SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She explained that Mayor Kevin Foy was not present because he was attending a national mayors' conference.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Jim Ward.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Principal Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Mayoral Assistant Emily Dickens, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 - Zoning Atlas and Land Use Ordinance Amendments to Create a
Neighborhood Conservation District for the Northside Neighborhood
Mr. Horton introduced Planning Director Roger Waldon to make a brief introduction. Mr. Waldon explained that a Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) is an overlay to the regular zoning district that has additional restrictions. Its purpose is to preserve, protect and enhance older neighborhoods that contribute significantly to the overall character and identity of the Town and are worthy of preservation and protection, he said.
Mr. Waldon noted that the process had begun with a petition from Northside residents. The Council had then appointed an Advisory Committee, which, together with the Planning Board, had developed the plan and recommendations that were before the Town Council tonight. Mr. Waldon reminded Council members and the public that this was a rezoning and subject to protest petition provisions under State law. A protest petition would be valid only if owners of 20% or more of the property to be rezoned had signed it, he said. Mr. Waldon noted that the Town had received protest petitions, but from only 7% of the property owners, which was not sufficient to trigger a valid protest petition scenario.
Council Member Verkerk asked how many signatures had actually been received. Mr. Waldon replied that there had been 8-10 from the approximately 400 properties being considered for rezoning. He recommended that the Council vote to rezone the property and create an NCD with the special requirements that the Planning Board had recommended.
Planning Board Chair Tim Dempsey stated that the Board had worked closely with the Northside Committee and that three Board members had actually sat on that Committee. He thanked the Town staff, Committee Chair Delores Bailey, and the many citizens who had helped throughout the process. Mr. Dempsey pointed out that many current Northside residents were from families that had been in Chapel Hill for many generations. Part of the challenge of this project had been to reclaim something that was on the verge of being lost, he said.
Mr. Dempsey noted that there had been objections to the Committee's plan. But, with the exception of one member who was concerned about the recommendation for no more duplexes, the Planning Board stood behind the Committee's recommendations, he said.
Northside Committee Chair Delores Bailey reviewed the process and presented a map showing the NCD's boundaries. She displayed pictures of structures that Northside residents do and do not like in their neighborhood. Ms. Bailey explained that the Committee had recommended a .25 floor area ratio. She also presented the following Committee recommendations:
· No New Duplexes
· Lower Height Limits
· Maximum House Size
· Floor Area Limits for Single Family Homes
· Additional Notification Requirements
· Design Standards to be Drafted
· Bathroom-Bedroom Ratio
· Use Underlying Zoning for Other Requirements
Ms. Bailey remarked that there still were things the Committee wanted to work on and/or change. The future of young people who live in Northside depends on these improvements, she said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that Council Member Greene had sat on the Northside Advisory Committee. Council Member Greene stated that it had been a pleasure working with the Committee, and would save her comments for later in the Council's discussion.
Northside Committee Member Jeff Caiola explained that there had been some dissent but a good, strong majority on all of the Committee's decisions. There had been a long tradition in Northside of arguing for some of the recommendations presented tonight, he said. Mr. Caiola noted that the Committee had recommended a 2,000 square foot maximum housing size, with an opportunity for up to 2,500 square feet. He pointed out that 84% of the existing structures in Northside were less 2,000 square feet. Most of the remaining 16% were larger duplexes that probably had been built in the last 20 years, he said. He added that those were not in keeping with the neighborhood's character but had become an accepted part of it. Mr. Caiola explained that the Committee did not want to see those houses torn down but wanted no further transition of the neighborhood.
Mark Patmore objected to the creation of the NCD and the underlying restrictions, which if passed, would encumber his properties. He wondered where the Comprehensive Plan proposes "the creation of inferior and second class neighborhoods as a goal," he said. Mr. Patmore predicted the proposed restrictions would cause a homeowner who wanted a larger home or additional bathroom to move to "the other side of the railroad tracks." He asked the Council not to approve this NCD because it would not achieve its goals, would put unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on property, and would place caps on his and other citizens' financial investments.
Columbia Street property owner Eva Metzger advised Council members not to include properties facing West Rosemary Street and North Columbia Street, from Rosemary to Carr Streets. These are commercial properties and the motivation behind the NCD was to protect residential property, she said.
Northside resident Estelle Mabry expressed full support for the recommendations in the report. Her house is 1,000 square feet, she said, adding that twice that big would be a fair size home. Ms. Mabry reminded the Town Council that it had been trying to preserve Northside since the mid-80s. The neighborhood finally had a report and recommendations that many people agree upon, she said, and she urged Council members to support those recommendations.
Rosemary Street restaurant owner Mildred Council said it would be unfair to require her to reduce the size of her home when and if she no longer uses it as a restaurant. She thought she was in the business district, she said.
