SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, May 20, 2002, at 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Manager’s Intern Alan Windsor, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Principal Planner Rob Wilson, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, and Acting Town Clerk Vickie Hackler.
J.B. Culpepper reviewed the past dates for review of the drafts by both the Council and public, at Council meetings and public forums, in preparation of the work by the consultant for developing the third draft of the Development Ordinance over the summer, to be presented September 18.
Objectives for New Ordinance
· Neighborhood Protection
· Environmental Protection
· High Quality Design; Scale that fits
· Innovative Transportation Management
· Affordable Housing Mechanisms
· Downtown Vitality
· Citizen Involvement in Decision-making
Summary for tonight, Session 3
· Article 6—Special Regulations
· Article 7—Nonconformities
· Article 8—Administration
· Definitions
· Wrap-up
· Article 9—Legal
Article 6—Special Regulations for Particular Uses
· Concept: Some Uses Need Special Regulations (e.g., Car Wash)
· A few minor changes, relocations
· Key change to “Planned Development” to remove minimum lot size (Sec. 6.16)
Mayor pro tem Evans referred to references about setbacks and asked if it should be more flexible within the required setbacks. She said there were certain neighborhoods that setbacks for multi-family units could fit in nicely, like the McCauley Street apartments, in a single-family development.
Council Member Bateman pointed out, at the bottom of page 6-5, number 6.13, regarding Temporary Portable Building, Other Than Related to Construction, and asked if that meant mobile homes. Ms. Culpepper said it was not a reference to mobile homes. Mr. Horton said those types of buildings were not thought of as temporary, because they were required to be permanently attached and anchored, like other buildings.
Council Member Bateman asked about the removal of outdoor skate board ramps. Ms. Culpepper said what was removed was all the provisions for size of lots, and other regulations for the outdoor skate board ramps.
Council Member Harrison asked if drive-through pharmacies were allowed by the ordinance. Ms. Culpepper said that would be done through the Special Use Permit (SUP) by the Council.
Mayor Foy asked about 6.12–Service Stations, and asked why the Town would require a land area of 20,000 square feet. Ms. Culpepper said that requirement had been in the ordinance since 1981. She said she thought it had to do with the requirement for being 300 feet from an intersection. Mayor Foy said it might be well to reexamine this requirement, since the development of the Town is now more urban.
Council Member Strom said, in 6.16.1 (e) Relation to Energy Use, he would like to have the language linking it to the solar roof energy guidelines to meet the standards. He said the language was subjective. Mr. Horton said one of the difficult things was finding someone to help measure and determine how a building could meet that standard. He said they had been working with people referred by N.C. State University, but still had not been able to develop a method.
Ms. Culpepper said in that section, reference to neighborhood protection was also deleted and she was not sure why, but that would be brought up with the consultant.
Council Member Ward wondered if the service stations under debate a few years ago would have had a different outcome, if this ordinance had been effect. He said the neighborhoods had been concerned about the locations of the service station, and the ordinance should be concerned more with the footprint than the size of the lot of the service station, in determining what the intensity of use would be.
Article 7–Nonconformities
· Key Concept—Relocation Issues: RCD, Watershed nonconforming rules are now here. Key ideas from here moved to “Definitions”
Ms. Culpepper said the staff had suggested that the proposed 7.5 section regarding the Resource Conservation District (RCD) be left in the current ordinance section on Resource Conservation District, and the same would apply to 7.6 section regarding Development in Watershed Protection District. She said they would remain in Article 3.
Council Member Bateman asked where the Town stood on the issue of front yard parking. Ms. Culpepper said there were provisions in the Historic District presently, and there was discussion about provisions in other areas, but it had not been discussed in the conversations of the rewrite of the new ordinance.
Council Member Strom said he recalled a petition which had come before the Council regarding the issue.
Mayor pro tem Evans said 7.7 should be reworded, because it sounded like citations would no longer be issued for front yard parking. Ms. Culpepper said that would be a good place to remove the 7.7 provision.
Council Member Ward said he continued to feel that the issue of front yard parking should be discussed.
Council Member Bateman asked if, in the neighborhoods where there was no curb and gutter, and a person planted on the right-of-way, could someone else park over this planted area. Mr. Horton said the planting could be a risk for the homeowner.
Mayor Foy asked about 7.1, Nonconforming Lots, and wondered if it addressed the issues discussed previously about the Northside neighborhood. Ms. Culpepper said the provision remained the same and would not have affected the issues in the Northside neighborhood.
