COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMITTEE

The Comprehensive Planning Committee of the City of Raleigh met in regular session on Wednesday, November 12, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Raleigh Municipal Building, 222 West Hargett Street, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present:

Committee Staff

Chairman Russ Stephenson, Presiding City Attorney Tom McCormick Councilor Kay C. Crowder Interim Planning and Development Director Councilor Bonner Gaylord Ken Bowers Councilor Eugene Weeks Planning and Zoning Administrator Travis Crane

Chairman Stephenson called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. All Committee members were present. Councilor Weeks led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Item #13-01 – Tree Conservation Areas

The following information was contained in the agenda packet:

This item was referred to the Committee at the March 4 City Council meeting as a result of a petition of citizens. The petition requested that the City Council examine the recent changes to the tree conservation regulations with the adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance.

The Committee last discussed this item on March 26, 2014. The discussion included the relationship between transit corridors and the requirement for a 50-foot tree conservation area adjacent to a thoroughfare. Staff will provide an overview of the existing tree conservation regulations and identify areas of the City where policy guidance conflicts with Code requirements.

Planning and Zoning Administrator Travis Crane provided a brief PowerPoint presentation containing the following information.

Tree Conservation Areas (TCAs) Petition of Citizens delivered to City Council Examine TCA as a primary save area Consider administrative alternates Last discussed by Committee in March Staff directed to identify conflicts between urban development and thoroughfare yards Sites two acres and greater must preserve 10% of site area as tree conservation Comprehensive Planning Committee November 12, 2014

Code describes a hierarchy of tree save areas – primary and secondary

Primary Secondary SHOD-1 and SHOD-2 Thoroughfare Trees Parkway Frontage Perimeter Buffers Conservation Management Trees 10" dbh MPOD Champion Trees Zone 2 Neuse Riparian Buffer Steep Slope (45 degrees)

Difference between primary and secondary Must save the primary, even if it exceeds 10% If site has multiple primary areas, these areas must be retained If no primary areas qualify, may save the secondary areas

During adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Planning Commission recommended alternates to TCA regulations:

Save more trees (1.3x) Increase riparian buffer Locate adjacent to another TCA Save "fully stocked" area of trees Save healthier stand of trees

Would only apply to secondary tree save areas

City Council chose not to include the alternates. Thoroughfare trees were removed from the secondary TCA list to the primary TCA list.

Primary Secondary SHOD-1 and SHOD-2 Perimeter Buffers Parkway Frontage Trees 10" dbh Conservation Management MPOD Champion Trees Zone 2 Neuse Riparian Buffer Steep Slope (45 degrees) Thoroughfare Trees

Potential Conflicts UDO introduces frontages – specify "build-to" (buildings must be located within window, for example, 0 to 20 feet or 10 to 30 feet; pushes building up to the street; indicates urban form is important to the City) UDO also mandates that townhomes and apartments construct in a "build-to" Build-to regulations trump tree conservation regulations

2 Comprehensive Planning Committee November 12, 2014

Do thoroughfares and policy guidance for frontages overlap?

Map titled "Major Streets and Urban/Hybrid Frontages" – shows thoroughfares where conflict exists between the building and the trees Slide showing thoroughfare and perimeter TCA Slide showing UDO primary TCA

P&Z Administrator Crane distributed copies of a December 7, 2012 memorandum from the Tree Vigilance Committee (former members of the Tree Conservation Task Force) to the Mayor regarding the UDO and tree conservation. The letter, which was reviewed and discussed during the adoption of the UDO, summarizes the TVC's concerns with proposed changes to the tree conservation ordinance. The major points are the TVC does not believe alternates should be introduced and the tree conservation regulations should remain as they are.

Chairman Stephenson pointed out the TVC is a well-balanced group. Council has already voted on this, and he asked what has changed that would cause the Council to reconsider this. P&Z Administrator Crane replied the City Code changed between Part 10 and the UDO vis-à-vis thoroughfare trees. He thinks the Request and Petition of Citizens was in direct response to that, i.e., the requirement to save thoroughfare trees and anything else in the primary TCA was considered onerous to site development and would create a challenge and impediment.

