You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Growth on what conditions”.
Growth on what conditions
by Nancy Oates on November 20, 2017
• Permalink
Tagged conditional zoning
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 20, 2017
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2017/11/20/growth-on-what-conditions/
Previous Post
A win for Chapel Hill
A win for Chapel Hill
Next Post
Will we always have Paris?
Will we always have Paris?
Recent Comments
- Nancy Oates on We’re still here
- Deborah Fulghieri on We’re still here
- Pluramus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
- Nancy Oates on Greene Tract series continues
- plurimus on Greene Tract series continues
Blogroll
Categories
- 140 West
- Budget
- Business
- Carolina North
- CH2020
- Committees
- Community life
- Council Members
- County business
- Courts
- Courtyards of Homestead
- COVID-19
- Deer
- Downtown Chapel Hill
- Economic development
- Elections
- Environment
- Ethics
- Food Trucks
- Homeless Shelter
- Housing
- Land Use
- Library
- Lifestyle
- Media
- Museum
- Northside
- Occupy Protests
- Parking
- Police
- Politics
- Public Works
- Roads
- Sanitation workers
- Schools
- Social justice
- Spending
- Taxes
- Technology
- Town staff
- Transportation
- Trees
- UNC
- Uncategorized
- Work and Money
Tag Cloud
123 West Franklin advisory boards affordability American Legion annexation Bicycle Apartments bond referendum BRT Bus ads candidates Carolina Flats cell phones Central West CH2020 Charterwood Community Home Trust comprehensive plan county commissioners county government development Ephesus-Fordham fireworks form-based zoning Franklin Street Friends of Downtown Growth health care Historic District Commission historic districts Holidays Light Rail Obey Creek park-and-ride personalities real estate sales Rogers Road Shortbread Silent Sam students The Edge Timber Hollow towing traffic Trinitas VOEMeta
CitizenWill
/ November 21, 2017“Because approving CZ amounts to a policy change — essentially enabling town-wide spot-zoning — we need to take the time to get this right.”
Given Chapel Hill’s disastrous application of form-based code and development agreements, what is the compelling argument for another “wild-west” land-use change?
Nancy, the Council can’t continue to cede its responsibility to make thoughtful land-use decisions to a behind closed-door, staff driven process. The best option is to drop CZ completely as a proposed tool.
CitizenWill
/ November 21, 2017Oh, if Council needs a push to drop CZ, I suggest they take a little “class trip” to Morrisville and see the ugly outcome of “wild west” planning.
Nancy
/ November 21, 2017I agree, Will. There’s a lot about this that makes me uneasy: staff seeming to have a different understanding of how to use it; the rush to ram it through before the current council leaves office; the closed-door negotiations; the lack of differentiation with a development agreement process. Given that the manager and mayor claim that nothing is in the pipeline, I’m not sure why this needs to be pushed through before some reasonable limits are put on it.
plurimus
/ November 24, 2017RIght, I would not hold up Morrisville as an example of what Chapel hill aspires to.
In my way of thinking, CZ should be a tool to focus specific uses, offering more surety to neighbors and a less onerous process within CZ boundaries to developers in exchange. In other words it should reduce wild speculation in favor of a more mature vision.
Nancy
/ November 24, 2017Morrisville’s council approved CZ because a prior council had approved upzoning throughout town to spur growth, and CZ was a subsequent council’s way of tightening development. Also, Morrisville’s council has an “expectation” (can’t make it a requirement) that council members will not talk with a developer about a project until after it comes before the council and public in a concept plan review. Morrisville’s mayor and planning commission chair are well aware of how developers try to game the system.
plurimus
/ November 26, 2017My question then is do you think Morrisville is a model for Chapel Hill or do you think Morrisville’s mayor and planning commission chair found out how developers try to game the system the hard way?
Nancy
/ November 26, 2017They are two separate questions. Morrisville is not a model for CH, because Morrisville has the opposite problem. While Morrisville is trying to exercise some control over a town that is upzoned entirely in “general use,” CH downzoned most areas and now wants to make room for more growth. There are ways for CH to do that without giving carte blanche to developers, which is what CZ would do. Note that CHTC has turned down only one proposed development — Ayden Court condos next to Meadowmont — in the past decade.
plurimus
/ November 26, 2017so, no and yes?
CitizenWill
/ December 2, 2017Recent Councils have been terrible measuring obvious down-sides and objectively evaluating proposals.
For instance, the required sale of a ladder truck to underwrite completely anticipated or should have been known cost over-runs with Fire Station #2.
Citizens came forward explaining why the cost+plus arrangement with East/West Partners was a big mistake and also questioning the rather optimistic cost projections for Fire Station #2.
What happened?
The same-old, same-old “only upside” story.
Council ignored residents reasonable concerns. Staff participated in a lot of hand-waving and joined the “rah rah growth” chorus.
And, once again, a developer wins by externalizing the cost of their risk to Chapel Hill tax payers.
Got to say I think there is a growing number of residents who are getting more than tired underwriting the profits of developers like East/West for projects that don’t provide much – if any – community benefit.
http://chapelboro.com/news/development/chapel-hill-authorizes-sale-of-ladder-truck-to-help-cover-additional-260000-cost-of-fire-station-2
Deborah Fulghieri
/ December 2, 2017In going through some of my old planning board papers a few months ago, I found a question/answer list regarding changes made to the Form Based Code as presented to Council compared to what had been shown to the PB to work on. One question asked why, when Town Council had approved a Small Area Plan for the Ephesus-Fordham zone that called for 3- to 5-story buildings, did the Form-Based-Code district call for 7-9 stories. The answer: “staff” had decided that 7-9 stories was more appropriate than what the PB had voted on. I can go look for that if you’re interested. It’s from several years ago.
Nancy
/ December 3, 2017Thanks, Deb. That’s yet another reason I voted against the Conditional Zoning council approved last week. Staff and council are not on the same page. We put conditions in an SUP, and staff changes them, citing their ability to make “minor changes.” In discussing Conditional Zoning, the PB recommended that all proposed development projects get the input of the Stormwater Advisory Board early on, because flooding is a major concern of properties nearby and downstream from development. But staff jettisoned the recommendation because of the mirror image of “we’ve always done it this way”: “we’ve never done that before.”
David
/ December 7, 2017If staff continually undermine the intent of elected officials’ policy directives, it’s a problem. Stancil has been manager for ten years and during that time has shaped the town government in his image. His upcoming retirement presents an opportunity for a major housecleaning. I hope we take advantage of it.