Mayor Foy asked if the ordinance could include an expiration date on the lots, even though platted. Mr. Waldon said some of the suggestions that had been made by citizens, advisory boards and Council, the consultant had put into the ordinance, which was that no building permit be issued for a lot unless there was demonstrated access to a Town-maintained street and service by public water and sewer utilities.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the ordinance would require that it be a 24 foot, or 20 foot street with curb and gutter. Mr. Waldon said the language said there were lots of Town-maintained streets with different dimensions.
Article 8 – Administrative Mechanisms
· Specify the roles of Council, Manager, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, Historic District Commission, and the Community Design Commission, on development issues.
· Remove Ordinance Requirement for Annual Meetings of the Boards with Council.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested that the wording in the first bullet be changed to the name for the Joint Planning Transition Area or City Limits. Ms. Culpepper said there was a State law that said the name could not be changed without a change to the State law.
Mayor pro tem Evans regarding 8.5–Community Design Commission (CDC), asked whether the CDC had final planning review on elevation, lighting, and landscaping. Ms. Culpepper said they did for building elevation and lighting, but no longer for landscaping.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that should be included under 8.5.5 (s) on page 8-14.
Council Member Harrison asked if there was a requirement that applications had to have a concept plan review. Ms. Culpepper said there was an ordinance that applications for a SUP go through the pre-applications stage.
Mayor Foy asked if there were any changes made to Section 8. Ms. Culpepper said the only change in Section 8 was the requirement that Boards have an annual meeting with the Council.
Council Member Bateman asked if the Council had already decided what the process would be with the CDC. Mr. Horton said that was one of the issues the Council did not finally decide. Ms. Culpepper said the options would be presented to the consultant on the June 10 meeting. Mr. Waldon went over the schedule for Council discussion and review on the proposed second draft of a new Development Ordinance:
· March 18—Review of Article 1, 2, and 3
· April 13—Review of Article 3, 4, and 5
· May 20—Review of Article 6, 7, and 8
· June 3—consideration of a compilation and list of possible revisions prepared and ready for a public hearing.
· June 10—Council to provide the direction they wished to give to the Town’s consultant for revisions and preparation of a Third Draft.
Mr. Horton said that the issue of front yard parking was brought up for discussion and was passed on to the consultant process.
Mayor pro tem Evans said this was complex, and she would have the Council forward suggestions to the consultant to come back with a recommendation as an either/or choice. She said this all had to work within the context of the whole Development Ordinance.
Article 9—Legal Status
No changes.
Key Regulations are Often Contained in Definitions
Mr. Waldon suggested that the Council pay considerable attention to the definitions, particularly those in the memorandum, which he discussed.
· Active Open Space—Need a new definition, to be coordinated with definitions for recreation and Outdoor Space.
· Affordable Housing—Very detailed definition, but without the benefit of recent Council discussions. Need to define in terms of housing affordable to individuals/families with annual incomes equivalent to 80% of Area Median, adjusted according to household size.
· ATM, Walk-Up—New Term to be Defined; Different Standards from Drive-up.
· Cluster Development—No change from current definition; recent discussions raise the question should unusable land be removed from consideration?
· Contiguous Property—Proposed change: “Property adjoining the outer boundary of a proposed development.”
· Cutoff Light—New definition, with illustration (graphics) showing cutoff fixture.
· Design Storm—New term proposed to be defined, related to Stormwater Management. Question: Define specifically here, or in Design Manual?
· Development—No change to definition; Definition Critical to Ordinance.
· Dwelling—Embedded in Definitions of Single-family and Two-family dwellings are key occupancy restriction; In context of recent discussions, may want review of these.
· Equivalent Residential Unit—Related to Concept of Affordable Housing Requirements for Non-residential uses.
· Glare—New definition, related to proposed lighting standards.
· Home Occupation—Key definition, prescribing Home Occupation standards; No changes proposed.
· Income Eligible Household—New Definition, related to proposed Affordable Housing requirement; Need to reconsider in light of recent affordable housing discussions.
· Income Limits—same as above.
· Land Disturbance—New definition, related to Stormwater Management.
· Major Bus Loading Location—New definition, related to proposed Use Pattern in Article 2, Transit-Oriented Development; Consider deleting, if action on Article 2 is deferred as recommended.