Ken Larsen's web site -
Form Based Code (FBC) used in Chapel Hill, NC
A version of Form Based Code (FBC) was adopted by the 2014 Town Council for
the Ephesus-Fordham District, but it differs significantly from that adopted
by other towns. The version
adopted by Chapel Hill is all pro-developers and anti-citizen.
For example, the Chapel Hill FBC:
-
Skimps on parking. The parking formula allows developers to
provide as little as 1.25 parking spaces for a 2 bedroom apartment.
In a town where students may live off campus and double up to save money
... each having a car ... this is woefully inadequate. [more
info]
-
Doesn’t permit shared parking between adjacent properties
-
Gives the Town Manager (Roger Stancil) exclusive right to approve or
reject development request.
There is no more public review.
-
No affordable housing
-
Minimal walkability
-
No provisions for green building/energy efficiency
-
Inadequate green space
-
No stormwater control
-
Inadequate traffic handling
-
Inadequate transit
If you
want to see an example of the damage that FBC has done, go visit the
Bershire Apartment building on Elliott Road. It is a massive structure
that has very little greenery, no affordable housing [rents are as high as $
2710/month], and an inadequate amount of parking. Currently, only a
small number of the apartments have been rented. [details]
Per the FBC, the entire Ephesus-Fordham could be built to mirror Berkshire
apartments. In my opinion, that would cause massive downstream
flooding because of the high percentage of impervious surface.
(August
30, 2017) Email from Beth Mueller, a Briarcliff resident:
It is very difficult to watch all of this go by without commenting.
I am sorry to have to ask you to indulge me a bit.
I was on the CDC a couple of years before the Ephesus Fordum and
form based code was a thing. We had the developer of the Colony
apartments come to us ( it was around the time of the flood). They had
planned a new high rise apartments. This was before the publiclly
assisted apartments were thought about that are now being built on the
town land beside the cemetery. It was a friendly design crit as we had
the habit of doing for anyone that asked us because they were interested
in what the CDC was thinking. At that time we asked them where all of
the people that lived in the Colony woods apartments would go if they
built the apartments they wanted to build? This is some of the most
affordable housing we had in Chapel Hill. The flood came up to the
backdoors of some of the apartments. I went and took pictures. I can't
remember if they actually had water damage.
They had not thought of the current residents. Those residents would
not be able to all be housed in the new apartments as they would not be
able to afford them. No matter what, all the new council members that
want to be on the town council that advocate for affordable housing will
have to accept we will lose these more affordable apartments, (but
perhaps they fall into the realm of being just above the mark to be
called affordable housing becaue I am finding that the term 'affordable'
has different meanings depending on who you are talking to- but
considering the official version....) The developer is required to have
a percentage of affordable housing, but on the whole, Chapel Hill would
be losing affordable housing apartments if they decided to put up a new
building. We told them we would not be in favor of Chapel Hill losing
these more affordable units. These tenants would have to move out of
Chapel Hill.
Those units, by the way, have some interesting storage to them.
There is storage for yard work people to have space for their mowers for
those that are in that business. That storage would also go away, and
the yard businesses run out of them.
We also said that part of the land may be in the flood plan and if
the land were developed, the footprint might not be able to extend as
far as it does now as some of these units are close to, if not in the
flood plane. They had acquired the property and had only looked at the
property from above on a map. I imagine it looked like a good investment
and now they have to deliver to their investors. Chapel Hill happened to
have the CDC at the time that had a great deal of control over what was
built. Nobody else in NC had a CDC as we had. I think it was a surprise
to them.
Then the next thing that was discussed was having just that area (no
other in Chapel Hill) have a form based code which allowed developers to
build high. We found out that a developer had warmed the couch of the
mayor to find out what could be done to develop the area. (The words of
the mayor was that he had had developers sit on his couch. I was there
when he said it) I suppose the developer found the CDC not welcoming the
type of development they wanted.
I spoke against the adoption of the form based code and the fact
that the CDC was NOT included in the planning of the form based code. At
the time we had just approved the Walgreens at Weaver Dairy and MLK so
you cannot say the CDC was too old fashioned and was not interested in
commercial property going forward or that we hindered the process of
responsible development. We had also just approved Shortbread lofts
downtown so you cannot say the CDC was not interested in higher
buildings where they made sense.
