AGENDA #6

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT: Continuation of Public Hearing - Adjustments to Land Use Management      Ordinance

 

DATE:             February 23, 2004

 

 

This memorandum presents proposals for changes to Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance.  Recommendations are included for 28 changes to the ordinance.  Enactment of the attached ordinance would enact these changes.  Resolution A would adjust the application fee schedule for small applications. Resolution B would incorporate duplex design guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan.  Resolution C would adopt a schedule for future consideration of deferred items.

 

We have prepared a marked-up version of the present Land Use Management Ordinance, showing recommended changes (using strikethrough for deletion, underline for new language).  In addition, we have used yellow highlight in the marked-up version to indicate those changes that have been incorporated since the January 21, 2004 Public Hearing, changes made in response to comments offered at that hearing. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

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

 

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.

 

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 this month.


 

DISCUSSION

 

A Public Hearing was held on January 21, 2004, to consider specific recommended changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance.  We presented proposed changes on January 21, and grouped the ideas into three categories: 

 

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

 

We also recommended deferral of consideration for some issues.   

 

We 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 Estes Drive and Hargraves Center.  The document is posted on the Town’s website in PDF format, separated into chapters for downloading.  The document is also available electronically at no cost on CD, available upon request at the Town Clerk’s Office and in the Planning Department.   The most recent version of this marked-up Ordinance, dated February 23, 2004, uses yellow highlight to show language that has been changed since January 21, in response to comments offered at the January 21 Public Hearing.

 

The Manager’s Revised Recommendation differs in the following ways from the Preliminary Recommendation that was offered on January 21, based upon suggestions offered on January 21:

 

 

 

 

The February 23 marked-up version includes changes as described in the following pages.  Changes since January 21 are indicated by bold type.


 

First category:  Correction of Error

 

 

Issues Identified

 

 

Manager’s Recommendation

1)  Delete “minor arterial” in street classification system. (Sec. 3.5 and Table 5.6.6-1)

 

Make the change.  We no longer distinguish minor arterial from principal arterials.

2)  Add “sorority” in table of uses. (Table 3.7.1)

 

Make the change.  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).

 

Make the change.  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).

 

Make the change. 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)).

 

Make the change. 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)

 

Make the change. 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).

 

Make the change. 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).

 

Make the change.  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).

 

Make the change.  Typographical error.

10)  Adjust section references and cross-references.

 

Make the changes.  Several references are inaccurate.

11)  Correct several typographical and formatting errors.

 

Make the changes. Typographical and formatting errors will be corrected.

 

Second Category:  Clarification of Intent and Adjustments to Avoid Unintended Consequences

 

Issues Identified

Manager’s 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.)

Make the change.  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.)

Make the change.  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))

Make the change. 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).

Make the change.  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)).

Make the change.  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 intent of a “Common Development Plan” (Section 5.4.2(b)(2)).

Make the change.  We believe it would be helpful to clarify that a “Common Development Plan” refers to an approved Special Use Permit or Subdivision.

 

 

18)  Adjust Buffer requirements to be internally consistent Table 5.6.6-1).

Make the change.  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.

 

 

19)  Clarify what is a “registered trademark” for signs (Section 5.14.5(a)).

Make the change.  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.

20)  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)

 

Make the change.  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.

21)  Clarify the criteria to be considered in revoking a Home Occupation permit (in Definitions).

Make the change.  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 Recommendation

 

 

22)  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).

Make these changes:

·         Delete requirement for recordation for every parcel.  

·         Adjust language to clarify that the Council may choose to appoint a neighborhood committee to develop a neighborhood plan, with Planning Board liaisons.

·         Convert “shall” 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.  Add language to grant that authority to the Board of Adjustment.

In addition:

·        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.  