Ms. Council reviewed the changes in Northside during the 57 years that she had been there. These included the civil rights movement, urban renewal, and the exodus of educated black people to other states to find jobs. If they wanted to come back to Northside and build a house there now there would be too many restrictions, she said. Mr. Council characterized the proposed NCD as a plan that "leaves black people behind." She asked Council members to teach black people what to do with their property rather than telling them they cannot sell it.
Northside resident Ruby Sinreich explained that has could expand her 839 square foot house under the plan if she chooses to do so in the future. She would consider the proposal a failure if everyone in Northside agreed with all the proposed changes, she said. Ms. Sinreich noted that those who benefit from the things the regulations are intended to stop might not like the proposals. But, she continued, she did not think the proposal went far enough, stating that she'd also like to see design improvements, such as having sidewalks and eliminating barriers between neighbors.
Northside Committee Member Esphur Foster, a lifelong Northside resident, mentioned times when she and others in her family had made the decision to remain in Northside. Once, after a fire had destroyed her home, she had remodeled it in a modest way to stay in keeping with the surrounding community, she said. Ms. Foster stated that structures larger than 2,000 square feet had compromised the design and integrity of her neighborhood. Such buildings had impacted Northside negatively by housing people who have no regard or respect for the neighborhood, she said.
Ms. Foster told Council members about cars parked on too narrow streets and front yards. She described the area as "fraternity row and party city," explaining that excessive trash from parties frequently remained until trash collection day and was often thrown into neighbors' yards. Ms. Foster stated that street games had caused disruption in traffic and that students had disregarded the one-way sign on her street. She complained about the increase in noise.
Ms. Foster commented that Northside no longer was a black community. She welcomed the diversity, she said, but wanted the neighborhood to remain a low- to middle-income working class one. Ms. Foster encouraged developers to come to Northside to remodel houses, bring them up to code, and create decent affordable housing. She was a not anti-student or anti-development, she said, but was against excessive parked cars, trash, playing in the streets, disregard for traffic signs, loud music and noise, and rude and disrespectful neighbors. Ms. Foster stated that she was against duplexes and also against large, ugly houses that are out of character with Northside. She asked the Council to carefully consider the Committee's recommendations and to help other neighborhoods that are facing the same problems.
Nick Eberlein stated that he had grown up in Chapel Hill and had spent a lot of time in Northside, which he remembered as a good, strong neighborhood. He lived in Northside for three months a couple of years ago, he said, and it no longer was the community he remembered. Mr. Eberlein described the current Northside neighborhood as a dangerous environment for children. He described it as a fourth generation neighborhood where people just want to continue raising their children. They do not want to live in a place "that's a large motel in the middle of downtown," Mr. Eberlein remarked.
Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Director Robert Dowling remarked that he was in support of duplexes in new developments. But Northside already was a developed neighborhood where the homes were affordable, he said, so he would support a ban on duplexes there if that's what the residents want. Mr. Dowling pointed out that property-generating and income-generating rights were at stake here, but adding that Northside would increase in value simply because of its location close to Town, UNC and UNC Hospitals. He noted that Northside could not be what it was 40 years ago, but the Committee's vision statement seemed to be forward-looking.
Mr. Dowling stated that maintaining a family atmosphere, providing affordable homeownership opportunities, and nurturing an environment that fosters a safe and proud community were goals worth aiming for. He noted that approving the NCD would limit economic opportunities in Northside but would preserve a neighborhood and rebuild it to the community's stated vision. "If residents of Northside want to try and reach that vision then I support it," Mr. Dowling said.
NCD Committee Member Tom Tucker, a Northside property owner and resident, pointed out that there had been a variety of opinions on this issue among community members. He mentioned community members of stature who had endorsed the recommendations. Mr. Tucker stated that the regulations relating to the commercial district had "very minimal effect" on the viability of commercial properties, except those that join residential districts. The few affordable housing opportunities in Northside had been removed by the creation of duplexes, he said, noting that the NCD would preserve opportunities for those who want to have a small affordable home. Mr. Tucker listed several community-wide improvements but added that none was as critical to Northside as the NCD. He urged the Council to fully support all of the recommendations. No other Town improvement would have as much effect on improving the lives of Northside residents, Mr. Tucker said.
Northside resident Sherif Ghobrial, a Northside duplex owner who lives in one side and rents the other, agreed that the NCD would hugely impact the neighborhood. But the suggested regulations do not address the real issues, he said, mentioning the problems of parking and noise.
Mr. Ghobrial complained that there had been no consideration of permit parking. He was opposed to the ordinances for being "anti-development" when there were better solutions available, he said.