Chairman Stephenson asked how the Council decided frontages should trump tree save areas. P&Z Administrator Crane said that during development of the UDO there was a fair amount of conversation about conflict between the build-to and the trees. In the areas Council identified as appropriate for increased urban form, urban form should take precedence over the trees along the thoroughfares. That is why a statement was placed in the UDO that a build-to condition takes precedence over thoroughfare trees. Chairman Stephenson said he does not remember voting on that, and Mr. Crane said he does not know if there was a vote or not as Council did not vote on every line of the UDO. It was probably part of the discussion about Chapter 9. (Clerk's Note: Chapter 9 is titled "Natural Resource Protection.") Mr. Gaylord remembered the discussion, saying it would have put the City in a Catch-22 situation where existing trees on a site would have to be maintained and the build-to condition becomes irrelevant. A site with trees near the thoroughfare would have to save those trees and the building would be placed away from the street, while the next site might have existing trees in the back of the lot that would have to be saved and the building would be placed closer to the street. This would result in a snaggletooth appearance on a thoroughfare. The Council ended up going with the consistency argument so sites would look similar along their frontages. Chairman Stephenson suggested consistency would only be provided by Council mandating a particular frontage along a particular thoroughfare or stretch of thoroughfare; decisions made on a case-by-case basis could result in that snaggletooth appearance. P&Z Administrator Crane said that was part of the previous discussion and staff's response at that time was to apply the urban frontages through the remapping process or through any subsequent rezoning action along the corridor where Council deems appropriate. If Council does not think it is appropriate, then a frontage should not be mapped.

3 Comprehensive Planning Committee November 12, 2014

Chairman Stephenson commented that the UDO is still in its infancy in terms of staff and Council working out issues that arise. He would like to examine possible case studies of frontages and TCAs, especially with regard to keeping thoroughfare trees on the primary TCA list. Mr. Gaylord commented that consistency along corridors puts the responsibility on the Council for mapping corridor frontages more aggressively so Council achieves its intent and Council should be proactive about this.

Councilor Crowder asked about the impact of designating a frontage along a certain corridor instead of leaving the corridor as is. P&Z Administrator Crane explained if a frontage is applied in a certain area, a building will be between "x" and "y" feet of the street, and that was the intention of the frontage zoning classification. Tools for preserving trees include TCAs as mandated in UDO Chapter 9, Special Highway Overlay Districts (SHOD-1 and SHOD-2), and Parkway frontage. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are four Urban frontages that can be designated for areas where Council wants more urban form. All of this is done through the zoning context. Chairman Stephenson reiterated that case studies would help the Committee and the Council determine the impact of various approaches to tree conservation, frontages, and urban form and help Council decide what will work best. He believes this is preferable to a wait- and-see-what-happens approach. He suggested case studies could be provided to the Tree Vigilance Committee as well.

David York, Esq., 434 Fayetteville Street – Suite 2800, Raleigh, NC 27601-2943 – Mr. York stated the unofficial Technical Review Group that shadowed the City and made comments on the Comprehensive Plan and UDO during the UDO adoption process included many of the Tree Conservation Task Force/Tree Vigilance Committee members. He read the December 7, 2012 memorandum from the TVC and said it is important to clarify they were concerned about the proposed rewrite of the alternate means of compliance in the UDO. Part 10 had a general terms alternate means of compliance for the secondary tree areas and that was an "equal to or greater than" kind of test, i.e., a property owner/developer could substitute a secondary TCA if he could show it was an area equal to or greater than the Code requirement. That had been used relative to the thoroughfare tree save area because under the old Part 10, thoroughfare trees were the first of the secondary group. The gist of the 2012 memorandum was to keep the status quo and not change the TCA regulations. However, that is not what happened. At the end of a long meeting, at the suggestion of Deputy City Attorney Ira Botvinick and without much discussion, Council moved thoroughfare yard trees over to the primary list from the secondary list. Attorney York said he would be surprised if some of the signatories to the 2012 memorandum would agree to that as a response to their memorandum. It was that concern which brought about the Request and Petition of Citizens from attorney Mack Paul in March. With the exception of thoroughfare trees, everything on the primary list is either champion trees, environmentally-sensitive areas, or a mapped zoning amendment so that the area was studied. There are test cases but they are not making it to the City because developers are finding out they cannot execute their projects, especially during this interim time period when part of the Code applies and part of it does not. If a property is currently zoned O&I-1 and a developer wanted to build apartments, they are not UDO apartments so the developer does not have the benefit of the build-to. This situation requires people to go through a rezoning request or wait for the citywide remapping to occur. Attorney York has looked at several plans where it has been difficult to devise something to present to City staff because of the thoroughfare yard tree save area being primary and the

4 Comprehensive Planning Committee November 12, 2014 inability to develop what has been consistent in the area around them without having to go through a rezoning or wait for the citywide remapping. He pointed out that most frontages are on thoroughfares and Parkway frontage is a TCA. Saving trees along thoroughfares is a good thing, but it should be implemented through a planning process instead of an across-the-board regulation. Attorney Mack Paul requested further study of the entire issue of TCAs, and requested that thoroughfare trees be returned to the secondary list in the interim. Parkway frontage is available for those areas where the Council wants tree-lined thoroughfares, and it is still the first secondary tree save area. The Planning Commission prepared objective criteria for the UDO to allow a person to substitute a TCA. The TVC wanted to keep the ordinance as is, but Council did not do that. Council removed the TCA alternate option and moved thoroughfare trees to the primary list. This has created difficulty in developing property, especially corner lots.

