something totally intangible that we can't even begin to speculate on right that's probably the biggest limitation is homeowners not actually wanting to split their land um can you uh so getting back to the impervious question that John brought up all these split uh if they're single family homes they're not going to have any stormwater management requirements is that correct or 25 year old so a single stormwater uh uh uh an individual single family home um isn't subject to any stormwater treatment requirements um they're only subject to kind of this general rule that the flow of stormwater off of their property has to be uh diffuse and non-erosive so you can't just channel all of your gutters and all of your stormwater on your site um to one just kind of like gusher that's gonna uh erode a channel into your your neighbor's yard yeah although it happens um so is it so we don't know what the the extent of these changes will be it's opening up a lot of um probably well who knows what the topography is of the land that it's opening whether anyone would be interested in developing it but now that we have the natural data underlying the natural features map would it be possible to say do overlays stormwater overlays or um conservation overlays so that there are at least some limitations on these sites that uh that actually serve a very important uh purpose versus say another land which actually has even if it was completely um paved over might not have as big an impact is that is there a possibility of having overlays that would allow this process to have some fewer trade-offs essentially yeah um maybe from a conservation perspective um you know we and I am spitballing here because of one of the kind of cautions around the natural features viewer that the information that the natural features viewer gives us is is modeling right it is in some cases verified on the ground but in most cases it's um inferences that have been drawn based on what satellite imagery and other kind of high level data is telling us about the land um we would probably need to do kind of more significant ground truthing before um making broad and binding land use decisions um when it comes to things like habitat availability or um the things would bear on that sort of conservation uh but it it it's in the realm of possibility on the stormwater front I would say that that is going to be less related to the natural features viewer because of what I mentioned around RCD.

RCD would actually expand and be one of the really hard barriers that would dissuade somebody from um subdividing.

Um I think a 50-foot buffer uh and any new subdivisions would need to meet our hundred fifty foot requirements.

Um new subdivisions are gonna be held to a lot stricter standards.

Um and when were those new standards put in place?

With the new LUMO or with with the existing LUMO.

So about 20 years ago.

Yeah, 2003 or so or thereabouts.

Yeah.

Um okay.

Any other clarifying questions?

Let's see if there's anything from the audience from the public.

Nope.

Okay.

Uh Wes, is that a clarifying question or a comment?

Comment.

Go ahead.

Um part of the context I'd like to bring to this is the fact that um people can do what they want with their private land right now.

And and and tree companies are quite busy in Chapel Hill.

Um so tree canopy can come down currently right now.

I could take the trees out of my yard.

Um, I think allowing an option for a person to build additional housing um only expands opportunity and the fact that there's really no current protection for the tree canopy in my yard for my neighbors' yards.

Um so thinking about the tree canopy tradeoff for me is also the fact that we do lose tree canopy just by neighbors' choices, and I think allowing uh a choice to replace those trees with a home as opposed to just taking the trees out because you want to, um, isn't a bad option.

Okay.

Other comments.

Jen.

I'm supportive of um these changes.

I'll note that we still have a minimum lot size under this proposal.

Um so in that respect, I think we're being at least somewhat restrained compared to what we might have seen.

I I saw a note in the briefing materials that according to staff, the town's comprehensive plan does not currently support eliminating minimum lot size requirements.

I was curious, I meant to ask what Taz, what what are you referring to there?

Um so it's the density recommendations in the flu.

Oh, we talked about that earlier.

Yeah, yeah.

So basically as long as those exist, um the the comp plan is still saying, hey, we need we need some kind of check on um on density.

And there are other ways to get at that.

Um there's a school of thinking that once you identify your impervious surface maximums and your setbacks.

That's really all you need.

Um and so it's possible that we can move in that direction.

Um, but that's that's a big change and and probably is best uh to wait until there's there's an updated comp plan to if we so choose to support it.

Right.

So but I view this as uh part of a package of sustainative change changes that's trying to just move the dial incrementally past the housing choices amendments from two years ago, which had maybe literally or nearly no effect on the built environment in the town.

And so um we're getting to that as one of the next agenda items tonight.

But um this is you know decreasing minimum lot sizes and and um you know buffers on the edge of properties to sort of correspond to that and um allowing building on um parts of sites that weren't really practically buildable before.

I doubt this is gonna have um they were gonna see a huge yield out of this.

I don't know, could be wrong, but I think that the the impact of this will be um slow and you know mostly noticeable to people who have adjacent properties to properties taking advantage of this, but probably won't even be that noticeable to um most people who live in the town.

And so um I'm just sort of looking at the balance of things factors here, including what Wes mentioned, you know.

We are trying to add some gentle density.

Um and this seems uh seems reasonable to me.

Wes.

Sorry, I spoke specifically about the tree canopy thing, but yeah, um Liz, in your comments you asked if it was gonna bring a lot of development.

And I think what it brings is a type.

Like, you know, we're trying to we're trying to provide a whole range of housing options for people, people who may not want to um live in a condo in a certain transit-oriented area.

There might be people who want a certain type.

And again, we're trying to get at this whole missing middle complete community thing.

So I think these are these are changes in the direction that um council has signaled we want to go and the community needs, but it's like just providing a different type that fits into the matrix of what options are available um in the community.

I'm done.

Libby or Chuck.

Oh I see that I was unmuted.

I apologize.

Hopefully, I wasn't making too much noise.

Nope.

Um, yeah, I see the reasoning behind this.

I'm just again, we're getting to areas of uninknown consequences, I believe.

Um is it possible to have a stricter tree canopy ordinance that does affect single family and duplex types of properties?

Does that yeah, it it's certainly possible from a technical perspective.

It's it's not possible.

Um we do have a 40% tree canopy requirement for duplexes.

Um there's a change, there's a technical correction in the ordinance that will ensure that those that canopy requirement actually applies to duplexes.

Um we we realize that there was a kind of a glitch uh in in Lumo that um made applying our our current standard difficult to duplexes.

Hasn't come up much because we really haven't seen any being built.

Um, but we're just making sure that that still applies.

Um if there's interest, I mean we could consider having it apply to to single family homes as well.

Um we just then get into uh I'm sure enforceability is yeah, enforceability is the the key question there.

But I guess the issue is, and this I think Jeff touched on this too, like in one of the maybe we haven't gotten to that section yet about the duplexes, but um we're reducing buffers, increasing decreasing lot size, increasing maximum duplex size, and so on, all these things are going to um have unknown, you know, obviously reduce green space.

Let's not just touch talk about tree canopy, but any green space.

So if there were just some way to tie the goal of a more equitable goal across, you know, a tree equity goal or green space equity goal to these to these decisions, so that uh again when when it push comes to shove uh these things aren't further traded off in development.

So if you have a maximum square footage and buffer and R C D and these various things, it would just be nice to know what they are and to stick with those.

And perhaps there can be a better balance of green.

For example, I've had a real concern about all the multifamily units we've approved or recomm we don't approve them, but at any rate, that have been approved and built with very little green space around them.

And I I understand that density and such, but um I also understand heat and climate impacts.