 

 

23)  Adjust regulations for duplexes (Table 3.7-1, and adding new Section 6.19)

 

NOTE:  We have revised this recommendation based on comments at the 1/21 Public hearing in the following ways:

 

·         3,000 square feet maximum instead of 2,500 square feet

 

·         Clarify that guidelines are not in the Ordinance, but rather in the Town’s Design Guidelines document

 

·         Clarify that guidelines are in a “if practicable” format

 

 

 

 

Make the following changes: 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:  3,000sq. 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 (but guidelines not in Ordinance)

·         Provision that new duplex structures must have designs approved by the Community Design Commission to assure consistency with design guidelines.

 

Adopt Resolution A incorporating the following as part of Chapel Hill’s Design Guidelines (part of Comprehensive Plan), for use by the Community Design Commission in review of proposed duplexes; compliance with guidelines shall be promoted and encouraged, but not mandated if not feasible:

·        A single front door shall face street, if practicable

·        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 Recommendation

 

 

24)  Require a residential component for Mixed-Use Planned Developments (Section 6.18.7).

 

 

Make the change. 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.

 

 

25)  Reconsider requiring that all new parking lots downtown have at least 20 spaces (Section 5.9).

 

Make the change.  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.

 

 

26)  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.

 

 

Make the change.  This provision has been suggested to us by the Orange County Health Department, and we recommend including it in the Ordinance.

 

27)  Adjust regulations for small additions to existing single-family dwellings, to make process faster, easier, less expensive for minor applications 

 

 

Amend the fee schedule to reduce the $125 application fee for a Zoning Compliance Permit if the proposal qualifies for express processing.   Adoption of Resolution B would do so.

 

 

NOTE:  New since 1/21/04:

 

28)  Require that Minor Subdivisions that are proposed within a Historic District be reviewed by the Historic District Commission prior to action by the Planning Board (Section 4.6.4.2).

 

 

 

Make the change.

 

NOTE: New since 1/21/04

 

29)  Specify in the Land Use Management Ordinance that, however many automobile parking spaces are required for a development proposal, typically 10% of that number shall be the number of spaces made available for bicycle parking (Section 5.9.1 and 5.9.7).

 

 

Make the change.

 

Items Needing Further Study

 

 

Issues Identified

 

 

Manager’s Revised 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).

 

The Council has scheduled a Public Forum for March 1, to consider public comments on the OI-4 Zoning District.  We recommend that, following the forum, the Council discuss next steps.

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.

 

 

 

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 January 6, 2004, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend these changes. 

 

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 January 8, 2004.   A recommendation will be presented at this Public Hearing.

 

Manager’s Revised 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 guidelines for new duplex structures as contained in Resolution B, and adopt a schedule for future consideration of deferred items as described in Resolution C.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

  1. January 21, 2004 Memorandum and its related attachments (p.14).
  2. Copies of Citizen Handouts on January 21, 2004 (p. 41).
  3. (On CD) Version of Land Use Management Ordinance with strikethrough and underline to show recommended amendments.

    Supplemental Information

 

 

(Manager’s Revised 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 (2004-02-23/O-2)

 

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:

 

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 Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, dated January 27, 2003, Draft dated February 23, 2004).

 

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 January 27, 2003 Land Use Management.

 

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 23rd day of February, 2004. 


RESOLUTION A

(Manager’s  Recommendation)

 

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING USER FEE POLICIES AND SCHEDULES FOR THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT (2004-02-23/R-8a)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts, effective immediately, the following user fee policy and schedule:

 

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES

 

TYPE OF APPLICATION/PERMIT                                                                                            FEE

 

Board of Adjustment (10045-45105)                              Variance............................................... $330

                                                                                Appeal........................................................ $220

 

Special Use Permits (10046-46405)

Extraction of Earth Products, Landfill, Cemetery,

        Park/Ride Terminal  ................................................................................. $5,000 + $20/acre

Radio/TV Transmitting/Receiving Facility............................................................................. $5,000

All Other ..................................................................... $5,000 + $20/100 square feet of floor area

 

Special Use Modifications (10046-46405)

Extension or Renewal ........................................................................................................... $675

All Other........................................................................... Same as above Special Use Permit fees

 

All Master Land Use Plans (10046-46405)......................... $5,000 + $20/100 square feet of land area

 

Zoning Map and Text Amendments (10045-45107)................................................... $800 + $40/acre

