AGENDA #1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Development Ordinance Text Amendment - First Draft Development Ordinance
DATE: June 26, 2001
INTRODUCTION
This Public Hearing has been scheduled for the Town Council to consider a Development Ordinance text amendment for the first draft of the revised Development Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
July 5, 2000 Council hired Lane Kendig to revise the Development Ordinance.
August/Sept. Advisory Boards were asked to offer comments about revision of the Development Ordinance.
November 20, 2000Council conducted Work Session with consultant to discuss revision to the Development Ordinance.
December 11, 2000Council terminated contract with Lane Kendig.
January 8, 2001Council adopted a Scope of Services and Budget for a contract with Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle.
January 22, 2001Council held Work Session with the consultant Mark White of Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle.
April 18, 2001 Consultant Mark White presented a draft annotated outline to the Council.
May 29, 2001 Draft Development Ordinance was presented to the following advisory boards:
DISCUSSION
The approach to this task has been to start with the Town’s existing Development Ordinance, keep what is working, make changes to sections that the Council and others have identified as needing changes, introduce some new concepts and tools to address Council objectives, and make the overall document more user-friendly.
You will notice at the outset that the draft is not organized in the same way as the current ordinance. The organization still needs additional work (see below), but we believe this proposed draft moves us in a good direction. Definitions, for example, are collected all in one place, and located at the back of the ordinance.
Please note that the draft Ordinance proposes to drop several concepts that are in the current Development Ordinance, which we believe are unnecessary and make the current Ordinance more complicated than it needs to be. One distinction proposed is to no longer categorize uses into “Use Groups” (Use Group A, Use Group B, and Use Group C), with the accompanying variations in land use intensity ratios for different use groups and zoning districts. That use-group distinction does not appear in the new draft. Nor does the concept of intensity bonus levels appear. These varying levels were never used, and we believe added unnecessary complexity.
Articles 1, 7, 8, and 9 basically lift administrative language out of our current ordinance. The main substance is contained in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 6. We suggest that the Council focus its review tonight on those sections, although comments on any item in the entire document would be welcomed.
Finally, we note that this first draft truly is a first rough draft. It does not reflect review or comment by the Town Attorney. Advisory Boards have reviewed this draft, and many of their comments are will be offered tonight; but the draft in this packet has not yet been changed to incorporate any of these comments. Please consider this a draft a “work in progress.”
Following, then, are some key areas where significant changes are proposed, organized here by section.
Optional Use Patterns:
We suggest that the Council focus especially on Article 2. As we discussed with the Annotated Outline, it is this article that represents one of the most significant shifts in approach compared to our current regulations. Article 2 describes a series of “use patterns” - - e.g., Vertical Mixed Use, Traditional Neighborhood Development - - that do not fit well in conventional definitions of single land use (e.g., office, clinic, duplex dwelling unit, convenience business, etc.). The approach here is that a property owner has a choice: (1) Pursuing development in the conventional manner: for example, seeking approval of a Special Use Permit for an office building, and following the regulations defined for that single use; or (2) Pursuing development by selecting a Use Pattern, and following the regulations and procedures described in Article 2. The idea is that we would identify the use patterns we want to see in Chapel Hill, define them in Article 2, and then provide incentives for development according to those patterns. Because these Use Patterns are optional, we believe this new article should be relocated to a later section in the draft Development Ordinance.
This article identifies:
General use districts;
Conditional use districts;
Special districts; and
Overlay districts.
Although this article is titled Zoning Districts, in addition to identifying the various districts, the article also includes sections on:
Use Regulations;
Dimensional an Area and lot Development Standards;
Incentive Zoning;
Transfer of Development Rights; and
Inclusionary Zoning.
We intend to recommend to the consultant that these components of this article be separated into two distinct articles because the components are so different.
Three new concepts in this article of the draft Ordinance are Incentive Zoning, Transfer of Development Rights, and Inclusionary Zoning. These items are discussed below:
Incentive Zoning: The intent of this section is to provide for increased levels of allowable development intensities as incentive for the provision of certain public benefits beyond those normally required by the Development Ordinance or provided by private developers. A table on page 3-46 of the draft identifies four areas in which a developer might address public objectives over and above ordinance requirements. Those are:
· Provision of parks and open space
· Redevelopment of existing older shopping centers
· Retail site design
· Provision of affordable housing opportunities
The table goes on to define what a developer might do in these areas to address public objectives, and then define what bonus levels of intensity would result if the criteria are met. The current Development Ordinance has bonus provisions, but the provisions are not realistic or workable and have never been used. The intent here, with this draft, is to design incentives that would help accomplish public objectives, and be significant and feasible enough such that a developer would move in these directions.