Walter Mallett, a Pritchard Avenue property owner, argued that the notification requirement went beyond what was reasonable and was not relevant in a neighborhood as tightly packed as Northside. He recommended staying with the R-1, R-2, R-3 and O&I zoning, and asked that Columbia Street and Pritchard Avenue be taken out the area. Mr. Mallett argued that issues such as parking and noise were more important that structure heights, setbacks or the amount of footprint on a lot.
Raleigh resident Bruce Mamel said that Raleigh had been looking at the same neighborhood conservation issues, but on a slightly larger scale. They had also examined other college towns throughout the country that were facing the same issues, he said. Mr. Mamel offered to share information that Raleigh had gathered on how to preserve the quality of a neighborhood.
Pritchard Avenue homeowner Zach Arble described Northside as an area in need of investment. Putting a 2,000 square foot cap on building would not solve the problems of noise, trash and other issues, he said. Mr. Arble objected to placing such restrictions on property and curtailing his freedom to do what he wants with his.
Carol Lee Worden said that she lived in a 1,248 square foot house in Northside with three housemates, who rent rooms for $250 each. They have plenty of space, she said, emphasizing that a 2,000 square foot home was large enough for this neighborhood.
Donna Bell, who owns a 912 square foot house in Northside, pointed out that a 1,200 square foot duplex in Northside had not typically meant a house split into two 600 square foot units. It means a 900 square foot house that has a 2,000 square foot addition but on its backside, she said. Ms. Bell objected to having those in her neighborhood and spoke in favor of protecting neighborhoods such as Northside where teachers, policemen and firemen can afford to live. She pointed out that most lots in Northside could not handle more than 2,000 square feet. Ms. Bell expressed support for protecting the neighborhood rather than allowing it to be run by absentee landlords who have no commitment to Northside.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked the staff to expand upon what Mr. Tucker had said about restrictions only affecting commercial properties that boarder residential neighborhoods. Mr. Waldon explained that the regulations would affect commercial properties in the Town Center by lowering somewhat the allowable height limits. The restrictions would lower them more significantly where the Town Center abuts residentially zoned property, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt inquired about what might be done with a house, on Pritchard Avenue for example, under the proposed restrictions. Mr. Waldon replied that one could rebuild a house that had been destroyed and expand a house as long as it does not violate any of the proposed regulations, such as going over 2,000 square feet. Council Member Kleinschmidt verified that the variance option would exist.
Council Member Harrison asked if there would be a change in the notification distance for the properties that currently had Town Center-2 (TC-2) zoning. He asked if they would they lose the TC-2 zoning. Mr. Waldon replied that Town Center zoning would remain in tact and that all regulations applying to it would be the same, except where NCD rules were more restrictive. The notice requirements for buildings was 1,000 feet, Mr. Waldon explained, noting that with the NCD the same notifications would have to be given if one were building a single-family house.
Council Member Ward asked about the ability to rebuild or renovate a nonconforming structure. Mr. Waldon replied that one's ability would be "total," as long as doing so would not change the outside form of the building. Council Member Ward verified that if a fire burned down a nonconforming house the owner could build another with the same square footage and same footprint and height even if those had been nonconforming.
Council Member Ward wondered if a 20-foot height limit might prohibit a two-story building even though it would be allowed. He proposed that 24 feet might also prevent three or four stories while allowing more flexibility. Mr. Waldon replied that people mostly agreed that 20 feet would allow two stories in most situations. Many Northside houses are only one story, he said, adding that often, when there's a second story, the house is set back from the road. So 20 feet at the setback line is as tall as they want to go, Mr. Waldon said. He repeated, though, that one could increase the height by building toward the interior of the property. Mr. Waldon acknowledged that the rules, when combined, might prevent a two-story house on a particular lot. Doing so probably would be desirable, he said.
Council Member Strom praised the Committee's report, predicting that it would be groundbreaking and effective in meeting Town goals. He expressed concern about the 20-foot height being overly restrictive, however, adding that some of the houses that the Committee depicted as desirable probably exceeded 20 feet. Council Member Strom remarked that this restriction would prevent having a variety of roof line designs. He also determined from Mr. Waldon that commercial establishments with nonconforming features that are adjacent to residential lots on Rosemary Street could be rebuilt after a catastrophic event under both current and proposed regulations. Council Member Strom asked for some examples of that in the staff report that comes back.
Council Member Verkerk expressed disappointment that the report had focused on individual lots rather than the entire community. She noted that the recently passed sidewalk bond should bring some relief to Northside as well. Council Member Verkerk requested information on Northside lot sizes, and asked if the Committee had discussed using setbacks as a tool in addition to height limitations. Ms. Bailey replied that the goal had been to have a house that did not "max out" the lot. She repeated her earlier comment that 2,000 square feet and a 20-foot height limitation were not magic numbers and the Committee was open to suggestions.