Chairman Stephenson said when Council decided to move thoroughfare trees to the primary list, part of the discussion was that developments being built along thoroughfares were removing all the trees and that was not in keeping with the Council's vision for the City, particularly green corridors between mixed use centers. He would like to have another conversation with the TCTF about moving thoroughfare trees to the primary list so he could better understand the members' point of view. He asked Mr. York to elaborate on his comment that savings trees along thoroughfares should be implemented through a planning process instead of an across-the-board regulation. Attorney York responded that most TCAs on the primary list are designated as some sort of environmentally-sensitive area. SHOD-1 and SHOD-2, MPOD, and Parkway designations were put in place through a planning exercise/rezoning process. Thoroughfare trees are the only category on the primary list that is not tree-specific (champion trees) or an environmentally-sensitive area. Thoroughfares are one of the areas that staff has designated for Parkway frontage in the remapping process that is going on now, and Parkway frontage provides the 50-foot tree protection along thoroughfares. Predictability was discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council during evaluation and adoption of the UDO because the public and the development community wanted predictability. Mapping frontages makes development more predictable.

Chairman Stephenson said that by putting thoroughfare trees on the primary TCA list, the idea is to err on the side of protecting trees until the City gets the frontages worked out. He would like more feedback from the individuals who wrote the 2012 memorandum and whether they would advocate for case studies. Each member of the Comprehensive Planning Committee member could ask for a case study and options for a thoroughfare whose appearance is important to him. Council is looking for corridor development predictability as well as site development predictability.

Chairman Stephenson asked staff about the best way to get coordinated streetscape frontages along thoroughfares. Interim Planning Director Ken Bowers responded the remapping places frontages along thoroughfares but not uniformly in every area. He suggested it would not be desirable for frontages to be uniform because the City may want to preserve the character of certain corridors. Staff took the guidance of the urban format and past zoning practices and replicated that by mapping Parkway frontages. Where the City has transit investments planned and where it fit with the general character of the area, Staff chose more urban approaches or

5 Comprehensive Planning Committee November 12, 2014

Parking Limited frontages. In areas where the City has strong policy guidance toward an urban approach, such as Downtown and Hillsborough Street, the areas were mapped Urban frontage. Most of the land in the City does not have a frontage in the remapping process, but a significant amount does. This should be part of a major part of Council's review because it has significant urban form implications.

Chairman Stephenson asked what a more logical approach would be rather than waiting for individual cases to arise. Interim Planning Director Bowers said the best way to assure a coordinated approach on many private properties is for the City to initiate the action and not wait for individual property owners to petition for a rezoning. This will result in a uniform, not piecemeal, approach. Council also needs to look at the policy guidance in the urban design element of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure it is giving Council what it needs in terms of guidance on frontage. The Urban Form Map was drafted based on adopted policy guidance, past zoning practice, and programmed transit investments. The Comprehensive Plan text states that corridor studies and area plans provide an opportunity to add new things to the Urban Form Map.

Chairman Stephenson suggested coordinated case studies might help address problematic situations such as those described by Attorney York. Councilor Crowder agreed that case studies would be helpful. Interim Planning Direct Bowers said staff is extremely busy with the remapping as it progresses through the process. He does not see an immediate solution to problems associated with properties that are in legacy districts and subject to the new tree conservations regulations; petitioned remapping is the way to address that. The petition remapping process would take a few months to complete, but subsequent approvals are by right.

Attorney York offered a potentially simple quick fix for projects in legacy districts. If someone is in a legacy district and is bringing in a building type that has a build-to under the UDO, treat the building type. By the time it is built and occupied it will be remapped and the building type will be where the UDO envisions it. Chairman Stephenson said an apartment type should not trump frontage. P&Z Administrator Crane pointed out the apartment building type has a build-to of 10 to 30 feet. Frontage, if applied, will trump the build-to.

Chairman Stephenson said he would be happy to look at particular cases to see whether or not they represent general cases. He is interested in hearing Mr. Crane's or Mr. Bowers' ideas as to whether there is interest in doing case studies to test the idea of being proactive in getting the appropriate character frontages along thoroughfares, and to start having that discussion in Committee. P&Z Administrator Crane said staff needs a little more information about what "case studies" means. Chairman Stephenson replied that Interim Planning Director Bowers had talked about character regions. Each Committee member has concerns about various thoroughfares, so if each member selected one thoroughfare or segment of a thoroughfare, staff could study how the City needs to transition between them and what needs to be done to take a more coordinated approach to applying frontages to obtain a more coordinated outcome.

