AGENDA #2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Adjustments to Land Use Management Ordinance
DATE:
This memorandum presents proposals
for changes to
BACKGROUND
On
When the Council enacted the Ordinance, it directed the Town Manager to begin keeping a file of ideas and experiences related to administration of the new regulations. The Council called a Public Hearing for January 2004, one year after enactment of the Ordinance, to afford an opportunity to make any changes or adjustments that the Council deems appropriate.
The Council also directed the Town Manager to bring immediately to the Council’s attention any provisions in the Ordinance that were creating serious and immediate problems in administration of the regulations. We have taken three such issues to the Council for action:
In addition, the Council has identified three specific issues that are to be considered at the January Public Hearing, all resulting from additional study that has been ongoing. Those are:
Consideration of duplex regulations is especially time-sensitive, because the current prohibition on new duplexes in the Residential-2, Residential-2A, and Residential-3 zones expires at the end of February 2004.
INVENTORY OF IDEAS
As requested by the Council, we have been keeping an inventory of ideas and issues that have been raised which suggest consideration of changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance. We have grouped these ideas into three categories:
When the Council set the process for consideration of changes it was not possible to predict how many issues might arise for consideration. The number of issues brought forward was substantial and exceeded our capacity for adequate staff work. Therefore we have recommended deferral of some items, as listed below.
In order to help structure consideration of all of the ideas that have been raised, we offer the tables that begin on the following page.
We also have prepared a marked-up
version of the Land Use Management Ordinance, using strikethrough for
recommended deletions and underline for recommended additions. That document is approximately 300 pages
long, and is available for review in the Town Clerk’s Office, the Planning
Department, the Chapel Hill Public Library, and Community Centers at
First category: Correction of Error
|
Issues Identified |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
|
1) Delete “minor arterial” in street
classification system. (Sec. 3.5 and
Table 5.6.6-1) |
We
no longer distinguish minor arterial from principal arterials. |
|
2) Add “sorority” in table of uses. (Table 3.7.1) |
We
believe that the word was inadvertently left off the table. The definition in Appendix A states
“Fraternity and Sorority.” |
|
3) Add appeal of minor subdivision to Board of
Adjustment (Section 4.10). |
The
Planning Board now approves minor subdivisions (instead of staff). Appeal of a decision is to the Board of
Adjustment, and needs to be included in the list of actions that can be
appealed. |
|
4) Add special standards for “Places of
Worship” in the Rural Transition district. (Section 6.17). |
There
currently is a requirement that a Place of Worship must be located on an
arterial or collector street if located in a low-density residential
district. The Rural Transition
district was inadvertently omitted from the list of low-density districts. |
|
5) Clarify intent of “expansion” regulations
in the non-regulatory floodplain portions of the Resource Conservation
District (Section 3.6.3(i)(3)). |
The
existing ordinance language erroneously includes “expansion” in paragraphs
that are titled “reconstruction.” |
|
6) Adjust secondary height limit in TC-1
district (should be 60’). (Table 3.8-1) |
We
believe that this was a typographical error when information was transferred
from Development Ordinance tables to the Land Use Management Ordinance. |
|
7) Correct error that requires 21% recreation
area for development in the Rural Transition Zone (Section 5.5.2). |
Language
was incorrectly transferred from Development Ordinance to Land Use Management
Ordinance. |
|
8) Correct errors regarding height limits for
spires, chimneys, antennas, flagpoles, cupolas (Section 3.8.3). |
Language
was incorrectly transferred from Development Ordinance to Land Use Management
Ordinance. |
|
9) Insert a comma between “carport” and
“garages” in definition of floor area (in
Definitions). |
Typographical
error. |
|
10) Adjust section references and
cross-references. |
Several
references are inaccurate. |
|
11) Correct several typographical and
formatting errors. |
Typographical
and formatting errors will be corrected. |
Second Category: Clarification of Intent and Adjustments to
Avoid Unintended Consequences
|
Issues Identified |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
|
12) Add cumulative provisions to the land
disturbance thresholds triggering stormwater / tree protection requirements. (Section
5.4.2(b)(2) for stormwater, Section 5.7.2(b)(6) for tree protection.) |
In
both cases, requirements are triggered if more than 5,000 square feet of land
is disturbed. We believe it should be
specified that the 5,000 foot threshold is cumulative - - that is, a property
owner could not avoid requirements by applying for two consecutive 4,500
square foot projects. |
|
13) Clarify definition of land disturbance. (References in Section 5.4.2(b)(2) for
stormwater, Section 5.7.2(b)(6) for tree protection.) |
We
believe it would be useful to clarify that routine maintenance of landscaped
areas is not land disturbance that triggers requirements. Adjustment is made in Appendix A,
Definitions. |
|
14) Do not require that creation of townhouse
lots by subdivision, as part of a Council-approved Special Use Permit, need
further Planning Board approval. (Sec.