Council Member Verkerk expressed a preference for treating lots more individually. Ms. Bailey replied that the Committee had wanted that as well, but had to confront the problem of developers trying to get around restrictions. So they had to give up the luxury of just letting development happen, Ms. Bailey explained, stressing that the restrictions were not against anyone or anything but merely attempts to preserve the neighborhood. This was the best the Committee could do with the tools they have, she said.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the regulations allow lot-by-lot consideration. For example, the height could go higher with a farther setback, he said. Mr. Waldon also pointed out that one could build up to a 2,500 square foot house on a 10,000 square foot lot, according to the floor-area ratio.
Council Member Greene quoted Planning Board Chair Tim Dempsey, who had described the Committee's report as "a very noble attempt to reclaim something that's slipping away from people who are entitled to continue to enjoy it." Regarding the issue of individual property rights versus the collective interests of keeping the neighborhood with some kind of consistency, Council Member Greene commented that Northside would always be valuable because of its location. But zoning rules cannot solve all issues, she said, and expressed hope that the neighborhood would keep the momentum and address design and community issues.
Council Member Hill inquired about restrictions that would be placed on two Rosemary Street parking lots if they were to be developed. Mr. Waldon pointed out that overlay districts do not apply to State-owned property, except in the case of historic districts. The NCD would be an overlay district that would have no impact on those University-owned parking lots, he said. Mr. Waldon stated that other privately-owned parking lots in the Town Center zone would still be developed as commercial properties. This would require more attention to the building heights as they interface with the neighborhoods, he said.
Council Member Hill asked about the height of The Warehouse. Mr. Waldon replied that it was close to the maximum height limit at the setback line. He agreed to bring exact figures back to the Council. Council Member Hill verified that The Warehouse would have to be reduced in height if it were being built now. He also ascertained that Mr. Tucker's building would be four feet taller than it would have to be under the new regulations.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that he'd had reservations from the start about occupancy restrictions as a way of controlling the issues of parking, noise and trash. He had always thought that ordinances were a better way of controlling such things, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Ms. Bailey to explain how occupancy restrictions and the bathroom-bedroom ratio would be enforced. Ms. Bailey replied that the Committee had decided to leave occupancy restrictions as they were in the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). The bathroom-bedroom ratio idea came from a duplex seminar, she said. Ms. Bailey proposed that one less bathroom per bedroom for unrelated persons would help keep a building from becoming a rooming house.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if that involved a slightly changed definition of rooming house. Mr. Waldon replied that the regulations were not a solution but a set of approaches to address the issue of single-family homes being used as rooming houses. The idea was that having one bathroom per bedroom in a multi-bedroom house would increase the likelihood that it would be used as a rooming house, Mr. Waldon said. He added that having this provision in the ordinance might help to discourage the construction of houses that are likely to be used as rooming houses. Mr. Waldon agreed that enforcement of occupancy restrictions would be extremely difficult. But this might be one more disincentive to the creation of the kinds of structures that have damaged the character of the neighborhood, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt verified that the bedroom-bathroom ratio was a change for this type of structure. He suggested that it might be sufficient without having to get involved with how the people are related. Mr. Waldon explained that the Committee had determined that they could not do it in that very simple manner. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that he could not find any basis for establishing a bedroom-bathroom ratio. But they could use that ratio by tying it to the number of unrelated people living together, Mr. Karpinos said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested adding this issue to the legislative agenda. He repeated his view that the ratio seemed workable but the second part seemed unnecessary. Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested finding a way to purge the concept of occupancy restrictions without giving up the restrictions that citizens were asking for.
Council Member Ward asked for more specific information regarding the impact on properties fronting West Rosemary and Columbia Streets and other areas where, because of zoning, there were no impacts to properties. He inquired about the process to amend an overlay district after it had been adopted. Mr. Waldon replied that the process for changing an overlay district would be the same as the one for creating it. It could be initiated with a Council motion, he said.
Council Member Ward pointed out that going to the Board of Adjustment was a rigorous process. He proposed that it had been "oversold" at one meeting as a way of getting relief from the 2,000 square foot limit. Mr. Waldon agreed that getting approval of a variance for the 2,000 square foot cap would mean showing compelling reasons why it was necessary. And the variance would require eight votes from the ten-member board, Mr. Waldon said, describing that as a "reasonably high hurdle to get over."
Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the next agenda item included a provision establishing the variant standard for this. It was somewhat more liberal than the variant standard in the current ordinance for the types of variances that the Board of Adjustment currently considers, he said. Mr. Waldon added that it still would require a four-fifths vote. But, in order to grant a variance now, the Board of Adjustment has to make a finding that there is no reasonable use of the property without the variance, he explained. Mr. Waldon pointed out that this would not be the case for one who wanted to go from 2,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet. Council Member Ward verified that having another child and needing more space would likely qualify as a compelling reason.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the Committee had discussed design guidelines and decided not to use them as a way of allowing duplexes. Ms. Bailey replied that they had not had a chance to look at the design side. They had looked at duplexes first, she said, noting that one option had been to prohibit them in Northside based on the history of what had been built there so far. The Committee had discussed how to make them look like a house, Ms. Bailey said, but had decided that having more duplexes would lead to less affordability and more investors making money off their neighborhood.
Council Member Greene pointed out that you could have four people living on each side of a duplex no matter how small it was, and there would still be eight cars. Council Member Greene remarked that the Northside neighborhood had reached their decision for a good reason at the time. Ms. Bailey pointed out that duplexes had not been built in Northside for affordable uses. If a developer wanted to transform property for families, then the neighborhood would approve it, she explained. Ms. Bailey noted that developers were not building homes, libraries or teen centers in Northside. "It appears to be just about making money," she said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented that she had thought duplexes helped solve affordability issues. But then she talked with people from Northside and learned that they were only affordable there when they were stuffed beyond capacity and that the rent, per se, was not affordable, she said. Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that the Council had toured Northside and had seen examples of problems. She asked Mr. Waldon to include more visuals when he brings this issue back. That will show what the neighborhood was trying to preserve and what problems the Town was trying to address, she noted.
Mr. Waldon replied that as part of the process each Committee member was given a disposable camera and asked to take pictures of things they liked and disliked in the neighborhood. He agreed to put together a presentation including these images when the item comes back to the Council on February 23, 2004.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 23, 2004, AND TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO COME BACK ON THAT DATE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 2 - Amendments/Adjustments to Land Use Management Ordinance
Mr. Horton explained that when the Council adopted the new LUMO less than a year ago they asked the staff to collect suggestions for clarification and correction in order to identify aspects of the ordinance that seemed worthy of discussion and reconsideration. The staff had also brought issues that needed immediate attention to the Council on a couple of occasions, he said. Mr. Horton stated that there were a few dozen or so issues for Council consideration, many of which were corrections of errors. He was not surprised to discover errors in a manuscript as large and complex as this one, he said. Mr. Horton added that there were other matters for clarification or change and some on which the staff would need more time.
Mr. Waldon remarked that he had heard numerous compliments on the Council's decision to re-evaluate the LUMO. He would not go over the errors and clarifications tonight, he said, but was available to answer questions. Mr. Waldon highlighted key substantive items regarding neighborhood conservation districts and duplexes. He pointed out that the Council had responded to citizens' concerns about the negative impact of duplexes on their neighborhoods by prohibiting them in low density zoning districts. The Council had set a sunset clause making that a temporary provision that would expire in February unless they took action before then, Mr. Waldon said.
Mr. Waldon suggested that duplexes be permitted again in many of the residential zones. But this should be done with new restrictions on structure size, floor area ratios, maximum number of bedrooms, and minimum parking, he said. Mr. Waldon also recommended that the Community Design Commission approve any proposed new duplex design according to the guidelines regarding appearance on the bottom of page five.
Mr. Waldon said that other substantive issues involved requiring a residential component in mixed use planned developments, doing away with the requirement that downtown parking lots must have at least 20 spaces, and having a replacement area for septic fields in the Urban Services Boundary. The report also included ideas about small additions, such as screened in porches to single-family dwellings, he said. Mr. Waldon added a suggestion that the definition of off-street parking facilities include bicycle as well as automobile parking. This would reinforce the Town's emphasis on biking being as important as motor vehicle transportation, he said.
Mr. Dempsey commented on the first adjustment regarding NCDs, suggesting that the Town make sure to be clear about what can and cannot be solved by zoning. With the Northside Conservation District, the question of enforcement came up with every item that was raised, he pointed out. Mr. Dempsey suggested that instructions regarding enforcement be built in before the Council launches another Resource Conservation District advisory committee. This would help make the process smoother, he said, and the Town would not lose energy in polarized conversations. Mr. Dempsey reported that the Planning Board had been totally aligned with most of the other adjustments but wanted to encourage Council members to accelerate the process. He noted the Board's prioritized list of what the Town Council should address. This included determining whether smaller developments were following the intent of payment-in-lieu of affordable housing, he said. Mr. Dempsey cautioned Council members not to put big issues, such as stormwater management, off for long.
Historic District Commission (HDC) Chair Terri Swanson expressed overall satisfaction with the changes. But, she added, the HDC had come up with three others to be addressed:
· That all minor subdivisions proposed in historic districts come before the HDC for comment and approval.