And so if there is some way to treat the LUMO, treat tweak the LUMO and the next iteration of changes that are being made so that these standards are applied more uniformly and the tree canopy and green space is protected more reliably.

Those are those are my comments.

So I don't know how I feel about these.

I've I want to vote for these new lot standards.

I think they probably won't have a huge impact, but at the same time if we had some measures of heat and air pollution and runoff around town so that we could at least benchmark what happens and track that, it would I would feel better about that going forward.

Chuck, any uh do you want to add anything?

Um I guess um I'm for I don't I don't think it's gonna create a whole lot of difference as far as people building subdividing lots and building changing things as are um and of course there's always going to be a few who abuse um found a way to abuse the whole tree canopy thing or imperfect service thing but there's no such thing as a perfect plan and um density we're working on density so I'm for okay all right um I will add my comments um I will agree with Chuck and Libby and others uh kind of doubt this is gonna create a huge cascade of uh opening up new lands um sort of like our last changes were underwhelming at best um I do think that we're at the point that we really could stop only thinking on a lot by lot project by project basis which is what you know has been mentioned in several of these other amendments is so important to be thinking at a broader scale we're able to I I think the natural features map was a great first step you're right Tez it's just you know it's just a model with certain data one spot in time but we should be able to identify say which of these properties need to retain their tree canopy for whatever value we should be able to actually be much more um strategic I realize this isn't the place to think about overlays there are different uh standards depending on where a lot is but we could do a lot better in the way we develop the town instead of just cookie cut or one uh one size fits all in general getting rid of the um the minimum lot size makes sense to me uh but I think we can also protect tree cover that's very important uh and we could do it strategically not everywhere uh we could do it a lot better than we are and I don't think I think that this does not um help although I don't think from that from this trade off I don't think there are trade-offs as you point out I don't think we've thought seriously about what they are and so um I'm okay with this because I think they're gonna be pretty small but I think we could do better in trying to understand what the trade-offs are and be able to actually plan accordingly so that's my feeling all right so any other comments shall we take a up or down vote who is um so same thing thumb up um you know abstain or down okay it was unanimous if a little unenthusiastic by some keep going up at a 45 degree angle I don't know what is that a hedge pardon I'm just trying to figure out the camera angle you know yeah yeah you're a fraction of the thumb it looks a little bit like this in West's Wes was that uh abstain oh no no thumbs up okay I'm just giving a hard time I have no I have no reason to abstain I gotta say yes or no you know you gotta be on the record okay all right next all right so um the next bit is uh you know we've touched on it a little bit it's very closely tied to the minimum lot size question um it's just a matter of what types of lots you're allowed to build or create creating a lot doesn't involve building anything per se but the lines that you're able to draw on on the map um and this is just around two different lot configurations that we don't we either don't allow at all which is a zero frontage lot so something that um doesn't directly abut a street but which has kind of a legal access to the the public right of way um and then a flag lot um flag lots are are allowed in very limited circumstances in town um but they're they're pretty heavily discouraged um the few flag lots that we do see around town um tend to be old um they're kind of a more traditional form of um uh of laying out land um they can lead to you know flag lots zero frontage lots can help create um cottage courts and other um again more traditional development patterns um and certainly you know incremental changes in neighborhoods that that allow us to add some density uh without seeing you know massive changes uh particularly from from the public realm um and so the the proposal here would just be to uh to

They can lead to flag lots, zero frontage lots, can help create cottage courts and other again more traditional development patterns, and certainly incremental changes in neighborhoods that allow us to add some density without seeing massive changes, particularly from the public realm.

And so the proposal here would just be to uh to allow these flag lots and zero frontage lots.

Okay.

Questions for Taz, clarifying questions.

Any questions from the public discussion.

I will say I feel the same about this as I felt with the last topic.

So I won't repeat what I said, but just ditto.

John?

Same here.

That's all I was going to say.

Anyone feel differently about these than they expressed in the last.

Okay, everyone want to take a straw vote.

Okay, same vote, same unenthusiasm from some.

But on to the next one.

So the next question is really in the vein of trying to shake more activity loose when it comes to subdivisions.

And so our proposal would be to reduce infrastructure requirements for lots on local streets.

And then there's a technical element there that I'll speak to for lots and other types of streets as well.

And so generally speaking, as with the previous recommendations, this is about incremental development, creating more opportunities for tweaks in development patterns around town.

And what we've seen is that our current rules, which require at baseline that when you subdivide a lot on an existing town street, you're responsible for bringing just your street frontage up to town standards.

And that means things like minimum pavement width, minimum right-of-way width, sidewalks, curb and gutter, those types of kind of physical improvements to the street.

And the person subdividing the land is the one that bears that cost.

It's not the person that they sell to that ultimately builds a home and kind of reaps the largest profits that are possible from that type of fact pattern.

It's a person subdividing the land.

And again, we just we don't have objectified or you know, clearly kind of tracked data on this, but there has never been a planning department staff that has had uh that has had these sorts of consultations with property owners that doesn't get to a point where property owner is interested in subdividing, they hear about these infrastructure requirements, and it stops the conversation dead in its tracks.

Um there are property owners that are interested in subdividing and just cannot bear the additional cost associated with with these improvements.

Um they're not going to make the improvements themselves.

We we have kind of an unofficial option to provide a payment in lieu, um, which can range depending on the size of the lot and the uh updates that are required, um, can range from a couple of thousand dollars to to tens of thousands of dollars.

Um and again, that's being borne by by somebody that um is typically not a developer, right?

It's uh an existing homeowner that's looking to split up their land and you know, have an opportunity to make some money off of that unused land.

Um so that's kind of the cost side of it.

Um we've seen that it increases the cost to folks that are willing to put up with it, but it also discourages a lot of people from actually moving forward with the subdivision process.

And it's true that when somebody decides that they're able to bear those costs, we get one of two things.

We either get a payment in lieu that, again, based on statutory and constitutional limitations, that payment in lieu has to be used kind of to the direct benefit of the property that generated it, which means that it has to be used for roadway improvements near the property that generated the payment and near is both in time and distance.

So we can't hold on to that payment in lieu forever without eventually giving it back if we don't use it.

We also have to use it close to the property, whether or not we have plans to actually do something near that property.

And that's that can be meaningful if it means that that property is connecting to a broader network.

But oftentimes it doesn't.

And so that again, we we sometimes get these these things, payment in lieu or kind of a small expansion of town infrastructure.

But it tends to be pretty disproportionate to the burden and the cost that we see on the subdivision end.

One thing I'll I'll talk about in terms of just kind of conceptualizing where we could be going from here is that the incremental tax increases or tax revenue increase as a result of subdivisions could in the long term be much more beneficial to the town than these kind of one-time payments in lieu.

Um so I just want to kind of help you all visualize what we're talking about.

Um we're talking about these changes to infrastructure requirements.

We would only be looking at lots on local roads, right?

Our lowest capacity, kind of quietest roads.

Um here is a a map of Chapel Hill.

