AGENDA #1

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Public Hearing on Land Use Management Ordinance (Third Draft)

 

DATE:             October 28, 2002

 

 

Tonight’s Public Hearing has been called to hear additional comments and information regarding a proposed Land Use Management Ordinance for Chapel Hill.  A Public Hearing on the Third Draft of this proposed ordinance was opened on September 18, 2002, continued to October 21, 2002, and continued again to tonight. 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight is an opportunity for additional citizen comment on the proposed new Land Use Management Ordinance, and an opportunity for the Town Council to focus on key “decision points” that have emerged in review of this Third Draft.  We identify 17 such key issues in this memorandum, in a format that summarizes how each issue is addressed in the Third Draft, offers a “Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation” on each issue, and also identifies possible alternative approaches for each issue.  We suggest that the Council offer direction on these key points.  We also include, as Attachment 3, an “Inventory of Ideas” that we intend to forward to the consultant.

 

This memorandum is structured to summarize and organize the comments that have been made to date.  Following the Council’s discussion tonight, we intend to work with the consultant on this project, Mr. Mark White of Freilich, Leitner, and Carlisle, to incorporate suggested changes and produce a Final Draft.  It is our intention to have this document, incorporating the changes that have been requested, by mid-November, and have that document on the Council’s November 25 agenda for consideration.  Enactment of the new ordinance would be possible at that time.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Town Council has been working since January 2001 to revise Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance.  A Third Draft of a proposed new ordinance, called “Land Use Management Ordinance,” has been under community consideration since August 2002.  A Public Hearing on the Third Draft was conducted on September 18, 2002.  A copy of the Manager’s memorandum from September 18 is attached (Attachment 4).  At the conclusion of that evening, the Council recessed the hearing to October 21, and also asked the Manager to prepare a set of procedural suggestions to present to the Council on October 7. 

 

On October 7, the Manager suggested that the Council schedule a Public Information Meeting for October 24, a Citizens Workshop for October 26, and that the Council schedule an additional evening of Public Hearing for October 28.  On October 21 the Council took action on two time-sensitive items that are being considered in the Third Draft:  changes to duplex regulations, and changes to nonconforming status regulations.  

 

A full report on the background of this project appears as Attachment 1.

 

REVIEW OF SEPTEMBER 18 PUBLIC HEARING

 

The September 18 packet presented the Third Draft and was accompanied by attachments that offered information on the background of this project, highlights of changes between the second and third drafts, staff comments, a paper on parking requirements, a set of responses to issues related to electric utility lines, and copies of the Town Council’s June 10 direction to staff and consultant.  All materials, including the Third Draft, are available from the Town Clerk.

 

The following topics were raised during the hearing, either by citizens or Council members:

 

1.      Neighborhood Conservation District

2.      Process for minor subdivisions

3.      Underground electric lines

4.      Restrictions on primary height limits

5.      Parking maximums

6.      Front-yard parking restrictions

7.      Floor Area Ratio restrictions for SF – two family

8.      Occupancy restrictions

9.      Tree Ordinance

10.    RCD:  Stricter requirements close to streams

11.    Raise RCD elevation from 2’ above regulatory floodplain to 3’

12.    Require variance for streets/bridges in RCD

13.    Width of RCD protected area

14.    Restrictions on building on Steep Slopes

15.    Impervious Surface restrictions

16.    Stormwater management regulations

17.    Nonconforming status of undeveloped land

18.    Definitions of Intermittent and Perennial streams

19.    Renewable energy references

20.    Discretion for Town Council

21.    Discretion for Town Manager

22.    Housing Costs

23.    Applicability to UNC

24.    Lighting

25.    Floor Area Ratios for Town Center

26.    Use of Herbicides

27.    Effects on property values

28.    Effect on pending Downtown recommendations

29.    Schedule/Process/Notification

30.    Unintended consequences

 

Attachment 2 discusses each of these 30 topics.  The first 17 of these topics fall into the category of what we have described as key “Decision Points,” and will be further discussed below.

 

The hearing was recessed until October 21, and then recessed again until tonight.

 

REVIEW OF ACTION ON OCTOBER 21

 

On October 7 we identified two issues being considered in the amendment to Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance as being particularly time-sensitive: regulation of duplex dwelling units, and proposed changes to nonconforming rules.  (Please refer to the October 7 and October 21 memoranda, attached, for full discussion.)