4.6.3(a)) |
We
believe that, once the Planning Board and Council have reviewed and the
Council has approved a Special Use Permit, it is redundant for an applicant
to then return to the Planning Board for additional review of a plat that was
contemplated in the original application. |
|
15) Clarify meaning of “access” to street (Section 5.8.1). |
We
believe that it would be helpful to clarify that adequate access means direct
access or access via a recorded easement across an intervening lot. |
|
16) Clarify that “Total Suspended Solids”
standards in stormwater requirements apply to the incremental impact of
development of a property. (Sec. 5.4.6(a)). |
We
believe that it would be helpful to clarify that the requirement to remove
85% of suspended solids from runoff in a new development refers to 85% of the
additional suspended solids that are the result of the development activity. |
|
17) Clarify floor area requirements for
single-family, two-family, and Planned Development scenarios. (Table 3.8.1 footnote (l)). |
We
believe that the footnote accurately reflects the Council’s intent in placing
limits on floor area, and do not recommend any change. |
|
18) Clarify intent of a “Common Development Plan” (Section 5.4.2(b)(2)). |
We
believe it would be helpful to clarify that a “Common Development Plan”
refers to an approved Special Use Permit or Subdivision. |
|
19) Adjust Buffer requirements to be internally
consistent Table 5.6.6-1). |
When
the Land Use Management Ordinance was prepared, the schedule of required
buffers was inadvertently altered in a manner that creates
inconsistencies. We recommend going
back to the original schedule of buffers from the Development Ordinance. |
|
20) Clarify what is a “registered trademark”
for signs (Section 5.14.5(a)). |
Current
language restricts signage display to the name of a business, and “registered
trademarks and registered service marks . . . if proof of registration is
provided.” In practice, we have found
that once an application for State or federal recognition of a trademark is
issued, considerable time can elapse until recognition is finally given. Accordingly, we suggest adjusting the
language to allow trademarks and service marks to appear on signs if proof of
registration or application for
registration is provided. |
|
21) Adjust permitted uses in the Resource
Conservation District regarding utility lines to private dwellings, and
regarding driveways for single-family dwellings. (Table
3.6.3-2) |
Utility
lines and driveways for single-family dwellings often must be placed within
the Resource Conservation District if there is no other alternative. We believe that the ordinance should be
adjusted to reflect that reality. |
|
22) Clarify the criteria to be considered in
revoking a |
Current
language refers to revocation, but does not specify criteria. We suggest that it be specified that a
permit can be revoked if conditions of the permit are violated. |
Third Category: Suggestions for Substantive Change
|
Issues Identified |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
|
23) Adjust regulations for establishing a
Neighborhood Conservation District:
delete Section 3.6(b)(2)(e), requiring notes to be recorded with deeds
for every parcel; clarify that Council
may appoint a committee to prepare a District Plan (Section 3.6(c)(2); adjust
the required components of plans and guidelines (Section 3.6(d)); add variance language for house size variances (Section 4.12.2). |
·
We believe that
requiring recordation for every parcel is unnecessary, and different from how
all other overlay zones are managed.