Um the very dark blue roads are our arterial roads, highest capacity, largest roads.

Uh, medium blue are our collector streets, and the light blue lines that you see kind of sprinkled around that make up you know, kind of the biggest web, you know, they're essentially the capillaries in our road system.

Uh, those are our local streets.

And only the streets that are highlighted in green currently have sidewalks on them.

Um so when you zoom in just a little bit, you'll notice most of our local streets just don't have sidewalks.

Um, and even though we have goals of of eventually expanding our sidewalk network, uh, we don't have really any immediate short-term or even long-term um funding streams.

Uh there's just there's no money, right?

To put in the sort of widespread network of sidewalks on these local streets.

Um, and so kind of piecemeal subdivisions along these streets is never or is as good as never going to result in in a network of sidewalks on these local streets.

And those are the only streets on which we're we're talking about um peeling back some of these requirements on the collector streets, um, the only change that we're proposing is to formalize the payment in lieu option.

Um it's something that you know planning commission has has offered to applicants regularly.

Uh we're just making it very clear that that is a uh a clear option on the collector's streets.

Um and so again, you kind of look at the rest of town, again, we see this pattern that that local streets just by and large um are not well served by by an existing network of sidewalks.

And um the reality is that you know we're not gonna get there with our current requirement.

Um, and we're certainly not going to get there with um, you know, the funding streams that we can ever foresee to be likely that will be available to the town.

Um so again, it's that that question of proportionality between a rule that tries to get more infrastructure, but actually just ends up uh dissuading people from doing the thing that um that would be the trigger for getting that infrastructure in the first place.

Um I will say this proposal has been run by our um staff in the Office of Mobility and Greenways, uh, and they support it.

Um they recognize that um we do not have long-term plans or the ability to build out um our street network or our sidewalk network, excuse me, um, along these local streets.

Wanted to quickly kind of talk through the tax implications of some of this.

In terms of are we putting the town on more solid footing long term or not?

And so the map on your screen is this is a real part of town.

These are six real lots that I pulled real kind of tax assessed values for.

And if you look at their their existing configuration, lot one on the far left of your screen is just clearly larger than all the other lots on that street, or at least the ones that I've highlighted.

It's larger than those lots.

But even though the fact that lot one is twice the size of lots three, four, five, and six, it has the exact same tax assessed land value.

And it's it's kind of a reasonable um conclusion that the tax assessor would draw because of how we regulate land use, right?

The the size of your lot only matters to a certain extent when you're in a um a low density residential district, um, because the fact that you have defined a lot, uh, regardless of the size is what determines how many units you can place on that lot.

Um so what we found is kind of this dynamic that you you see throughout town.

You know, it's not just these lots that that demonstrate this principle, um, but in single family or kind of low density zoning districts, bigger lots just mean less tax efficient land, right?

That the tax value per acre decreases as your lot gets larger.

And so if, for example, um this lot one were to subdivide um into two lots that were um roughly the same size as lots three, four, five, and six.

And that's just this is just again, assuming today's minimum lot sizes.

Um, if that lot were to subdivide on a road that doesn't currently meet town standards, um, the property owner, you know, might be looking at a payment in lieu of eight to ten thousand dollars.

Um, and like I mentioned, that eight to ten thousand dollars is strictly controlled in terms of how the town can use that money.

Um, it has to be used for road projects uh near this property, both in time and in location.

Um worst case scenario, we collect that money uh and then give it back, you know, later on.

Uh in comparison, right?

Um if we look at the tax value of these properties using really conservative estimates, estimates, um, you know, first of all, assuming that the land assessed value um of these new lots is is the same as the smaller lots down the street.

And the really conservative part here is assuming that the the buildings that are built in these new lots have the same or roughly the same tax value as the the existing homes down the street.

Um you'd be looking at at least $3,500 in annual general fund revenue as kind of a perpetual income stream from the town for the town.

And that general fund revenue, um, you know, we can use it for if the town is authorized to do the thing, we can you know, we can essentially use general fund revenue for almost any legitimate town function.

It's not limited in the way that a one-time payment in lieu would be.

Um, and so long term um facilitating these subdivisions is a is a much more kind of beneficial and sustainable way to fund uh town projects and investments.

Um we want to earmark that general fund revenue.

Um make a plug, you know, we we've talked about penny for parks.

Um if a revenue stream like this looks sustainable enough in the future, I could open the door to kind of earmarking the additional revenue from new subdivided lots, specifically for infrastructure or or walkability improvements around town in a way that we just can't do with um with existing payments in lieu.

Okay.

Any um clarifying questions?

Libby.

Yeah, just a couple of that makes total sense.

Um but except it you say the town has to use it close to the project.

Is that a state law, state requirement?

And what does close how how do you define close?

Yeah, that's that's part of the problem.

It's um it's more of a constitutional requirement.

Um it's not defined in statute, how close is close enough, um, which makes it even harder to to really create real rules around.

Um it's really left up to each jurisdiction to decide how close is close enough to not run the risk of being sued by the person that paid the fee.

Um, but there's there isn't a bright line standard.

Any other questions?

Um any questions from the public?

Okay.

Discussion.

Libby.

Well, I guess this is still more of a question.

So we're still talking about local streets here, right, Taz?

Okay.

Yes.

So say that local street uh does is mostly covered in sidewalk.

And you could use the money remind me this you you can still accept the funding for or ask them to construct the sidewalk.

It just allows that option.

Is that correct?

No.

So what we would be doing is basically removing the the requirement that they uh you know bring the town up to sidewalk pavement with standards, carbon gutter standards.

Um the one requirement that we wouldn't be removing is adequate right of way.

Um so a project would still have to potentially dedicate some amount of right of way to the town, so that if we um Libyan, your example, you know, let's say that uh and you know that again looking at this map, there's there's exceedingly few local streets that that do have good sidewalk coverage.

Um but if there were one where you know we we've got good sidewalks there, um, and we're looking at just kind of a couple of gaps here and there, um, the the subdivided land would be required to dedicate right of way um so that they couldn't preclude the town from coming in or making it more difficult for the town to come in and make that investment.

Um and as we showed with the the tax benefits, um, it would only be a couple of years before the town kind of accrued the tax revenue from that um that new lot um that would equal um the um that upfront payment in lieu.

Wes I believe we've talked about it before, but like the idea of these sidewalks to nowhere that aren't connected to anything, so it's an improvement to not require that um and focus on our our larger uh mobility network.

Yeah.

I'll also just mention with the sidewalks to nowhere bit, um, that's a term that is kind of reviled by our public works department because the the sidewalks, I mean the the sidewalks to nowhere themselves are reviled by our public works department because of how difficult of a challenge they are for maintenance, right?

Each separate segment of sidewalk is publicly maintained and presents mobilization challenges.

Um so there would be kind of operational benefits from ensuring that there are fewer of those sidewalks to nowhere in the future.

Maybe just like to make one more comment that if you did sidewalk all of the local street network, that means all that water is going to be channelized and have you have to deal with it.