My thought is that the form based code was pushed by the developers
that did not think they could get what they wanted built within the then
current system of CDC review. (Berkshire)
There is A LOT of money at stake.
Before the CVS was built, I went on the developer website (now
closed to the public) as I got into the place for the for the investors
to look at the marketing at how much money could be made with a visible
CVS on that corner. They had the demographic of the people that lived
close by all the way into Durham. Argus development wanted a visible
CVS. I think that was one reason the form based code was passed. And if
they had wanted a two story building there, they could have had it as
the form based code would have allowed it. Argus didn't want that. They
wanted a visible CVS. If the ideas behind the form based code had been
followed, the second floor above the CVS could have had another business
in it. The old CDC might not have approved a blatant commercial CVS as
Chapel Hill had a precedent of keeping obvious typical commercial
looking buildings out. The thought was supposed to give the area more
charm and more of a feeling of home grown businesses that made up Chapel
Hill. Years ago the CDC had the power to ask the Red Roof Inn not to
have the iconic Red Roof as they did not want the area of Chapel Hill to
be over run with icons of businesses. When the Red Roof Inn was built,
the thought was to try to give the area a feeling of being in the woods
with business there, but more hidden. Trees were very important at that
time.
So now, it does not surprise me that the chamber of commerce of the
businesses in Ephesus Fordum had the town council rebrand the area. It
is another tactic. The CDC was not informed. The CDC is a group of
designers and has a history of looking at Chapel Hill develop. One would
think the council would take advantage of that group of talented
volunteers (free) to brainstorm with. I don't think this idea of
rebranding came from the Town Council, I think it came from the
developers.
What would be interesting is if UNC had the money to have some sort
of residential maker space type of business incubator in the area of
colony woods apartments. A place where residences of people that wanted
to start businesses in Chapel Hill could live and work ideas off of each
other. One great need is to have a place where the businesses that are
started in Chapel Hill can stay in Chapel Hill while they get off the
ground. It is a known fact that they cannot stay in Chapel Hill as there
is no space for that and it is cheaper to find space outside of Chapel
Hill. They also cannot afford to live in Chapel Hill. Hence we lose that
revenue of taxes when the businesses take off.
Unfortunately something like that would not happen. There is SO MUCH
money to be made off of this tiny piece of land that we would have to
have a very strong and forward thinking council to not bow to the
commercial landowners. I am now waiting for the climate 2020 that the
town council wants the new buildings to follow to also go by the wayside
in this Blue Hill Development. That forward type of thinking demands
that developers step forward with some real design work in that
direction. It is interesting the CDC now has people on it that have
histories of knowing buildings that do follow 2020. One would think the
Town Council would take advantage of the knowledge on the CDC rather
than hold the developers accountable to a form based code. If the
Council would free the CDC back up to help the developers design to the
climate 2020, we could have some really interesting things happen. - but
we won't. The people leading the town council are still the developers.
The community lost their advocate in the CDC when form based code
was passed. The CDC had had the power to ask what a developer was going
to give the communtity when say...the community lost the ability to walk
from one side of the shopping center to the other side of the shopping
center. Before we could have asked the developer what the developer
would give the community in return. We also could have asked the public
be allowed to have access to courtyards. To have community living rooms
was something I advocated in projects when it made sense when I was on
the CDC as that type of coffee house meeting space was taking the place
of having someone over for coffee in one's own living space. How truely
lovely it would have been for the public to have gained an
architecturally interesting outdoor courtyard get-a-cup-of-coffee
meeting space out of the Berkshire in return for their freedom to go
from one side of the shopping center to the other...ah...but that was
the CDC before form based code. One cannot put that type of bargaining
into a form based code.
When I tried my best to convince the new ABC store to put a green
roof on their new building over at MLK at the shopping center near 40
they basically told me that it came down to having an expense that they
did not have to take on. Even though it would be helpful to the
environment and they could do it...etc..etc...it was not required. I now
sit back and watch a town council that wants the climate 2020 but I
don't think will follow through with leading developers in that
direction because they accept the story the developers say about how
much it takes to build and how much revenue they get from the building,
that the margin is so tight they cannot build to 2020 (which is not
true, everyone is going to have to go that way). We would have to have a
strong council that leads/demands of developers and the history of the
town council is in a different direction from that.