· To ask for exceptions to setbacks for residential properties in the historic districts, that variances to setbacks of lots in the historic districts be reviewed and granted by the HDC.
· Review of soil stabilization plans for demolition in the historic districts. That for approved demolition occurring in the historic districts, landscape plans be approved as well for the raw land proposed to be exposed after demolition. A landscape plan to include soil stabilization should be approved by the HDC in conjunction with the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition.
Chapel Hill resident and consulting engineer Bruce Ballentine commented on stormwater management issues. He thanked the Council for reopening the discussion of LUMO, which he said seemed to be written with a bias toward environmental goals which had lead to a disconnect with practical solutions. Mr. Ballentine suggested that the Council solicit a recommendation from a three-person group consisting of Town Engineer Fred Royal, Council Member Harrison, and a consulting engineer. Such a group could offer language that would make it a better document, Mr. Ballentine said.
With regard to R-C on page 13, Mr. Ballentine asked that item six be expanded to re-evaluate the entire volume requirement, particularly as it applies to single-family homes. He asked the Council to add that stormwater rate and quality be grandfathered for lots that existed before adoption of the LUMO.
Builder Scott Kovens said that the twin townhome, a duplex configuration, was the most unique design that his firm had found for middle class homes. He described these as a highly valued affordable housing choice for hundreds of families in Chapel Hill. Mr. Kovens wanted to make sure that the twin townhome was not "thrown out with the bath water," he said, describing it as an affordable option for people who choose to live and work in Chapel Hill.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Associate Director Virginia Knapp expressed concern regarding duplex regulations. The Chamber fully supported the process and decisions that Northside had made, but wanted to separate Town-wide duplex regulations from neighborhood conservation districts, she said. Ms. Knapp argued that a maximum of 2,500 square feet and a cap of six bedrooms would lead to duplexes being marketed to students and investors. Rather than a maximum square footage, she proposed a floor-area ratio of .25 in the R-2 zone and .35 in the R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-6 zones. Ms. Knapp stated that this would give architects and designers the flexibility to create duplexes that meet the design guidelines that are proposed in the LUMO. She also proposed that the cap on bedrooms be eight in R-2 zones and six in the other zones.
Local builder and landlord Glen Greenstreet, a Habitat for Humanity board member who described himself as an advocate for affordable housing, predicted that over-regulation of duplexes would lead to large, premium lots with large premium houses rather than multiple dwelling units. He predicted that duplexes would be constructed and designed for a very specific market and would have limited long-term usefulness for general family purposes. Mr. Greenstreet stated that the Town would lose some potential units that could be built on existing parcels.
Mr. Greenstreet stated that there would be pressure to increase the size and cost per unit to capture the usefulness of larger lots that will be built only for single-family homes. He said that there was no assurance that single-family dwellings on larger lots would be in scale with existing neighborhoods and no economic incentive to create better housing choices. Mr. Greenstreet stressed that he was not advocating not regulating duplexes but was making the observation that it should be done carefully.
Council Member Greene asked Mr. Greenstreet what he thought an "overly restrictive rule" and a "narrow purpose" would be. Why would a series of families not live in a duplex, she asked. Mr. Greenstreet replied that if, for example, a three-bedroom unit were drastically restricted in the amount of square footage that could be used for common space, then it would seem more appropriate for student housing. He was not suggesting that there be no restrictions, he explained, but he advised the Council to look closely at where the cutoff will be. Because 10-15% could make a big difference in the way the product is built, Mr. Greenstreet said.
Builder Phil Post explained that he, Ms. Knapp and Mr. Greenstreet had analyzed how a family would build a living space in a three-bedroom house. The minimum would be about a 2,800 square feet for a three-bedroom duplex and about 3,400 square feet for four bedrooms, he said. Mr. Post spoke against the "one-size-fits-all" provision in the current proposal and proposed an amended version that would strike the maximum in all zoning districts. Their proposal was to put restrictions on the floor-area size, which would change depending on zoning and would allow flexibility for larger lots to have slightly larger structures on them, Mr. Post said. He concluded that this, combined with other suggestions and the Community Design Commission's proposal for new neighborhood protection, would lead to powerful design guidelines with rules flexible enough to allow a variety of duplex housing.
Eric Chupp expressed concern about the lack of distinction between the apparent problem at Northside and communities that are designed for people who want to live in duplexes or with duplexes as part of the mix. He asked that such approved developments be exempt from the restrictions being proposed to solve problems on single-family lots.
Coolidge Street resident Martin Feinstein told a story about his neighborhood, which has a nice mix of students and well-scaled, brick duplexes that make housing affordable for some. He told about how developers bypassed regulations by building a single-family house, with four bedrooms and a two-bedroom apartment and renting it to six unrelated people who had as total of six cars. Mr. Feinstein described this as a loophole in the current law. He asked Council members to also look at the kinds of difficulties that arise outside the duplex law.