 

Subdivisions (10045-45103)

Preliminary Plat ................................................................................................. $5,000 + $200/lot

Minor Subdivision................................................................................................... $630 + $40/lot

Final Plat ............................................................................................................... $270 + $40/lot

Re-approval.......................................................................................................................... $550

 

Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) Development Plan (10045-45102).................................. $800 + $40/acre

     Office-Institutional-4 (OI-4) Site Development Permit (10045-45102)................................. $2,600

 

Historic District Commission (with exception of signs, below)

Certificates of Appropriateness................................................................................................. $ 0

 

Community Design Commission (10045-45110)

Building Elevations................................................................................................................. $100

Lighting Plan............................................................................................................................ $50

Alternative Buffer..................................................................................................................... $50

 

Site Plan Review (Council/Planning Board) (10045-45100)        $1,700 + $17/100 square feet of floor

area

 

Zoning Compliance Permit (10045-45106)

Staff Review/Administrative Approval.................................................................................... $125

“Express” Staff Review/Administrative Approval.............................................................. $50

Home Occupation................................................................................................................... $50

Final Plans for Zoning Compliance Permit Issuance.................................. ˝ of original approval fee

 

Sign Plan Review (including Historic District signs) (10045-45106)

Individual Sign (single business on one zoning lot)..................................................................... $50

Unified Sign Plan (multiple businesses on one zoning lot)......................................................... $125

Individual Sign in accordance with Approved Unified Sign Plan................................................. $25

 

Resubmission of Applicant's Request (see above account numbers) 50% of applicable fees after staff report has been drafted

 

Notes:

Special Use Permits, Special Use Modifications and Subdivisions proposed to be assisted through HUD conventional Public Housing, Section 8, 101, 235, CDBG funding, as well as through the N.C. Housing Finance Agency, and other recognized forms of subsidy, are exempted.  In projects where assisted units comprise only a portion of the total number of units, the fee is reduced by the percentage of the total number of units that are assisted.

 

For Special Use Permit applications involving lots of ten (10) acres or greater, where the proposed use is to create five (5) or fewer individual residential lots, the development application fee shall be waived. (Adopted by Town Council November 13, 1997.)

 

All review fees are doubled if the activity or site change requested has already occurred or been started.

 

Fees are waived for Town of Chapel Hill development applications.

 

For applications involving residential development in which documentation is provided that 100% of the dwelling units will be affordable to low-moderate income families (80% of area median income for a family of four), the development application fee shall be waived.

 

For applications from religious organizations or private, tax-exempt, non-profit organizations, fees shall be 50% of standard fees.

 

The maximum application fee for any Special Use Permit, Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision, or Zoning Compliance Permit application shall be $60,000.

 

Fees approved by Town Council June 25, 2001 to be effective July 1, 2001.

 

Amendments:

7/2/01 by adding OI-4 Development Plan, and 10/10/01 by adding Site Development Permit Fee

Format revised 06/03/03

2/23/04 by adding Express ZCP fee

 

This the 23rd day of February, 2004.

 

 

 RESOLUTION B

(Manager’s Revised Recommendation)

 

A RESOLUTION REGARDING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DUPLEX DWELLINGS, TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION (2004-02-23/R-8b)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends the Comprehensive Plan’s Design Guidelines document to incorporate the following design standards associated with construction of a duplex, as defined by the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, to be administered by the Community Design Commission: 

 

Community Design Commission, Duplex Design Standards

 

1.      A single front door to face street, if practicable;

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 23rd day of February, 2004.

 

RESOLUTION C

(Manager’s Revised Recommendation)

 

A RESOLUTION REGARDING PRIORITIZATION OF EVALUATION OF REMAINING LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ITEMS IDENTIFIED AT THE JANUARY 21, 2004, PUBLIC HEARING (2004-02-23/R-8c)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following schedule of consideration of the remaining Land Use Management Ordinance text amendments:

 

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).

 

Consider next steps following a March 1, 2004 Public Forum.

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 23rd day of February, 2004.