Transfer of Development Rights: This concept has been discussed for over a decade, but has not been implemented in Chapel Hill or Orange County. With the transfer concept, the idea is that sending and receiving areas are defined. Sending areas are those where development is to be actively discouraged (e.g., environmentally sensitive land, farmland); receiving areas are those where intense development can be accommodated (e.g., transit corridors, downtown areas). The concept involves a transaction between two property owners: the owner of property in a designated “sending” area can sell or otherwise transfer the development rights from that property to an owner of property in a designated “receiving” area, who can then develop that second property at a higher intensity than would otherwise be permitted.
The proposed “Transfer of Development Rights” feature is described in the draft, beginning on page 3-47. We believe that this is a good idea, and an idea that has worked well in some parts of the country. There are complexities involved in trying to implement it in Chapel Hill, and we look forward to discussion about whether or not this would be effective in this area. We note that Planning Board members have expressed reservations about the feasibility of this concept for Chapel Hill. (Please see attached memorandum from the Planning Board.)
Inclusionary Zoning: The purpose of this proposed requirement would be to promote construction of affordable housing. The Town Council has had success in encouraging development of affordable housing opportunities as new residential projects are proposed; this section would change the context from “encourage” to “require.” Language describing the proposed idea begins on page 3-50 of the draft.
There is considerable discussion needed about this idea. A threshold discussion focuses on the question of whether or not Chapel Hill has the legislative authority to impose this type of requirement. We look forward to additional discussion with our consultant and Town Attorney on that point.
The next key issue is what to require. A table on page 3-52 sets up a framework for defining an Inclusionary obligation; but discussion is needed about what can/should be required. A “payment-in-lieu” provision is also suggested, but again with blanks as to what the level of requirement ought to be. If the Council wishes pursuit of this concept, we would offer specific numbers and amounts in the 2nd Draft of this proposed Ordinance.
“Small House” Requirements:
Council members have expressed interest in assuring that the revised Ordinance carry over the Town’s existing requirement that a percentage of units in new residential developments be limited in size. It has also been suggested that those requirements could be expanded, so as to extend the requirement to situations not currently covered.
The draft carries over the existing provisions for requiring small dwelling units. Beginning on page 3-40, the draft replicates the current requirements. The key point is this:
If the Council wishes to adjust the current provision, this could be considered in preparation of the 2nd draft. We look forward to the Council’s discussion.
Overlay Zones:
The draft Development Ordinance includes adjustments to existing overlay zoning districts and regular zoning districts and the creation of a new overlay zoning district and regular zoning districts.
Airport Hazard Overlay Zoning District Changes: The draft Ordinance proposes changes to the existing Airport Hazard Zoning District. The proposal does not change the area that is zoned Airport Hazard but does include new standards for development that might occur within the zone.
Resource Conservation District Adjustments: The proposed changes to the Resource Conservation District include:
Mixed Use Zoning District Changes: The proposal from the consultant would combine the two mixed use zoning districts. The new mixed use zoning district is proposed to encourage development with mutually supporting residential, commercial and office uses. New vertical mixed use and horizontal mixed use concepts are introduced.
We note that the elimination of two districts and creation of a new zone will necessitate rezoning of the areas currently within the zones that are proposed to be eliminated.
New Overlay Zoning District – Neighborhood Conservation District: The new overlay district proposes that at the direction of the Town Council, or at the request of 51% of property owners within the proposed district, a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District can be established. The Neighborhood Conservation District would require creation by the Planning Board of a neighborhood conservation plan that would include design standards to be administered by the Town Manager.
Article 4 merges several articles from the current ordinance and places procedures for the each of the following in one section:
For the most part, each of these procedures mirrors exactly the procedures in the current Development Ordinance. One exception to that is for Concept Plans. A significant change is proposed for Concept Plan review.