 

At its October 21 meeting, the Council enacted an ordinance that restricts – until June 30, 2003 – construction of new duplexes in districts zoned Residential-1, Residential-2A, Residential-2, and Residential-3.  The ordinance change also restricts conversion of single-family dwellings to duplexes.   The Council directed the Town Manager to return before June 30 with additional options for the Council to consider regarding duplexes. 

 

The Council also enacted an ordinance on October 21 to clarify that existing development which may not comply with newly changed rules could continue to be used, repaired, reconstructed, and in many cases expanded.  Please refer to the October 21 memorandum, attached, for a full discussion of this issue.  At the conclusion of discussions on October 21, the Council recessed the Public Hearing until tonight.

 

REVIEW OF OCTOBER 26 WORKSHOP

 

On October 26, a Citizens Workshop was held to review how provisions being proposed in the Third Draft would affect specific development sites.   The format mirrored a previous workshop in May 2002, which examined four existing developments to see how proposed changes might have altered designs.  We will present tonight a summary of the conclusions and observations from this workshop.

 

DECISION POINTS

 

This is an important and comprehensive document that is under review, and many issues have been raised over the course of 22 months of community review.  Many of these issues have been addressed by revisions to drafts, and recommendations for additional revisions, but others remain as points of discussion.  We have already noted in this memorandum the list of topics that were under discussion at previous public hearing nights.  The task is now to pull it all together.

 

Attachment 3 compiles a list of ideas that have been offered, ranging from correcting typographical and formatting errors that have been spotted to substantive suggestions that appear to have consensus support.  It is our intent to ask our consultant to incorporate all of these suggestions in the Final Draft.

 

As we review all of the material that has been generated in the discussion of this ordinance, including citizen comments made at Council meetings, advisory board meetings, and through correspondence, we find that remaining areas of community disagreement become discreet and identifiable.  We offer a summary of 17 “decision points” - - areas where it is not clear that there is consensus, and where significant policy issues are at stake.  The issues are:

 

 

 

 

 

This summary begins on the following page.
 

DECISION POINTS:  SUMMARY OF OPTIONS

 

October 28, 2002

(Note:  For discussion of each issue, please refer to Attachment 2.)

 

Topic	Provisions in Third Draft	Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation	Alternate Option
1.        Neighborhood Conservation District: Threshold for Petition	51% of owners	Same as 3rd Draft	75% of owners
2.       Process for        Minor Subdivisions        (4 or fewer lots)	Final action by Planning Board	Same as 3rd Draft	Final action by Manager
3.       Burial of 3-phase electric lines	Presumption that lines will be buried, unless it is demonstrated that burial cannot be required under present law	Same as 3rd Draft   Seek legislative authority to require all lines to be buried	- -
4.       Restrictions on Primary Height Limits	20’	24’	29’  (present regulation)
5.       Parking Space Maximums	Establish maximums, very close to minimums   Provision included giving Council authority to approve parking above maximum levels upon demonstration of need	Establish maximums, with maximums approx. 25% above minimums   Keep provision to give Council flexibility in reviewing proposals	Delete maximums

 

(continued on next page)

Topic	Provisions in Third Draft	Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation	Alternate Option
6.       Front Yard Parking Restrictions	Extend Townwide	Same as 3rd Draft	Continue to apply only in Historic Districts
7.       Floor Area Ratios for Single-family/ 2-family	.30	.40	Do not apply Floor Area Ratios to Single-family, Two-family dwellings
8.       Occupancy Restrictions	Rely on management of physical features	Limit occupancy to no more than 4 unrelated individuals	Limit occupancy to no more than 3 unrelated individuals
9.   Tree Ordinance	Reduce threshold for specimen tree to 18”   Protect Stands of Trees   Partially extend coverage to SF/2-family	Same as 3rd Draft	Keep threshold at 24”   Do not extend to single-family/2-family
10.  RCD:  Stricter requirements closest to stream	Yes	Same as 3rd Draft	No;  have same regulations throughout the RCD
11.  RCD:  Raise RCD Elevation from 2’ above regulatory floodplain to 3’ above, and return to 2’ when new flood maps are prepared	3’	Same as 3rd Draft	2’ (same as current)
12.  RCD:  Require variance for bridges and streets	Yes	No.  Allow with SUP	No.  Allow as permitted use