So maybe having a more you were saying earlier we want more diffuse discharge from properties, but I think from streets as well.

So from at least all the local street network, that may be a consideration.

John Thanks.

Yeah, I remember our talking about this issue of the sidewalks and nowhere in a past session, and I think we're probably generally in alignment with what we said there, uh our response then, which is yeah, this is kind of silly.

Let's make the change.

Um I just had one um suggestion on the presentation on the uh briefing materials we got that maybe the first time you use the term local, you put it in in quotes because I read it as not a technical term, and then I was very confused as I went through because it seemed like you said one thing and then you said the opposite when you're talking about collector roads, and then it dawned on me that actually you were using local in the technical sense that it's defined in the LUMO, and just putting in quotes would have prevented me from misunderstand.

Maybe I'm the only one, but it would have prevented misunderstanding on my part.

That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks, John.

I actually had the same issue.

All right.

Um see no more comments.

Why don't we take a vote?

Who thinks this amendment as is uh is good?

Okay.

All right.

All right.

I believe.

Yeah, thanks, Liz.

Um so the next um topic is um really about making sure that the housing types that we allow in town are are economically feasible to build.

Um, and where we've seen an issue with that is with these kind of two family development types, um, duplexes for the most part.

Um so what we would propose is is increasing the maximum size for for our two family development types um with an emphasis on duplexes.

And so the proposed amendments would uh increase the the maximum allowed size for a duplex from 3,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet.

Um it would also make some tweaks to to ADUs and cottages, but again, that that biggest jump is in duplexes.

Um and what this all comes down to is financial feasibility.

Um, you know, as has been mentioned, um we it's not just that we've only seen a trickle of duplexes.

Um we've we've maybe seen one or two, and home builders that we ask about it.

Um, you know, why aren't why aren't you building duplexes when we you know did all this to change some of the underlying rules, you know, where you can build a duplex, how much land you need to build a duplex.

Uh because you'll remember, you know, before a couple of years ago, you needed twice the minimum lot size to build a duplex.

Um so we we've already made it easier.

Um it all comes down to the size.

Um, that 3,000 square feet uh is a limit in Lumo that has existed for quite a while now.

Um it's not it wasn't new with with housing choices.

It was a pre-existing limit, and we just haven't been seeing development because it's not financially feasible.

Um so we are hearing um from the folks that are kind of interested and and eager to build this this sort of housing type uh is that 5,000 square feet starts to make a lot more financial sense because of the housing types um that it opens up.

Um so that's that's really kind of the the crux here.

Um we want to make sure that um we're not kind of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here, that uh we're not idealizing kind of a small duplex as an affordable housing type, and then just not getting any duplexes at all.

Okay.

Uh John.

The cat likes it.

Uh I was wondering about the parking spot provision in particular, where currently I remember this was like a uh um a measure that was designed to you know placate certain members of the community a couple of years ago that four maximum parking spots for two a piece for each half of the duplex.

Curious, Taz, if you've gotten or Josh, if you've gotten feedback from developers that um that in particular has been a problem.

Yeah, and again, it it speaks to kind of the the range and diversity of who could meaningfully live in a in a home that's limited to just two parking spaces.

Um, you know, I I think you could certainly make the argument that a um you know a couple or a small family with maybe just young children um can you know, even in today's world where we are trying desperately to move people away from car dependent lifestyles, um two cars, you know, a car per adult um isn't uh unlikely uh as a kind of a necessity of today's life.

But it's not a limit on car ownership, right?

They can still park on the street to the extent of additional costs.

The availability of parking, right?

And so, like how how much do you facilitate um that sort of again, that necessity.

Um so as soon as you trip over that that kind of two adults per household limit, um, what we're hearing is that the the parking availability does become kind of a major sticking point.

Um, you know, a family with a with a teenager, right, that might be getting their first car that might need that car for again things that our current infrastructure does just doesn't support their ability to do things without that vehicle.

Um it suddenly becomes again to your point, John, it doesn't become impossible for them to own that that other vehicle.

Um, but it makes it harder um in a meaningful way.

And it it does help to um self-select the sorts of households that might live in uh some of these housing types.

Um it's that question of like when we put in new regulations, are we are we changing an actual individual's behavior, or are we just changing the types of individuals or the types of households that that are able to use that space?

Thanks.

So are you thinking this is mostly for college students?

I think it depends on where they're built.

Um there certainly could be um duplexes that end up being kind of student oriented.

Um, but I don't think we're thinking that they're mainly for college students.

Um, you know, we want to be open to uh young professionals that we know kind of across the country are exceedingly or you know overwhelmingly having to start kind of rooming with other young professionals to be able to afford housing.

Um so you're getting kind of more of these congregate living scenarios again with young professionals, old professionals, just you know, people in in non-traditional households.

Um and then also just traditional families, um, however you you want to define that term.

I don't want to uh even just saying traditional families a little problematic.

So but um just just families, right?

Um that that may have the need for um you know additional vehicles.

Um other questions of jack of Taz on this.

Taz, there were several things under this.

Do you want to present all three?

And we'll just ask questions and then we'll go into a discussion of all of them, or should we discuss each directly?

Yeah.

So the the other two things under um the two family housing options, like I mentioned, were ADUs and cottages.

Um those changes are actually much less impactful given this change, right?

So um a an ADU limit um is likely only going to come into play if your primary home is 5,000 square feet or larger, right?

You've tapped out the uh residential floor area that we would allow under the duplex rules.

Um and then you want to still do something.

So that's when the ADU would come into play.

Um and same with a cottage.

Um you've you've already got um, you know, by any kind of subjective standards, you got a big house on your property, um, but you still have some spare land, you want to do something.

Um that's where the the ADU and cottage rules would would really come into play.

Um so you know, one other way of thinking about this 5,000 square foot limit is that what we I think kind of as a gut reaction might think of as like a single family home with an ADU, um, that could actually be characterized as a as a duplex.

Uh and so that would fall under this 5,000 square foot limit way before it falls under some of those other limits.

Okay, thanks.

Any further questions?

What about um questions from the public?

Yeah, I'll have more in the public away.

We have one public member that doesn't seem to be raising their hand, huh?

Yep.

Okay.

All right.

Um discussion.

I don't need to go first, but just somebody else raised their hand, I'll give a couple of thoughts.

Um I'm fine with this.

I mean I'm fine with this full stop.

Um I think it's w a lot of us were here in 2023 when the housing choices um amendments came through.

And those are pretty controversial.

And so some of these restrictions, like the 3,000 square foot thing and the parking thing were part of a political trade-off, not so much a planning trade-off, but a political trade-off to make the changes sort of less scary to members of the public and to make them more comfortable that um just members of the public who are concerned more comfortable that the duplexes weren't going to ruin their neighborhood somehow or change what they valued about their neighborhoods.

And I think given that we've had almost no activity in the duplex space since 2023, it it makes logical sense to me that we would move the die a little further.

You try to just juice things economically so that maybe somebody will build some of these, which was the whole point originally.

