AGENDA #5f

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Report on Possible Adjustments to Land Use Management Ordinance

 

DATE:             November 10, 2003

 

 

This memorandum lists topics and issues that the Council will be discussing in January 2004 as part of a Public Hearing on Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance.  The purpose of tonight’s report is to relay to the Council the list of topics that have been identified as candidates for change, to offer an early review of the January 21, 2004 Public Hearing, and to offer the Council an opportunity to suggest additional issues for consideration at the hearing.

 

BACKGROUND

 

On January 27, 2003, the Town Council enacted a new Land Use Management Ordinance for Chapel Hill.  This new ordinance contains new initiatives in several substantive areas, including stormwater management, tree protection, Resource Conservation District regulations, and impervious surface requirements. 

 

When the Council enacted the new 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 new ordinance that were creating serious and immediate problems in administration of the regulations.  We have taken three such issues to the Council for action. Those are:

 

• Public water-sewer requirements for new development
• Adjustments to definitions in Resource Conservation District regulations
• Adjustments to size restrictions for houses in new subdivisions

 

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:

 

• Regulation of duplex dwelling units
• Creation of a Northside Neighborhood Conservation District
• Creation of new parking regulations

 

We note that consideration of duplex regulations is especially time-sensitive, because the current prohibition on new duplexes in most residential 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: 

 

1. Correction of error
2. Clarification of intent
3. Suggestions for substantive change

 

We are not offering recommendations on any of these items at this time, but will in January.  The lists below are compilations of ideas that have been suggested to us.

 

Corrections

 

We have flagged the following provisions in the Land Use Management Ordinance that we believe to be errors in translation from the former Development Ordinance, and that have resulted from the re-formatting of the new ordinance.  Suggested corrections are:

 

• Delete “minor arterial” in street classification system.

 

• Add “sorority” in table of uses.

 

• Add appeal of minor subdivision to Board of Adjustment in Section 4.10.

 

• Add special standards for “Places of Worship” in the Rural Transition district.

 

• Adjust section references and cross-references.

 

• Adjust permitted uses in the Resource Conservation District regarding utility lines to private dwellings, and regarding driveways for single-family dwellings.

 

• Adjust secondary height limit in TC-1 district (should be 60’).

 

• Correct several typographical and formatting errors.

 

Clarifications

 

We have identified the following provisions of the ordinance which we have found to lack clarity, hampering administration of the ordinance.  The suggestions are:

 

• Add cumulative provisions to the land disturbance thresholds triggering stormwater and tree protection requirements, such that development on a lot cannot be split into multiple projects to avoid requirements.

 

• Do not require that creation of townhouse lots by subdivision, as part of a Council-approved Special Use Permit, need further Planning Board approval.

 

• Clarify meaning of “access” to street in Section 5.8.1.

 

• Clarify land disturbance triggers for soil and erosion control requirements; coordinate with similar requirements in other regulatory documents.

 

• Clarify definition of land disturbance.

 

• Clarify that “Total Suspended Solids” standards in stormwater requirements apply to the incremental impact of development of a property.

 

• Clarify distinctions between water treatment requirements for runoff from public streets vs. private lots.

 

• Clarify floor area requirements for single-family, two-family, and Planned Development scenarios.

 

• Clarify intent of a “Common Development Plan” in Section 5.4.2.

 

• Adjust Buffer requirements to be internally consistent.

 

• Clarify formula for payment in lieu of affordable housing.

 

• Clarify what is a “registered trademark” for signs.

 

• Clarify intent of “expansion” regulations in the non-regulatory floodplain portions of the Resource Conservation District.

 

• Clarify the relationship between building code and Land Use Management Ordinance definitions of floor area.

 

• Clarify the criteria to be considered in revoking a Home Occupation permit.

 

Suggestions for Substantive Changes

 

Suggestions for changes have come from citizens, Council members, advisory board members, developers, and staff.  The following suggestions have been made:

 

• Require a residential component for Mixed-Use Planned Developments.

 

• Re-think “24-hour storm” in Section 5.4.

 

• Increase flexibility in “alternate buffer” provisions.

 

• Consider how to handle porous pavement as impervious surface.

 

• Re-consider requiring stormwater management facilities on individual single-family lots.

 

• Re-consider requiring that all new parking lots downtown have at least 20 spaces.

 

• Re-consider the time frames specified for action in the OI-4 zoning district.

 

NEXT STEPS

 

The Council has called a Public Hearing for January 21, 2004.  We intend to prepare a discussion of the items identified in this memorandum for consideration at that hearing.  We welcome direction from the Council as to addition of items for reconsideration.