P&Z Administrator Crane said what Chairman Stephenson is suggesting is engaging in a form- based zoning or area planning exercise among thoroughfare corridors for small subsets of the City, which staff did as part of the UDO development. Staff is hesitant to engage in site planning for sites the City does not own or where there is no current development activity. It does not

6 Comprehensive Planning Committee November 12, 2014 provide a great level of transparency for the property owner if staff makes assumptions about how a site might be developed in the future. He also worries about the City's resources for such an exercise. Chairman Stephenson said the Committee has talked about Avent Ferry Road and its character. At least one Council member and NCSU have strong feelings about it. Interim Planning Director Bowers asked if the intent is to bring the findings of the study forward as a recommendation for implication of placement on the zoning map. Chairman Stephenson said the first step is to decide whether to apply frontages or perform case studies and decide certain frontage applications are fraught with unintended complexities. Consistent and coordinated frontages will not happen on a case-by-case basis. They will have to be mandated. Interim Planning Director Bowers stated staff recommends a more participatory process if Council is planning to map something on the ground. Property owners and neighborhoods need to be involved.

Mr. Gaylord commented the Committee recognizes there are deficiencies in not having frontages mapped. He asked how staff envisions the City getting to a state where the correct frontages are mapped. Mr. Bowers replied that frontages are a tool staff did not have before. It can be deployed in one of two ways: creation of an area plan resulting in a recommendation that will be implemented through a remapping process, or adoption of a policy in the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Gaylord said he is not sure frontages will get a lot of public interest or engagement. Interim Planning Director Bowers responded many of the comments being reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of the remapping process are related to the frontage. When reviewing frontages, staff had to look at each lot along the corridors; it was not merely a mechanical application. One thing the City does not have control over is the existing pattern of the subdivision of land. When mapping a certain frontage there were times, given the way a parcel was configured, that it would not produce the intended result or was going to impose an unintended hardship for development of the property. In those cases, staff decided that even though the policy guidance was for a frontage for this lot, given the existing built configuration, the surrounding character, and/or the way the land was configured, it did not make sense to apply a frontage there. These are the types of complications staff would encounter and resolve through an area planning process.

Referring to the posted map of urban form and corridors titled "Major Streets and Urban/Hybrid Frontages," Chairman Stephenson confirmed that staff is recommending mapping of frontages on many of them, although it is not 100% uniform. Based on the guidance received so far, staff is trying to create continuity within character regions. Chairman Stephenson said based on what he has seen and heard so far, the Planning Commission has been 99% supportive of the frontages staff has recommended. P&Z Administrator Crane replied the Planning Commission members have been very supportive of them.

Chairman Stephenson suggested ranking the corridor frontages by priority. Interim Planning Director Bowers suggested deferring such action. One reason is the forthcoming Wake County transit strategy. One of the forthcoming deliverables is a more up-to-date warrant for what would constitute a frequent network map for bus service in Raleigh and elsewhere. In his opinion, the places the City is planning is intending to make significant investment in frequent service are the ones that should be the priority because of the amount of money involved in

7 Comprehensive Planning Committee November 12, 2014 providing the service. The City wants to ensure there is a land use response and that the City is ensuring a pedestrian-friendly environment form in the areas it is proposing to make transit a more significant part of the mix. Many of the corridors on the map today will probably be included in the Wake County transit strategy, but there may be modifications to them and the map may have to be revised at some point.

Using rezoning Z-16-14 – Avent Ferry Road, Chairman Stephenson said it is a transit priority corridor and the City expects to have, and already has, a great amount of transit there. However, that does not preclude assigning a Green or similar frontage there. People will be traveling from one mixed use center to another by bus, not on foot. Interim Planning Director Bowers suggested this should be looked at from the context of the way land is parceled and subdivided on Avent Ferry Road and how the land will be developed as a result.

Chairman Stephenson summarized today's meeting. He reiterated his desire to receive comment from representatives of the TCTF or TVC, perhaps in the form of a memorandum or report, regarding whether or not they support the idea of placing thoroughfare trees on the primary TCA list. The Committee heard Attorney York talk about the Catch-22 situation some developers find themselves in with regard to tree conservation and heard staff state they are moving as fast as they can. Staff recommends against making a precipitous change because rezoning is always an option. The Committee members want to see more consistent and coordinated frontage between mixed use centers. In the meantime, since the City is not ready to invest in a lot of small area planning, staff suggests including thoroughfare trees on the primary list of TCAs for now. Staff has stated they are under resourced and cannot do all the planning this Committee wants them to do, and that the Wake County transit strategy might change the City of Raleigh's thinking about frontages.

Without objection, Chairman Stephenson stated this item would be held in Committee in order to get a report from the TCTF/TVC.

Attorney York clarified he did not speak for the TCTF/TVC and whether they agreed with the Council's action or not.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the Comprehensive Planning Committee, Chairman Stephenson announced the meeting adjourned at 3:26 p.m.

Leslie H. Eldredge Deputy City Clerk

8