Um I think it's legitimate for the council as opposed to the planning commission to consider where the limit is in terms of the political trade-off, um where they're going too far to you know, inflaming people and not getting enough mileage out of it in terms of actually adding housing units.

I don't know where that point is, but I really don't consider it a a planning issue, meaning like uh orderly growth and development problem.

I think planning wise, this is fairly mainstream and good planning policy um as the planning community, and as I now understand it.

Um, but I just wanted to acknowledge that there's a political issue here that I'm um not opining on.

Um I also just wanted to say I think the weakest part of this particular proposal is the parking element.

And maybe that's just like the John that lived in Manhattan and Washington, DC and just does not see the issue with somebody street parking.

I I did it for over a decade.

It's just a total not issue in most of the neighborhoods in Chapel Hill to park the third car in the household, like on the street, and and there are benefits of it, you know, socially in terms of slowing down traffic to have street parking, whereas a lot of our neighborhoods like mine, it's it's almost unheard of for somebody to park on the street.

Um so I'm not as sympathetic to the to the upside of allowing you know more parking on site.

I could see it upsetting neighbors, and I'm not sure politically that's a good trade-off, but I don't strongly object.

So overall I'm fine with it, including the parking thing.

Other comments.

Luby.

Did didn't I see something about um shared driveways?

And that I'm not sure.

We talked about that.

I think that's just the last I think that was the last topic.

Yeah, I think a separate maybe flags and other flag lots and okay.

Yeah.

I thought it pertained to this section.

Um I was just gonna mention something Jeff said um that was his concern about the 40%, and this is kind of what I was alluding to earlier that the 40% minimum tree canopy requirement for duplexes is proposed to remain, and I'm reading uh from Jeff's uh comments.

This is a standard that does not apply to single family detached dwellings, therefore there will be circumstances where a landowner can build a 4500 square foot single family home, but would not be able to build a 4500 square foot structure with two dwelling units.

Um and I would also just ask is 40% a reasonable amount of tree canopy for this scenario, or will people be asking for exceptions?

I'm just trying to think ahead of how you can keep this somewhere streamlined.

Presumably staff has thought this through, that 40% is a reasonable amount of tree canopy, but I don't know.

Um yeah, I I could speak to that real quickly, Libby.

Um the 40% tree canopy requirement was again, it was introduced a couple of years ago.

Um we haven't seen a lot of development.

Um so we haven't seen on the ground examples.

Um we have done test fits, and and what I mean by that um is basically kind of hypothetical lots um and what it would mean to kind of meet that 40% canopy requirement.

Um one of the important things about how the options for meeting the canopy requirement.

One is with by maintaining your existing tree canopy, the other is by planting new trees.

Um, and so you know, once you're on um when you're on like a a large lot, so to speak, you know, this new 10,000 square foot lot.

Um, what that could mean in an extreme example is let's say somebody clear cuts the entire lot and there's no existing tree canopy to take advantage of.

Um the tree canopy requirements would basically require you to plant um eight trees, um eight canopy trees, right?

So trees that are um likely to grow to a certain size, um eight trees um spaced at least 20 feet apart.

We have that 20 foot spacing just to make sure that they're uh more likely to survive.

Um and so it's it's definitely possible.

Um you can fit those eight trees on the site um without too much of a constraint.

Um obviously those are just test fits, and and there may be cases where it becomes um really impractical.

Um I think a variance might be a a reasonable solution then um if somebody demonstrates that despite their best efforts, um, they're just not able to fit all of those replacement trees on a site.

Wes real quick, um echo John's comments.

I would just say the only disappointing thing for me is that we can't have a market for duplexes smaller than 2500 square foot each.

But hey, I'm not building them.

So if if it needs to go to 5,000, then um let's let's do it.

Okay.

Um Chuck, do you have any thoughts on this?

I think of all the uh text amendments I've seen on this thing, this is probably the one that interests me the most.

Um nothing is the rest of them, but I can see I can see something something growing from this.

It may not, but uh it could.

So um I'm I'm very I'm very hopeful as far as this goes.

Okay.

And um I uh I'm generally fine with this.

I agree with John.

The uh expanding past the four car maximum seems unnecessary.

If someone really needed more, they could always ask for a waiver to build more.

It just seems to be asking to build more impervious surface than is sure, even if you have a high school student home that's that's not necessarily gonna end up with three cards, and there's so many ways you can deal with that.

That just seems unnecessary to me, but it's not that big a deal.

Um those are my comments.

So um, shall we take a vote?

I'm an unenthusiastic because the parking uh yes.

You have to tell 10 degrees to signal that.

All right.

Well, it could be an abstain because uh uh I think the parking is just a gratuitous when really the issue is the size, not the parking.

True.

Hitchbiker's thumb.

Gosh, maybe we could just make it on a condition, but maybe we could just make a note of that, you know, like a comment, not a condition, but just something that can be.

I would appreciate that.

Are folks uh okay with that putting a comment that this was an unnecessary part of the amendment.

It'll leave more room for those canopy trees.

Chuck and and Wes, are you okay with that?

That's a yes and uh okay.

All right.

Okay.

On to the next one.

Yeah.

Um, so I I think at fingers crossed, I think we've entered kind of the speed round in terms of um topics.

Well, we could pull you don't take this.

Yeah.

So uh the next bit I know is something that you all have talked about in the past, um, and that's in eliminating mandatory parking minimums.

Um we know it's a it's a step in the right direction.

Um for the logic wonks out there, it's it's necessary but not sufficient, right?

Like uh the town getting out of the business of regulating parking minimums in and of itself isn't gonna fix the problem, but it opens the door um to people that that may be willing to to go uh go low with parking minimums.

Um so that's our proposal.

Um I know there have been some concerns about what are the kind of knock-on effects of neighboring properties um that might see parking kind of start to spill over into um residential areas.

Um again, because of all these other impact or other pressures that impact how much parking a development needs to have on site.

We think it's pretty a pretty minimal risk, um, but certainly something that we'll we'll watch and um adjust course if needed through um you know on street parking requirement or on street parking enforcement um through our existing systems.

Okay.

Any um questions for Taz.

I'll have a question, Taz.

Did you consider maximums?

We did.

Um maximums are are the one thing we we know will will actually put some pressure, downward pressure on parking.

Um the problem there is how local maximums play with all these other pressures I've alluded to, right?

The the expectations from uh you know corporate policies from lenders, investors, uh customer expectations, they all have you know a really significant impact on how much parking a project you know doesn't need to have in a regulatory sense, but still how much parking the project needs to have.

Um and we we just we don't want to get in a situation where um we're putting projects in a kind of a an unwinnable situation where complying with our standards means that their investors walk or their lenders are unwilling to underwrite um a project.

Um and I will just add to that, you know, we have we have seen projects um kind of die on the vine in part because of uh parking issues where projects have um you know acknowledged and accepted kind of lower parking ratios, and that has contributed to you can't at all lay all the blame on that, but it has contributed to making it more difficult for them to um attract necessary capital.

Yeah, and Wegmans really uh needed to expand their parking lot.