·
We suggest that
language be adjusted to clarify that the Council may choose to appoint a
neighborhood committee to develop a neighborhood plan, with Planning Board
liaisons.
·
We believe that
the current list of required plan components is too prescriptive. The “shall” should be converted to “may”
because not all neighborhoods writing a plan will have the same needs for
special standards in the same areas. · The Northside proposal calls for a maximum structure size for dwellings of 2,000 square feet, with the Board of Adjustment to be able to allow up to 2,500 square feet. Language needs to be added to grant that authority to the Board of Adjustment. · We suggest that the Council consider allocating resources to allow contracting for facilitators to work with citizens and staff in future Neighborhood Conservation District initiatives. |
|
24)
Adjust regulations for duplexes (Table 3.7-1, and adding new Section 6.19) |
We
suggest a combination of dimensional standards, coupled with Community Design
Commission review of plans for proposed duplexes to assure consistency with a
set of design guidelines. We
suggest the following Ordinance provisions:
·
Duplexes
permitted in R-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and all non-residential zones except Industrial.
(The duplex prohibition would remain in effect for R-2A.)
·
Maximum size of
entire duplex structures: 2,500 sq.
ft.
·
Maximum floor
area ratio: .40 (no change)
·
Maximum #
bedrooms per entire structure: 6
·
Minimum lot
size for duplexes is governed by density caps in each zoning district, or two
times the standard minimum lot size, whichever is greater. (no change)
·
Minimum
parking: two spaces per dwelling unit. (no change)
·
Reference to
design guidelines
·
Provision that
new duplex structures must have designs approved by the Community Design
Commission to assure consistency with design guidelines. We
suggest that the following design guidelines for new duplexes be adopted and
applied by the Community Design Commission:
·
A single front
door shall face street
·
Appearance
shall resemble single-family dwelling
·
Height of
structure comparable to nearby buildings · Garage doors not facing street, if practicable · Limit front yard parking as much as possible |
|
Issues Identified |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
|
25) Require a residential component for
Mixed-Use Planned Developments (Section
6.18.7). |
Current
language for Mixed-Use Planned Developments expresses intent for office,
commercial, and residential uses but does not specifically require a
residential component. We suggest
clarifying language, to call for a minimum of 25% of floor area to be devoted
to each of the three uses – office, commercial, and residential – in a mixed
use development. |
|
26) Reconsider requiring that all new parking
lots downtown have at least 20 spaces (Section
5.9). |
The
current requirement was put in place over 20 years ago, in order to promote
smooth traffic flow and avoid the proliferation of many driveways
downtown. We believe that is a
worthwhile objective, but that it is outweighed by the practicalities of
working with small downtown businesses.
We recommend deleting the requirement. |
|
27) For new lots outside the Urban Services Area, in
addition to the Health Department approval of the septic system, require a location
for a replacement field as well. |
This
provision has been suggested to us by the Orange County Health Department,
and we recommend including it in the Ordinance. |
|
28) Adjust regulations for small additions to
existing single-family dwellings, to make process faster, easier, less
expensive for minor applications (Administrative
Policies, budget). |
Many
of the concerns that have been expressed regarding long process for small
additions have grown out of a decision to require greater scrutiny for all
permit applications to confirm compliance with regulations. Many of these concerns have now been
addressed through an administrative action to allow “Express Zoning
Compliance Permits.” This express
option is available to property owners proposing minor additions, such as a
deck or screened porch . Processing
times for such applications have now decreased from 10-15 working days to 3-5
working days. A next step might be for
the Council to amend the fee schedule to reduce the $125 application fee for
a Zoning Compliance Permit if the proposal qualifies for express processing. |
Items Needing Further Study
|
Issues Identified |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
|
29) Clarify the relationship between building code and Land Use Management Ordinance definitions of floor area. |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall, 2004. |
|
30) Clarify land disturbance triggers for soil and erosion control requirements; coordinate with similar requirements in other documents. |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall, 2004. |
|
31) Adjust parking requirements (Section 5.9). |
Defer
discussions, pending completion of study that is currently underway (report
expected to Council in March). |
|
32) Re-consider the time frames specified for
action in the OI-4 zoning district (Sec
3.5.2). |
Consider
this matter in the context of any other related matters and determine whether
the Council wishes to initiate discussions with the University. |
|
33) Clarify formula for payment in lieu of