 

(continued on next page)

 

 

 

Topic	Provisions in Third Draft	Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation	Alternate Option
13.  RCD Boundary: Distance from Stream Bank	150’	100’	Variable (wider for perennial, narrower for intermittent streams)
14.  Steep Slope Restrictions	5% Impervious Surface limit  for 15% slopes   Variance required for 25% slopes	For 25% slopes, land disturbance limited to 50% of steep area	For 25% slopes, land disturbance limited to 15% of steep area
15.  Impervious Surface Restrictions	Extend Townwide   Entire site to comply	Extend Townwide   Apply restrictions to newly-developed portions of a site (grandfather existing impervious surface)	Do not extend Townwide.    Keep focus on Water Supply Watershed Areas
16.  Stormwater Management Requirements	Control for rate, volume, and quality   Require plans, controls for single-family and two-family dwellings disturbing more than 5,000 square feet of land area	Same as 3rd Draft	Do not control for volume.   Do not extend requirements to single-family and two-family dwellings

 

(continued on next page)

Topic	Provisions in Third Draft	Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation	Alternate Option
17.  Nonconforming Status of Undeveloped Land	Undeveloped Land must meet all new requirements	RCD:  Applications approved 1984-present subject to RCD boundary in place at time of approval   RCD:  Allow expansion of non-residential uses lawfully established within RCD, similar to allowance for expansion of single/2-family uses   Steep Slopes:  New standards apply     Floor Area Ratios: New standards apply     Impervious Surface: New standards apply	RCD:  Applications approved 1984-present subject to boundary and standards in place at time of approval   Steep Slopes: Standards in place at time of approval apply   Floor Area Ratios: Standards in place at time of approval apply   Impervious Surface: Standards in place at time of approval apply

 

We suggest that the Council consider offering guidance on these issues, to direct how the issues will be addressed in the Final Draft.

 

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

 

We have previously noted that, if the Third Draft is enacted as currently proposed, staff resources will need to be allocated as described on September 18 and summarized below:

 

Regarding Stormwater Management regulations:  We note that the proposed rules would increase the need for staff resources for plan review and evaluation, and for inspection of stormwater management facilities constructed on private property.  It may be possible to meet some of the needs through contractual services.

 

Regarding applying Tree Protection Regulations to single-family and two-family lots:  If this provision is included in the new Land Use Management Ordinance, we believe that additional resources will be needed to assist the Urban Forester in the Public Works Department.  It may be possible to meet some of these needs through contractual services.

 

Regarding increased information and standards to be applied to construction of single-family and two-family dwellings: If these provisions are included in the new Land Use Management Ordinance, we recommend that steps be taken to add resources to work with builders/owners, evaluate submitted plans, and issue Zoning Compliance Permits prior to issuance of Building Permits for construction of single-family and two-family dwellings.

 

The amount of resources that we will need will depend on the final form of the ordinance that the Council enacts.  We will include a discussion of projected resource needs in the materials that are presented to the Council on November 25.

 

ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Advisory Boards are completing additional review of the Third Draft.  A compilation of comments will be distributed on Friday, October 25.

 

NEXT STEPS

 

At the conclusion of discussion tonight, we recommend that the Council recess this Hearing, to be continued on November 25.  Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will work with the consultant on this project to prepare a “Final Draft” reflecting the ideas in this memorandum and tonight’s discussion, to present to the Council for possible enactment on November 25.  We will include alternative options in our materials for November 25 that could be selected for key points.

 

PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION

 

We include in this memorandum a set of preliminary recommendations on key issues, and include an attachment that summarizes many of the ideas that have been offered.  We recommend that the Council recess this Hearing, to be reconvened on November 25, and that the Town Manager present a revised “Final Draft” at the November 25 meeting.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      Background of Process (p. 1-1).

2.      Review of Issues Raised at September 18, 2002 Public Hearing (p. 2-1).

3.      Inventory of Ideas (p. 3-1).

4.      Previous Manager’s Memoranda (October 21, October 7, September 18) (p. 4-1).