Yeah, Wegman's Wegman's kind of overcorrected in in obviously the opposite direction, and and now they are trying to to correct for that.

Um I guess it wouldn't have come to y'all, uh maybe as a concept plan, but I can I can't recall.

Um they're actually looking to they're looking to modify their SUP and actually sell off um that's unused parking.

That did come to us, yeah.

Um discussion.

There's no one member of the public coming.

Yep.

Okay, discussion.

I had a question actually, Liz.

Um yeah, for Taz.

Um could you explain why some of the categories have higher maximums in the town center districts versus non-town center?

That that seems counterintuitive to me.

Um I honestly don't know that much about the logic of the existing parking maximums.

Um I could potentially ask Josh for a lifeline on that one, but um again, I think a lot of those standards are based on just kind of empirical observation of of what is typical uh in the context of uh you know whether you're in a more urban or suburban setting.

Yeah.

Um are there ones that jump out?

I think our our goal is always to have lower in uh town center than elsewhere.

Well, I'll have to look for that.

But yeah, with I may have misread it because my headings were uh not carried over.

I got I had a print version I was working off.

Um but okay, let's see.

Oh, wait a minute.

No, more area, less area.

Nope.

Actually, it's my interpretation.

It was per flow.

Never mind.

I I might I might I was misreading it.

I was misinterpreting.

You'd be right on the minimums, but uh for the maximums, the higher the square footage, the better.

Yeah, yeah.

John Mueller My rhetorical question is what took you so long?

Um also not very serious note.

Um might want to cram down those parking uh maximums on East Rosemary Street until we start making money on that parking garage.

Yeah.

Um but that's just a sort of uh a joke.

On a more serious note, um at some point in the future, probably not anytime soon, um, the town's gonna have to um add to its repertoire of neighborhoods that have you know parking permit or zone parking systems.

And um it might be useful in peacetime to figure out what the mechanism is for like a neighborhood to request that or to put it in place.

Um I mean, it might be another five or ten years or more before this is actually necessary, but um somebody, I have no doubt is gonna complain about the possibility of negative externalities in their neighborhood, and there's not going to be enough street parking, there already isn't, it'd be nice if the town could just come back and say, Oh, we've thought about this.

If this becomes a problem, here's how you submit the request to have a parking uh zone system put in your neighborhood, and here's the criteria we use to evaluate that.

Okay.

Um other comments?

I will just say this makes sense to me.

Uh let's take a vote.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so moving along, um, next recommended change um is around manufactured home communities.

Um the the proposed change would essentially do two things.

One, it would define quote unquote existing manufactured home community as a as a new use, and that's just any manufactured home community that is currently on the ground as of the effective date of the the ordinance.

Um then it establishes that those are permitted uses in in the zoning districts in which they exist.

Um and what that does is it it really just creates kind of a a stronger and more legitimate legal status for those communities.

Um, you know, to a T, they're almost all currently considered uh non-conforming uses throughout town, which means that um they were I I think I can speak uh exhaustively here, but to my knowledge, all of the existing manufactured home communities were actually established before they were even part of the town.

Um they were annexed into the town as our boundaries grew.

And so they were ostensibly legal under county zoning when they were established.

Uh but then as our rules uh came into effect uh were imposed on them, our rules said you know, you were you were not a permitted use.

And so that's this non-conforming status that we um kind of imbue on properties.

Um it basically says that you can continue to exist, um, but you can't expand.

You can't uh move nonconforming buildings so that the individual mobile homes in one of these communities can't be moved, it can't be expanded.

Um the the site itself is really limited in how it could be improved over time.

Um so it really locks in um these communities into standards that we know a lot of residents aren't aren't happy with.

Um and so giving them kind of permitted status, um just it creates an opportunity um for for the communities to evolve over time um and improve to meet the needs of their residents.

Okay.

Any questions, clarifying questions for Taz from the public discussion.

Okay, pick about seems reasonable.

Okay, all right.

Speed round.

Yep.

Um so next one is um kind of a a technicality that we've been wanting to fix for a while now.

This notion of allowing multiple permitted uses on the same zoning lot.

Um, you know, we currently have this kind of convoluted system of you can have a permitted use, a permitted principle use, and then accessory uses on one zoning lot.

Um that really makes kind of genuine mixed use development really difficult um from a buy-right perspective.

Um if you've got, for example, a commercial zoned district um where both you know commercial development and townhomes, for example, are allowed by right, or some amount of multifamily is allowed by right.

Um you've really got to split hairs to to make that work um and likely wouldn't be able to make it work under our current zoning rules.

Um so all that this does is is kind of clarify that um as long as we've established at that legislative level that within the same zoning district, two uses could exist just side by side, you know, neighboring lots, um, we don't have a problem with those being on the same lot um without having to go through the rigmarole of saying that one use is kind of clearly the predominant use over the other.

Um so again, it's it's all to an eye of greater by right, mixed use development.

Um questions from the public discussion, John?

Just to point out that um one of our matrix rows and also an important element of the complete community strategy is to encourage mixing of uses, and I think that's consistent with this proposed change.

Any other comments?

Voting.

Okay.

All right.

Um last bit, um, signs.

So um our sign code is one of the the elements of our land use management ordinance that uh is actually the most widely interacted with um uh in terms of just kind of business owners having to to make improvements to their property.

Um and it is it's difficult, right?

We we've put in place kind of these older, very aesthetically driven requirements um that um just make it very difficult to navigate and in some cases just make it very difficult to comply with.

Um and so we're proposing just a couple of small tweaks.

Um one would be to update the uh the minimum letter height requirements for some of our sign types.

Um we kind of counterintuitively regulate both for certain sign types.

We say how big your overall sign can be, um, but then we require you to have letters that are at least a certain size.

Um so if you are a place of worship with a very long name, or if you're a business with a very long name, um, but a sign that is limited in size, it just becomes a headache that that isn't driven by any real planning purpose.

Um the smaller letter height that we're proposing fits within NC DOT's kind of safety standards for lettering.

Um and so there isn't just there's no legitimate reason for us to have the the larger lettering requirements that we currently do.

Um in a similar vein, we we have these restrictions for something called the raceway of a sign.

Um it's kind of the metal superstructure that the the individual letters of a sign are attached to.

Um I'm sure all of y'all have either driven by or visited the cookout on Elliott.

If you think about that sign, you know, it's it's individual letters that are all kind of connected to some structure.

Um we very regular very heavily regulate what that connecting structure looks like.

Um so all we're we'd be saying here is that um that superstructure, right, just the thing that holds the letters together um can be larger than what we currently allow.

Um and then the last bit is um within a lot of our residential zoning districts, um, including some of our uh blue hill districts and our um higher density residential districts that support multifamily uses, um we're very prescriptive and limiting in what types of signs developments are allowed to use.

Um and so we're proposing kind of peeling that back a bit and saying that you know you are you're allowed to use a wider ray, a range of or excuse me, a wider array of signs.