Architect, developer and builder Lucy Davis proposed that lots inside the Urban Services Boundary (USB) that do not have services be treated as though they are outside the USB until water and sewer can be provided to them. With regard to affordable housing, she proposed that the Town allow a developer to build a few additional units beyond what is currently allowed in the ordinance. Ms. Davis suggested that the sales or rental costs of those units then excludes all of the land and development costs. That way, those units only have to absorb construction costs, she said. Ms. Davis noted that not every site could accommodate a few more units and not every situation would be appropriate. But the Council could decide on a case-by-case basis to allow a few additional units if they were strictly in the affordable housing category, she said.
Referring to the staff report before the Council, Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested beginning with the first category, which was correction of errors.
Council Member Harrison commented that street classification systems were not relevant to this ordinance.
#1/Correction of Errors. No comments.
#2/Clarification of Intent and Adjustment to Avoid Unintended Consequences. No comments.
#3/Suggestions for Substantive Change. Council Member Ward asked why the Town was not considering R-1 for any type of duplex use with the caveat that a significant menu of restrictions/guidelines were being crafted to deal with impacts of duplexes. He asked why they were inappropriate in R-1 when they were appropriate in the other zones. Mr. Waldon replied that duplexes had not been permitted in R-1 for a long time, possibly decades. Very low-density residential zones were never anything but single-family and R-1 had always been considered the same way, he said. Mr. Waldon stated that including R-1 would affect broad areas of Town where it had never been possible to do duplexes before.
With regard to #24, Council Member Verkerk asked how the Town had arrived at 2,500 square feet. Mr. Waldon replied that the limit was based to a large extent on discussions that had come out of Northside and a look around Town at duplexes that do and do not blend into mixed neighborhoods. "There's nothing magic about that figure at all," he said. Council Member Verkerk wondered if the limit could be calibrated to the neighborhood rather than to a fixed number. Mr. Waldon agreed to bring information on that back to the Council.
Council Member Hill noted an error on page 27, which read "Prior to the duplex prohibition the maximum size of a duplex structure was 2,500 square feet." Mr. Waldon agreed that this was an error.
Council Member Hill asked if Mr. Koven's and Mr. Chupp's proposal would be simple to do. Mr. Waldon replied that there was a difference between a duplex being built in an infill situation and one in a planned duplex development. The two men had raised some good points, he said, adding that he would think about how to treat those situations differently in a regulatory sense.
Council Member Hill asked if design features, such as having a single front door and no garage doors facing the street, had come out of Northside discussions. "Not completely," Mr. Waldon replied, adding that duplexes throughout Town that seemed to blend best with neighborhoods had these characteristics. Council Member Hill characterized not having a garage door facing the street as a "fairly reactionary change." Mr. Waldon replied that having two garage doors facing the street could damage the character of an area.
Council Member Verkerk requested more visual examples of this, and Mr. Waldon agreed to provide those.
Council Member Greene mentioned a movement against "snout houses," with garage doors on the front. She noted, though, that some areas might not lend themselves to garages on the sides or in back. Council Member Greene asked Mr. Waldon if he could think of a new neighborhood with no SUP. Mr. Waldon replied that a new duplex development might come up for approval as an SUP or as a subdivision. One problem with doing the type of development that Mr. Kovens and Mr. Chupp had described as an SUP was that the floor area ratios might be too low to do what they have historically done in Chapel Hill, he explained. Mr. Waldon added that he had just discussed this with the two men that morning and would bring back ideas for Council consideration.
With regard to #28, Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked what would be considered small other than a deck or a screened-in porch. Mr. Waldon replied that the "express zoning compliance permit" category included decks, patios, sheds, enclosing porches, and anything else that is 400 square feet or less where there is no reason to believe there is Resource Conservation District (RCD) on the site. Permits for those usually can be obtained within a day or two, Mr. Waldon said.
Council Member Ward ascertained that enclosing a deck would qualify as "express," but that adding a room to a house would not.
Council Member Harrison remarked that he felt embarrassed by the Council's passage of a $125 application fee for a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Planning Board would recommend a reduction in that, he said, and he encouraged Council members to move in that direction. Council Member Harrison pointed out that Chapel Hill puts homeowners through much more than other towns do.
Council Member Hill expressed disappointment that a 400 square foot addition to the back of a house would not fall into the "express" category.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked how such an addition would differ from enclosing a deck. Mr. Waldon replied that the latter usually involves little land disturbance whereas expanding a house involves more. The staff would bring back some options, including expanding the express category, he said.
