Supplemental Information for

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

AGENDA #6

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM : W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Supplemental Discussion of Proposed Changes to Land Use Management Ordinance

DATE: February 23, 2004

On Wednesday, February 18, we published our memorandum on this subject for delivery to the Town Council and public. On the evening of February 18, during the Council’s meetings with advisory boards, Council members commented on issues related to the Land Use Management Ordinance. Those comments, along with additional citizen inquiries in the past two days lead us to prepare this memorandum, with staff comments and recommendations that supplement our main memorandum. There are two topics that we believe need this additional attention: Duplexes and Tree Protection Regulations.

DUPLEX REGULATIONS

Several issues have been raised with respect to proposed duplex regulations. We discuss each below, with comments and recommendations.

Design Guidelines

In our January 21 Public Hearing recommendation, we included a requirement (revised in our follow-up memorandum, published on Wednesday, February 18), that would do the following:

New duplex structures would need approval of site and building design from the Community Design Commission, in addition to administrative review, before a building permit would be issued; and

The Town’s 1986 Design Guidelines, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, would be modified to include the following guidelines for duplex structures:

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.

On the evening of February 18 the Council conducted a work session with the Community Design Commission in which design guidelines were discussed. Commission members expressed the opinion that the five guidelines listed above would not be necessary to the Commission’s review of basic site and building design.

Following this discussion we reviewed the Town’s existing Design Guidelines. A copy of the section on architectural guidelines is attached here (Attachment 1). Upon reflection on the discussion of February 18, we agree with comments made by Community Design Commission members and conclude that the existing Design Guidelines provide sufficient guidance. Accordingly, we suggest that the Council consider not adopting Resolution B in the main memorandum. (Resolution B would amend the Design guidelines to add the five duplex criteria.)

We recommend adjustment to page 229 of the Manager’s Recommended Land Use Management Ordinance amendments to clarify this issue (Attachment 2).

Maximum Size of Duplex Structures

In our January 21 memorandum, we suggested that the maximum size for new duplex structures be set at 2,500 square feet (1,250 square feet per unit). Comments were offered at the Public Hearing that 2,500 square feet would be too restrictive. Accordingly, we revised our recommendation in the memorandum published on February 18, to set 3,000 square feet as the maximum size (1,500 square feet per unit).

We have had additional conversations with members of Chapel Hill’s development community, most recently with the developers of the duplex neighborhoods Columbia Place (off of Airport Road) and Pickard Oaks (off of Old Durham Road). Columbia Place was developed as a subdivision, Pickard Oaks as a Special Use Permit. We understand that those developments, which typically target sales to families, feature duplexes with 1,700 - 2,000 square feet per side. We understand that some of the duplexes in Columbia Place feature units up to 3,000 square feet per side.

We offer this information for the Council’s additional consideration. A main reason for suggesting restrictions on the size of duplex dwelling has been the recent trend toward construction of large duplexes out of scale with surroundings (some exceeding 3,000 square feet per side). If the Council were to decide that 1,700-2,000 square foot dwelling units in a duplex format would be acceptable, given the design controls and Community Design Commission review that are recommended to be implemented, we believe it would be reasonable to set the maximum size for duplex structures (counting both sides) in the 3,500-4,000 square foot range. If desired, the Council could adjust the language on page 229 of the Manager’s Recommended Ordinance (see Attachment 2) regarding the maximum size of a duplex. The square footage limit in item 6.19.a would be raised from 3,000 square feet to the limit that the Council believes is most appropriate.

Minimum Lot Size for Duplexes

In our January 21 memorandum, we suggested that the minimum size for duplex lots be set at two-times the minimum lot size for a single-family dwelling, or a size determined by the per-acre dwelling unit density cap for any given zone, whichever is “greater” (whichever results in the lower density). We reported in our memorandum that this would not be a change from existing regulations.

It was pointed out to us following production of our follow-up memorandum on February 18 that this suggestion WOULD be a change from existing language, and that we had made an error in the text of our memorandum. Current regulations govern the size of duplex lots only by application of the per-acre dwelling unit density cap. We continue to believe that both standards should apply to determine the minimum size of a duplex lot. Accordingly, we recommend that the Ordinance be amended to reflect this change. We attach here a revised page for our recommended ordinance, with the change made (Attachment 3).

Exemption for Duplexes in New Subdivisions

The developer of Columbia Place spoke at the January 21 Hearing to suggest that new subdivisions be exempt from the proposed new duplex restrictions. The reasons offered were that:

The problems that the community has experienced with new, large duplexes have been in in-fill situations; new subdivisions that have been developed with duplexes in mind from the start, such as Columbia Place, do not create problems.

Imposition of the proposed new regulations would make development of a neighborhood such as Columbia Place impossible.

We do not recommend exempting new subdivisions from the proposed duplex regulations. Our reasons include:

We have heard concerns about large duplexes in new subdivisions as well as concerns about large duplexes on in-fill, individual lot circumstances.

Under the proposed regulations, a developer could choose to develop a subdivision with lots large enough for duplexes, and then build duplexes under the new regulations; or, alternatively, a developer could choose to apply for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development, and propose units arranged in a duplex configuration without limitation on a particular structure size. (In the latter case, floor area ratios would apply, which could limit the overall square footage to a per-unit level lower than that of Columbia Place.) In cases where a proposed development would not fit within regulatory constraints for a particular property, a developer might choose to apply for conditional use rezoning for that property, in order to have a higher floor area ratio apply.

We do not believe it is reasonable or possible to apply a restriction to existing lots and, at the same time, exempt newly created lots from that same restriction.

Accordingly, we do not recommend attempting to exempt new subdivisions from the duplex regulations that might apply to now-existing lots.

Historic District Commission Review of New Duplexes

During the Design Commission’s February 18 meeting (in advance of the Commission’s meeting with the Town Council) the Design Commission expressed support for a role in approval of new duplex structures. Commission members expressed concern about reviewing new duplexes in the Historic Districts.

We believe that this concern is addressed in the Land Use Management Ordinance.

Part of our recommend duplex regulations is a new feature that would require review/approval by the Community Design Commission for any new duplex. An existing provision of the Land Use Management Ordinance states the following:

“The Historic District Commission . . . is authorized and empowered to . . . exercise, within the Historic District, all the powers and duties of the Chapel Hill Community Design Commission.”

Accordingly, if the Council amends regulations to require Community Design Commission review of duplexes (as recommended), such review would automatically become the responsibility of the Historic District Commission if the location of a proposed duplex were to be within a Historic District.

TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

At its January 16 Planning Session, the Council decided to ask the Manager to study possibilities for extending tree protection regulations to individual single-family lots. We have followed up on that direction in our reports from the Planning Session, but this issue has not yet been incorporated into our post-public hearing material on the Land Use Management Ordinance amendments. Accordingly, we recommend that the Council consider amending Resolution C, attached, which establishes a schedule for future consideration of regulations, to add this language:

Consider extending tree protection regulations to individual, single-family lots

Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall, 2004.

SUMMARY

We recommend that the Council consider the additional information contained in this memorandum as it makes decisions about amending the Land Use Management Ordinance. We believe that these ideas respond to issues and concerns that were raised at the January 21, 2004 Public Hearing.

ATTACHMENTS