Um I'll just you know got some examples of the types of signs that we would say are allowed in um residential zoning districts, uh, including our our residential, our primarily residential um blue hill districts, so wall signs, awning signs, um you can see the examples here, they're relatively innocuous.

Um we would just be allowing them in more zoning districts.

Questions.

You don't like with the second one, if cookout, for example, had this eased restriction, what would it look like?

Would it be bigger, taller?

Is that is this like a height thing or no?

The the overall sign really wouldn't change.

Um cookout would um, you know, again, potentially the like metal bar that connects all the letters in the cookout sign.

Um we'd be saying that that could be a bit bigger.

Um, or I don't want to quantify it by a bit.

We're saying it could be bigger.

Um and it just again, it makes it easier for folks to find ways to comply with the rules, but doesn't drastically change what the the aesthetic considerations would be.

So it seems like these uh standards apply more like you allowed larger signs on higher speed roads, uh arterials and such.

Is that right, Taz?

And I mean, if say the sign regulations change if, for example, the miracle of uh lower speed limit might happen.

I think those also exists uh today.

That that is uh how we regulate our signs today.

Uh-huh.

So we wouldn't be changing that.

Yeah.

And in the broader LUMO rewrite, that is something that we should we should question um the impact of that.

Um we typically don't want to tie land use rules to something that's that's variable, like like speed limit.

I was just gonna add Libby.

I saw that um Atlas Blue Hill has a sign on Ephesus Church Road, and it's a kind of a cool sign design, but it seems a little small for the size of the building.

So maybe maybe they're restricted in a way that it's just not proportionate to the building.

It's kind of weird.

I I will say if you look at uh the WR zoning district, it sure is Atlas Blue Hill and nothing else, huh?

Yeah.

And the one sign type that I think you know I mentioned um kind of objectionable sign types.

I think the one that um we we are not changing permissions for our um crown signs.

Um so these are these like very large signs at the top of a tall building.

Um we're not not changing where those would be allowed because I think we've we've already established that those those are certainly not um you know, reasonable or uh in a in a residential zoning district.

Okay.

Any discussion or anything from the public?

Did I already ask that?

Nope.

Um discussion.

Everyone's ready to sign off, huh?

That was a joke.

Yes.

Okay.

Um and then this is just a reminder um of the the procedures for the evening.

Um again, because this is uh it is uh a happy moment that we're finally able to take uh or consider some some real action on Lumo and move past the uh the discussion phase.

So uh it does come with uh an ask on on your recommendations for this evening.

Okay, well, why don't we take on the consistency with the comprehensive plan first?

Libby uh did we cover module 11 on recreation?

Oh I can I can speak to module 11 really quickly.

Um it is what you'll find throughout are changes that acknowledge that subdivisions are gonna become administrative approvals.

Um so you're you're largely seeing, for example, throughout module 11, um wherever we have things that speak to town council, we're shifting that to town manager, um, areas where there was some level of discretion, right?

The the town may do XYZ.

Um those are all things that were written with the kind of thought process in mind that it was gonna be planning commission or or town council um that was gonna be making those decisions.

Um it was inappropriate to begin with to say that those are may requires because again, in the context of an administrative decision, there either needs to be a you either require it or you don't.

Um and so we've just kind of made you know technical corrections throughout to make sure that it reflects the change in who's making the decision.

So these aren't substantive changes.

What's I'm sorry, I didn't go and look at what's in the lumo now for this section.

Yeah.

Some things jumped out at me, some details on this one, but maybe it's all again with the the eye towards making sure that it it fits kind of the new scheme of staff are gonna be making these decisions.

Um I think the thing that comes closest to um say closest to a sub like a substantive decision um is around um the impact of providing a greenway um as part of your required recreation space.

Um we're trying to create again the the old rules said that the count the town could require uh dedication of uh of an easement for greenways.

Um again, that's kind of problematic as is because it in it injects a level of discretion into a process that isn't actually discretionary.

Um and so to kind of adjust that and make it fit with a purely staff-driven process.

Um we basically said that you you're you're heavily incentivized um to provide um an easement for your greenway, and you are very heavily incentivized to actually build the greenway in accordance with the town plans.

Yeah, some of that language was a little bit it still says may um anyway, it was a little confusing to me, but yeah.

And I think I think what you're speaking to, Libby, is that it says that um it what we used to say is that the town may require, we now say that the the developer may provide the thing.

So the the discretion is up to the developer as to whether they do it or not.

Um, but we're creating a situation in which they're they're incentivized to do it.

Okay.

Okay.

Are you comfortable with that, Libby?

Um, yeah, I think it's some of the old language that hasn't changed that um like you know, requiring that recreation space be along a public road, maybe it could be along a public greenway instead.

Um, they're just some tweaks I think that could make that a little more friendly.

And um, yeah.

And I will say the you know the recreation requirements are gonna undergo kind of a a sub like a ground up overhaul in the full rewrite.

So the goal here was again it's primarily just technical changes to align it with the other stuff.

Yeah.

Josh, did you want to say something about it?

No, I don't think I had anything to add.

I mean about our process going forward.

I because I had said, why don't we vote on the consistency?

And I thought you were maybe gonna say something about that.

Uh no, I think the consistency is good.

Um I know uh it's in the online agenda, but maybe not in the PDF that I sent y'all.

Uh we do have a draft resolution of consistency.

Um then I think we have the comments that y'all have on the ordinance itself.

Um let's why don't we start with the consistency?

Does anybody see any reason why the all these this omnibus of changes is not consistent?

Okay, anyone want to I'll motion that uh it is consistent uh with the comprehensive plan.

Second.

Okay, so let's go ahead and take a vote.

John Yes.

Chuck.

Yes.

Wes.

Yes, Libby.

Yes it's reasonably consistent.

Uh sure, I might prefer to abstain.

Okay.

Either way, which one do you want to pick?

I'll abstain.

And I'll say yes.

Okay.

So Josh, do you how do you want to do you have some perhaps some how do you suggest we vote on this?

Here's what I have as the comments that planning commission currently has on the ordinance.

What I heard was a clear recommendation to remove the site plan review on the North Side and Pine North Conservation Districts.

I heard uh a desire to keep the requirement for at least two hearings for uh conditional zonings.

Um and then I heard the specific uh we would like to record our comment about parking at duplexes, but not recommend it as a change comment.

Um if there's anything else planning commission would like to add before making a motion to either recommend or deny.

Um I thought there was a couple other points.

Does anybody let me look at my notes and see?

I know this we did vote for the um the uh plan the uh concept plan, but uh it was definitely not that was far less unanimous, and so I was hoping to have at least a comment that that was that was a very much a mixed vote.

Uh but I thought there was also one other comment that we were going to add.

Does anybody remember?

Let me just do a quick look through everything.

Everybody quickly review your notes, see if there's anything else.

Is there anything on the flag lots?

Or the two family housing.

We already did the parking thing.

Nothing's sticking out to me in my notes.

Just for for what we have, Liz, it might be um, I'm not sure it's gonna be legible to the council, like why we why, the why we have these comments, you know, and it might help just to have a little more explanation, which you know you could take on, or I could take on.