Council Member Hill mentioned the RCD requirement and Mr. Waldon explained that there had been complaints about having to hire a professional to determine where the RCD was. But things had been constructed in the RCD prior to that requirement, he said, adding that background information might be useful to the Council when this comes back.
Council Member Ward asked for information on which environmental protections had been cost effective.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council had already set the rules for ordinance requirements. They were now discussing administrative procedures and determining how aggressive the staff needed to be to ensure that a structure meets the regulations that the Council has set, he said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if "grandfathering" meant that the Town would allow people to develop their lots according to the ordinances that were in place when they purchased them. Mr. Waldon replied that this pertained to buffers in the RCD, which vary depending on when the lot was created. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked how that would differ from someone wanting to put an addition on their house. Mr. Waldon replied that if the RCD was involved, then the boundary might be drawn depending on when the lot was created and when the house was built. An existing house cannot be expanded into the RCD, he explained. Mr. Waldon said that it depended on when the house was created and built. It also depended on whether the RCD that was in place then was what was in place now and that expanding the buffer did not affect those properties, he said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins referred to Mr. Ballentine's comment about the RCD. Mr. Waldon recommended that Council members not adjust any stormwater requirements now but first give the community some more time. Some of the mechanisms had just been installed, he pointed out, and he suggested that the staff bring back a cost/benefits analysis later in 2004.
Items needing further study. Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested addressing these items as soon as possible so that the Council would not appear to be responding to an application. Mr. Horton predicted that UNC would be applying for another Development Plan amendment soon. Council Member Kleinschmidt urged Council members to be proactive rather than appearing to be reactionary when an application comes.
Mr. Horton pointed out that the timeline had been negotiated with the University when the OI-4 district regulations were being established. He commented that anything agreed to in a negotiation probably should be reconsidered in a similar process. In this case, that would mean initiating a conversation with UNC before taking a final action, he said.
Council Member Greene pointed out that #32 had been her petition before she was on the Council. The Council had decided to have a public forum on the issue in an effort to recalibrate a part of the ordinance based on a lesson learned, she said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that this was how she had received Council Member Greene's petition at the time. She asked the Manager to check the record and bring back a suggestion on how to proceed.
With regard to #35, Council Member Ward asked that the analysis be broader than porous pavement. He remarked on the significant difference between undisturbed porous land, lawn and mulched areas, and porous pavement in terms of their ability to absorb rain. Council Member Ward asked that the Council look at that in addition to how to handle porous pavement.
Council Member Strom said that there had been discussion during passage of the LUMO about square footage of disturbance. The idea was that it would kick in with the Tree Ordinance and other provisions, he said, adding that the Council had agreed to track those issues. Council Member Strom pointed out that this had not been included in the report. Mr. Waldon explained that, as it stands, 5,000 square feet of land disturbance for a single-family house triggers stormwater management and tree protection requirements. He recalled that the Council had discussed what that threshold should be and had decided on 5,000 square feet.
Council Member Strom stated that the Council had planned to take a look at this one year later to determine what might have been if they had chosen a smaller square footage of disturbance and to ascertain whether the Town was meeting its goals with the 5,000 square foot threshold. Mr. Waldon and Mr. Horton could not recall that discussion, but agreed to check the record. Mr. Waldon offered to tabulate the number of applications that had to do stormwater and tree protection because of the 5,000 square foot threshold. He would compare that to those who did not have to do that, he said. Council Member Strom described this as a key component of determining what impact the Tree Ordinance was having as well. Mr. Horton agreed to check the record.
Council Member Greene recalled that the Planning Board had asked, and the Council had endorsed, checking in a year to see how many building permits were 5,000 square feet and how many were above or below 2,000 square feet. Mr. Waldon remarked that it would be fairly easy to put those numbers together.
Council Member Strom stressed that the issue was important and a much higher priority to him than some other issues, such as stormwater volume.
Attachment #5. Council Member Harrison asked for a staff response to Mr. Jewell's contention.
Council Member Strom suggested treating that as a separate petition, since it had not been in the LUMO and the Council was not going to adjust it.
Council Member Harrison emphasized that he wanted to discuss it, and Mr. Horton replied that the staff would come back with a response to many of these items on February 9, 2004. Council Member Harrison asked if Mr. Jewell's suggestion could be discussed earlier, and Mr. Horton agreed to try.
Council Member Greene proposed endorsing the Historic District Commission's idea of having them review minor subdivision applications in addition to the Planning Board.
Council Member Ward asked why the Manager had not recommended that bike parking standards be part of the Development Ordinance. Mr. Waldon replied that those details were in the Design Manual. Council Member Ward asked that they be treated the same as car parking spaces. Mr. Waldon proposed putting the quantitative number of bicycle spaces (10% of parking spaces) in the ordinance. Council Member Ward replied that doing so would solve the problem.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 9, 2004. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.