affordable housing (Sec. 3.8.5). |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council by June 2004. |
|
34) Reconsider using the “2-year frequency, 24-hour
storm event” as the basis upon which
calculations are made regarding how much stormwater (volume) needs to be
retained on-site. (Section 5.4.6) |
Defer
discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in
fall 2004. |
|
35) Consider how to handle porous pavement as
impervious surface (Table 3.8-1,
footnote (k)). |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
|
36) Clarify distinctions between water treatment requirements for runoff from public streets vs. private lots. |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
|
37) Re-consider
requiring stormwater management facilities on individual single-family lots (Section 5.9.2(a)). |
We
do not recommend re-consideration of this issue at this time. We continue to believe that the regulations
in place are desirable; there may be
value in reconsideration in the future, after there has been enough time to
evaluate systems that have been installed;
there is not yet enough experience with these regulations to perform
such evaluation now. We recommend
further consideration in fall 2004. |
|
38) Increase flexibility in “alternate buffer”
provisions (Section 5.6.8). |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
DISCUSSION
We have examined this list of 38 possible changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance, and recommend that 26 changes be made as described above. We believe that the first category of changes (Correction of Error) addresses typographical errors, omissions, and formatting inconsistencies.
The second category of changes offers language that we believe clarifies the Council’s intent in key sections where some ambiguity has been identified, or where strict application of language might result in unanticipated consequences. Except for item #17, which deals with floor area ratios that apply to Planned Developments, we agree that clarifying language is appropriate and helpful for all items as described in this category. For item #17, we have examined the floor area ratio in question and believe that accurately reflects the Council’s intent. Accordingly, we recommend all changes in this category except item #17.
The third category involves substantive changes. The category starts out with changes that have been suggested to Neighborhood Conservation District rules, ideas that grew out of the work of the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District Committee discussions. We believe these adjustments are appropriate and recommend them. The second item is duplex regulations. This is a significant and time-sensitive topic, and we have prepared a discussion of these provisions (please see attached Duplex Discussion Paper). Three other substantive items address requiring a residential component in mixed-use developments, deleting an outdated downtown parking requirement (requiring that all parking lots have at least 20 spaces), and requiring location of replacement septic fields when new septic systems are installed. We believe that all of these changes are desirable, and recommend them all. The final substantive item focuses on process for review and approval of small changes to single-family homes. We note in the table that we have taken steps to streamline this process, and recommend that the Council reduce the application fee for these small applications (recommended resolution is attached to reduce these fees).
The final category contains items that need further work before Council consideration or action.
NEXT STEPS
The Council called this Public Hearing to consider amending the Land Use Management Ordinance. Some of the items that were scheduled for consideration at this hearing are time sensitive (e.g., duplex provisions) and need consideration at the hearing. For other items, we have completed staff work on some, but not all items. In addition, we believe that some items need opportunities for community discussion that has not yet taken place (e.g., proposed changes to the OI-4 Zoning District). We regret that workload demands and time constraints have not allowed us to schedule full study and discussion of all of these items.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Council take action on those items that are time-sensitive and those items that are ready for action. For other items, we recommend future scheduling and consideration as workload demands permit. We have suggested time frames in the tables above, and seek guidance from the Council regarding how to proceed.
The Planning Board recommends that the priority for consideration of remaining items be as follows:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board’s
Recommendation: The Planning Board
discussed these proposed changes, and recommended that the Council amend the
Land Use Management Ordinance as described in the above tables. The recommendations in the tables include all
suggestions that were made by the Planning Board. On
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Board considered this list of proposed changes and voted on December 9, 2003, to recommend that the bicycle parking standards be stated in the ordinance as well as the Design Manual. Please see attached Summary of Action. We believe that the standards are the type of detail that is typically included in the Design Manual, and recommend that the details not be included in the ordinance.