We have um a little time before the 22nd to just wordsmith that a bit.

Yeah.

Um, I think there was also discussion about the trade-off with both um with the various sub-amendments under, I think it was the sub-amendments under the subdivision.

Uh minimum lot size and whatnot.

Yeah, and the tree cover.

And there's just a lot of discussion about um having a better sense of what those trade-offs are.

Okay.

Um, I think if y'all want to capture some deeper comments, I'm happy to record that there was discussion about those.

If y'all want anything deeper than that, I think we would ask y'all to make a motion on this and then provide the comments to council.

Okay.

What does everyone think about that plan?

Does that work?

Oops, didn't mean to put my hand up.

Well, I think if we're gonna provide supplemental comments beyond, you know, individual comments like what Jeff had, but as a commission, to me, it's more user-friendly to just have it all in one place in the same document.

So what if we just in the past for you know, conditional rezonings, for example, we've um had the details of the matrix, you know, ironed out sort of after the meeting by the leadership of the planning commission, and it can be reviewed, you know, emailed, and if people object to something, they can say so.

But in that case, we could wordsmith this and still have something that's effectively voted on, you know, to the council.

Yeah, I mean I like that idea, and I think particularly like N C D comment, just having the couple reasons in there.

Um, you know, just our reasoning is important.

Yeah.

Well, I don't think it'll prevent us from voting voting on it now.

No.

Yeah.

I I think if that's the case, um, if there are things that y'all definitely want to record prior to it going to council, that would be tonight.

I think uh council's gonna get these materials uh next week.

Um so it gives us a little bit of a turnaround time, especially if planning commission hasn't had a chance to review and vote on the finalized materials.

But okay.

So we will vote on this, and we won't go beyond these topics that we're voting on there, but we will flesh them out so that they're more uh understandable.

Right or more convincing.

Yeah.

So if that's the case, um, I think without context of the discussion, which we would want to flesh out later, it would be this as the motion that we're but you're saying we could flesh out the top and the the things you've just erased?

Yes.

Uh I think you could flesh those out.

I think uh I think those aren't conditions, it's just commentary.

Right.

Yeah, I heard the the kind of comment that if we want the commentary all together, that might be best in one document.

I see.

Okay.

That makes sense to me.

Does that uh everybody okay with that?

And could we flesh out after the meeting the basis for those conditions that we're seeing on the screen now?

Just a little more color.

Yeah, yeah.

I think that would work well in a document with the comments.

Yeah.

Okay, fine.

Oh, that goes in the comments or the comments are pulled out into their own separate document.

I'm confused now.

So we would just vote on on what um oh, I think Taz has some concern.

Um no concerns.

Um, just wanted to kind of help clarify kind of the um, I think the the maybe the most above board course of action.

Um so really whatever Josh puts on the screen um that y'all are comfortable with um whether it includes some level of additional commentary or not, um, as long as you kind of clearly delineate your your motion to say uh we are making this recommendation with this text as approved during the planning commission meeting.

Um and then the motion itself can include kind of uh an authorization um to provide additional uh language or kind of supplemental language um to that document.

Um you just want to make sure that as that document gets fleshed out, um it's very clear, like what was the what was the language that was on screen in the meeting, and then what's the language that gets added afterwards okay?

Um we can do that.

And Josh, when do you need the final version that everyone is seen?

Uh I know the agenda will go out uh essentially on the 15th.

Um I think as early as possible.

Our agenda materials for the 15th are due tonight, tomorrow.

So okay, well then why don't we um just try and finish this by the end of tomorrow?

Wes, are you volunteering to write all these up?

No, I mean just just for clarification.

Um it says, oh, we don't want people in the north side or in pineals to have site plan review notification.

That's not the reason we're doing, you know, we're making that because it's procedural and confusing, and it's just if if it just said, oh, we don't want the neighbors in those neighborhoods to be notified, it's kind of doesn't tell the whole story.

It's just making sure we get it our reasoning captured.

So Wes, your job is to write a couple sentences on that.

Sure.

Okay.

Why don't we put this up and we'll all agree who's gonna write what?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh the second one is about not of having multiple hearings to allow input.

Anyone want to volunteer on that?

Well, that was Wes's idea.

Um, what was your idea, Wes?

Can you write both of those?

Yes.

So okay.

Um, Josh, can you put in the others just so we can see what they are?

There was the four parking spot duplex thing.

I can do that.

Okay.

Uh and then the concept plan, I can do that.

And then Planning Commission discuss change.

Um Libby, do you just want to take a stab at the um the tree canopy and impervious surface for the um lot sizes?

I'll try to do that.

Okay, can everyone send this to me by tomorrow?

I'll collate them all.

Send them back around so everyone has a day to uh review.

Yeah, I'm just gonna send it to you right after this meeting.

I'm gonna write like three or four sentences.

That's it.

Yep, that's good, but some people might need to go do other things now.

So ideally get it ASAP.

Josh, can you add um impervious to the third bullet under the discussion items, tree canopy and impervious surface?

Yes, I I will say the motion that we're asking y'all to make tonight is this, and then the conversation is about the tree canopy and the impervious.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Um so do we have a motion?

I'm happy to motion to recommend to the council that it approve this omnibus package of amendments to the LUMO, subject to the conditions written on the screen a moment ago, and also subject to subsequent elaboration comments uh that we'll provide along with it.

Second is there second.

Second.

Okay, Wes seconds discussion.

Okay, we will vote.

Chuck.

Yes, Libby.

Yes.

Yes, John.

Yes.

And I'm a yes.

Okay.

Phew.

Whoo?

It's right.

Just want to say thanks to Taz.

There was a very nice uh set of materials that we got in advance of the meeting.

Nice presentation.

Yeah.

Thank you all very much for your time.

Hope you're all have a good night.

Yeah, your practice round, huh?

All right.

Well, um Josh, do I remember there was one other comment on the agenda?

Well, one other thing is scheduling.

Um, I think we are uh pretty set for October 21st.

Um, I assume no one wants to meet on election night.

Uh I think if planning commission is comfortable canceling the November 4th meeting, we can proceed with the November 18th meeting.

Um, and then for December, I think if there was any reason to reschedule from the second, I think we're only counting on one December meeting and one November meeting.

Um so November seems pretty clear that that third week should work.

It's not the week of Thanksgiving.

Um, and December, we could do the first week to stay away from the holidays if there's anything that uh starts to get scheduling conflict-wise.

Okay.

That sounds reasonable.

All right, I will remove the November 4th and December 16th meetings from the calendar.

Okay.

All right, everybody good with that?

Anyone have any issues?

These are all gonna be online for now.

We for now we plan to do them online.

I think one of the items at our uh either late October or early November meeting will be uh here are the options for in person.

What does planning commission desire to do?

Okay, great.

Well, thanks, Josh.

You also uh held held forth throughout, so that was great, and thanks for keeping those notes.

And I think we are done.

Thank you.

Thanks, Markeith, for zooming us.

Motion to adjourn.