Concept Plan Review:
Presently the Development Ordinance establishes a pre-application requirement for Community Design Commission review of a Conceptual Plan prior to submittal of a major development application. The consultant offers several options for change to this provision all of which provide for some level of Town Council involvement in the review of Concept Plans. The options provided by the consultant include:
Changes to Land Use Intensity Ratios:
The draft Ordinance proposes to eliminate several concepts that are in the current Development Ordinance, which we believe are unnecessary and make the Ordinance more complicated than it needs to be. One distinction proposed is to no longer categorize uses into “Use Groups” (Use Group A, Use Group B, and Use Group C). The current Ordinance categorizes uses into these three use groups and then applies different intensity ratios to each use group based on zoning district.
The draft Ordinance also eliminates most of the Land Use Intensity ratios. Floor Area ratios remain with the elimination of Livability Space, Outdoor Space and Recreation Space requirements. Instead these ratios have been replaced with Impervious Surface ratios. We note that Recreation Space ratios were eliminated and do not appear to have been replaced. We will work with the consultant to ensure that recreation requirements remain in the draft Ordinance.
The draft Ordinance also no longer includes the concept of intensity bonus levels for the three use groups. These varying levels were never used and added complexity.
Impervious Surface Restrictions: The draft Ordinance includes the application of impervious surface restrictions throughout the Town. Currently, impervious surface ratios apply to the southern portion of the Town’s jurisdiction located in the Watershed Protection District. Similar restrictions are proposed for the entire Town, the least restrictive of which would be in the downtown area.
Revision to Parking Regulations: The draft Development Ordinance includes new parking regulations. In addition to updating the current minimum parking requirements, the draft introduces maximum parking requirements.
Stormwater Management Provisions: the stormwater management provisions of the draft Ordinance has been greatly expanded. The draft includes submittal requirements as well as new standards. These standards include:
Changes to Composition of Planning Board: One change proposed in the draft Ordinance would adjust the composition of the Planning Board. The Planning Board currently consists of ten (10) members:
Seven (7) members from within the corporate limits;
Two (2) members from the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction; and
One (1) member from the Joint Planning Transition Area.
As the corporate limits of the Town expand, the land area within our extraterritorial planning jurisdiction continues to decline. The draft Ordinance includes adjustments that reflect the declining population within the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. The new composition proposed includes ten (10) members:
Eight (8) members from within the corporate limits;
One (1) member from the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction; and
One (1) member from the Joint Planning Transition Area.
SCHEDULE
Tonight the Council will receive the draft Ordinance and hear from the advisory boards and citizens. After receiving direction from the Council tonight, we expect the consultant to continue to adjust the draft Development Ordinance. Town staff and the attorney are expected continue work with the consultant over the summer. A September 19 Hearing has been scheduled for review of a final draft of the Development Ordinance.
The Council had previously endorsed a schedule that anticipated adoption of a revised Ordinance in October/November of this year.
A key issue will be the effective date of new regulations. Our preliminary recommendation is that the revised regulations not become effective upon adoption, but instead become effective on January 1, 2002. This would provide a one or two-month period that would allow us to review applications that are in process for compliance with the new regulations. We note that we are advising all applicants in the process now of the pending regulations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following advisory boards received the draft Ordinance at the May 29 meeting and have been asked to schedule time to review the first draft of the revised Development Ordinance and provide comments at tonight’s public hearing:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
Community Design Commission
Greenways Commission
Historic District Commission
Housing and Community Development Advisory Board
Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning Board
Transportation Board
Written comments from the Greenways Commission and Transportation Board are attached. A set of issues and questions has been prepared by Planning Board members, and those are attached. (The Planning Board expects to finalize comments on this draft at its July 17 meeting.) Other Boards will likely present comments at tonight’s hearing. As additional written comments boards become available, we will provide them for Council and consultant consideration.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend that the Town Council receive the first draft of the Ordinance with the comments from advisory boards and citizens and provide guidance and direction to the consultant. We expect work to continue over the summer and, we have scheduled a Public Hearing to consider a final draft of the Development Ordinance on Wednesday, September 19, 2001.
Attachments
1. Memorandum from the Greenways Commission (p. 10)
2. Memorandum from the Planning Board (p. 12)
3. Memorandum from the Transportation Board (p. 15)
4. Table of Contents from Draft Ordinance (p. 20)
[Note: Full copy of Draft Ordinance, approximately 300 pages, is available electronically on the Town’s website as part of tonight’s meeting agenda, and available for review in hardcopy in the Chapel Hill Planning Department, the office of the Chapel Hill Town Clerk, and the Chapel Hill Public Library.}