Historic District Commission
Recommendation: The Commission
considered this list of proposed changes on
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend that the Council amend the Land Use Management Ordinance as identified in the attached Ordinance. We also recommend that the Council adjust the Application Fee Schedule as described in the attached Resolution A, adopt design standards for new duplex structures as contained in Resolution B, and adopt a schedule for future consideration of deferred items as described in Resolution C.
If the Council wishes to
reconsider provisions contained in the OI-4 zoning district, we recommend that
the Council schedule discussion of those provisions for a work session, along
with other related matters.
ATTACHMENTS
ORDINANCE
(Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation)
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS
FOR THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING JURISDICTION, AND
AREAS SUBJECT TO TOWN DEVELOPMENT REGULATION UNDER THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT
WITH ORANGE COUNTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of
the Town of
Section 1. Chapter 24 of the
Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows:
(Insert here Final Draft of the
Subject to the following changes:
Section 2. The new Land Use Management Ordinance shall
apply to all development approved after
this Ordinance becomes effective; provided, however, that Zoning Compliance
Permit applications, Site Plan Review applications, Subdivisions, Master Plans,
Special Use Permits, Development Plans, and Site Development Permits which
received final approval from the Town Manager, Planning Board or Town Council,
prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be subject to
Section 3. All Ordinances and portions of Ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective upon
enactment.
This the ___ day of _________, 2004.
RESOLUTION A
(Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING USER
FEE POLICIES AND SCHEDULES FOR THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council
of the Town of
Planning - Development Review Fees
This the ___ day of __________, 2004.
RESOLUTION B
(Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION REGARDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DUPLEX DWELLINGS, TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council
of the Town of
Community
Design Commission, Duplex Design Standards
1. A single front door to face street;
2. Appearance to resemble single-family dwelling;
3. Height of structure comparable to nearby buildings;
4. Garage doors not facing street, if practicable; and
5. Limit front yard parking as much as possible.
This the ___ day of __________, 2004.
RESOLUTION C
(Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation)
A RESOLUTION REGARDING
PRIORITIZATION OF EVALUATION OF REMAINING LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TEXT
AMENDMENT ITEMS IDENTIFIED AT THE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council
of the Town of
|
Clarify the relationship between building code and Land Use Management Ordinance definitions of floor area. |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
|
Clarify land disturbance triggers for soil and erosion control requirements; coordinate with similar requirements in other documents. |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
|
Adjust
parking requirements (Section 5.9). |
Defer discussions, pending completion of study that is currently underway (report expected to Council in March). |
|
Re-consider
the time frames specified for action in the OI-4 zoning district (Sec 3.5.2). |
Defer discussions, pending further study. We suggest that the Council schedule this topic for early consideration, to decide whether or not to initiate discussion and possible change. |
|
Clarify
formula for payment in lieu of affordable housing (Sec. 3.8.5). |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council by June 2004. |
|
Reconsider using the “2-year frequency, 24-hour storm event” as the basis upon which calculations are made regarding how much stormwater (volume) needs to be retained on-site. (Section 5.4.6) |
Defer
discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in
fall 2004. |
|
Consider
how to handle porous pavement as impervious surface (Table 3.8-1, footnote (k)). |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
|
Clarify distinctions between water treatment requirements for runoff from public streets vs. private lots. |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
|
Re-consider requiring stormwater management
facilities on individual single-family lots (Section 5.9.2(a)). |
We
do not recommend re-consideration of this issue at this time. We continue to believe that the regulations
in place are desirable; there may be
value in reconsideration in the future, after there has been enough time to
evaluate systems that have been installed;
there is not yet enough experience with these regulations to perform
such evaluation now. We recommend
further consideration in fall 2004. |
|
Increase
flexibility in “alternate buffer” provisions (Section 5.6.8). |
Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004. |
This the ___ day of __________, 2004.