Attachment 2

Review of 2^nd Draft of Development Ordinance Revision:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIRECTION IN PREPARATION OF A 3^RD DRAFT

Review of the 2^nd Draft of a proposed new Development Ordinance has focused attention on several key “decision points” - - issues where it would be highly desirable for the Town Council to give direction to the consultant and staff regarding what to include in the next draft. We identified 12 such questions in October, and review the questions again here. In this attachment, we briefly discuss each issue and offer a recommendation for the Council’s consideration.

1. Which model for Concept Plan Review should be included in the Ordinance?

The Town Council has expressed interest in being in a position to provide input and reaction to development plans at early stages, rather than waiting until a public hearing before being able to offer comments. The Town’s current system requires preparation and review of a Concept Plan as the first step for any major development application. Currently such plans are reviewed by the Community Design Commission. The 2^nd Draft would have the Town Council review Concept Plans in place of the Community Design Commission. The Design Commission has suggested that it continue to review Concept Plans as it has in the past, and further suggests that the Council consider establishing a threshold to trigger Council review, in addition, for certain types of applications.

Recommendation: We believe that there are two significant disadvantages to having the Council replace the Community Design Commission in review of Concept Plans. First is the loss of ideas and advice from the Commission; second is the amount of time the full Council would need to devote to this task. We find merit in the Design Commission’s suggestion of a threshold. We suggest that the next draft be written in a way that provides for Council review of a Concept Plan, following Design Commission review, for any application that involves more than 5 acres of land.

2. Are the maximum parking specifications acceptable? Should they be reconsidered?

Several Advisory Boards have pointed out problems with the proposed maximum parking requirements for specific uses. Another idea that has been proposed is to exempt structured and underground parking from any maximum limit. The Council has clearly expressed an interest in minimizing the amount of parking that is built to accompany new development, both to minimize impervious surface and to increase incentives for alternate transportation modes.

Recommendation: We believe that the proposed maximums need more study, both for the individual uses noted by boards, and in general. We suggest including a provision that would raise the allowable maximum number of spaces for parking proposed in decks or underground.

3. The Planning Board proposed deferring action on Article 2 for now. Acceptable?

Article 2 proposes a set of optional Use Patterns. The idea is that a developer could choose to either design according to the conventional regulations that are contained in the rest of the ordinance, or could select one of the Use Patterns, each of which has its own set of unique development standards. The Planning Board observed that this is an interesting concept and probably desirable, but that the individual development standards proposed for each option need much more study and attention. The Board suggests that the Council consider adopting the new Development Ordinance with Article 2 “reserved,” and then direct the Planning Board to study each Use Pattern in detail, one at a time, for possible adoption at a subsequent date.

Recommendation: We agree with the Planning Board’s assessment and recommend deferring action on Article 2, pending further study beginning later in the year.

4. Which of the suggested changes to the RCD ordinance should be included?

The 2^nd Draft proposes tightening up RCD restrictions in areas closest to streams.

Recommendation: We believe that the higher level of restriction in areas closest to streams is appropriate and desirable. However, we note the concern raised by several staff members who observe that such restriction may make it more difficult or impossible to construct low-impact nature trails along land the Town has acquired for such use. We suggest keeping the new restrictions in the 3^rd Draft, but with language that would permit informal (non-paved) trails.

5. How much Council discretion and flexibility should be written into the Ordinance?

A recurring issue in the development review/approval process is the question of the degree to which regulations should be written in a manner that is clear with predictable outcomes, versus a manner that allows the Town Council discretion and flexibility in examining the circumstances of each individual case with decisions made on that basis.

Recommendation: We believe that the regulations proposed in the 2^nd Draft strike the appropriate balance between predictability and Council discretion in reviewing development applications.

6. Should Transfer of Development Rights be included, or reserved?

The Planning Board and the Community Design Commission have both suggested that the section of the 2^nd Draft describing the transfer of development rights be deleted. The Boards have observed that Chapel Hill’s setting is of a nature that such a system would be of little value if instituted just by Chapel Hill. One possible value would be a regional approach whereby land in outlying areas (e.g., farmland) might be preserved by compensating an outlying property owner by buying development rights from that owner, to be used to increase density within an urban area. The Planning Board suggested that the prospects for such a regional system, if present at all, would come about in the context of regional discussions on how a system might be structured.

Recommendation: We agree with these two Advisory Boards that the Transfer of Development Rights section should be deleted at this time, with a place reserved in the ordinance so that language could be inserted in the future if the Council so desired. If the Council in the future decides to enter into regional discussions on this topic, the language that has been drafted can be used as a starting point.

7. Should there be stronger requirements for sidewalk construction?

Several Boards and citizens have suggested more aggressive requirements for sidewalk and bicycle improvements to accompany new development.

Recommendation: We agree with this approach, and suggest directing the consultant to increase emphasis in the 3^rd Draft on requiring such improvements.

8. Is the “Neighborhood Conservation District” model one that should be included?

The 2^nd Draft proposes a new device called “Neighborhood Conservation District.” If a threshold percentage of property owners in a residential neighborhood agreed to pursue such designation for their neighborhood, this mechanism would provide a higher level of standards for new development in the form of an overlay zoning district. Representatives of one neighborhood spoke at the Public Hearing in favor of this concept, but suggested that the thresholds for a neighborhood bring a petition to the Town Council were proposed to be set too high.

Recommendation: We agree that this is a promising concept, and recommend that it be kept in the 3^rd Draft. We also suggest adjusting the petition threshold, to lower the barriers to bringing a proposal forward for consideration by the Town Council.

9. Should stormwater management requirements be applied to single-family lots?

In current regulations, stormwater management requirements apply to all new development except residential subdivisions. In recent practice, the Town Council has successfully encouraged developers of such subdivisions to construct stormwater management devices. Such requirements have never been applied to construction on single-family lots. The Council has directed the consultant to propose more aggressive stormwater management regulations for all new development, and the 2^nd Draft includes many specific new standards that would apply to any and all new development that disturbs more than 40,000 square feet of land. We believe that the proposed requirements would apply to construction of a single-family house, if land disturbance associated with such activity exceeded 40,000 square feet.

Recommendation: We believe that the enhanced requirements proposed in the 2^nd Draft are appropriate. We note that additional study is underway, and the 3^rd Draft is likely to “fine-tune” the suggested requirements that are currently included in the 2^nd Draft. We anticipate this to be a major point of discussion when the Council and the community begin review of a 3^rd Draft.

10. Should the “Inclusionary Housing” provisions be included?

The consultant has suggested that the Council could reasonably decide to require affordable housing as a component of new residential development. The consultant also notes that the imposition of such a requirement could be challenged.

Recommendation: We continue to believe that it is reasonable to be considering this requirement, and recommend keeping the provisions in the 3^rd Draft for additional consideration. A key issue will be discussion of how this requirement might apply differently in rental versus ownership settings. We continue to believe that the decision of whether or not to include the requirement in a final adopted version of the ordinance will rest on the Council’s determination of the advantages of pursuing the community’s affordable housing needs with this technique, weighed against the possible disadvantages of a challenge to the requirement.

11. Should alternate approaches to “small house” provisions be incorporated?

Both the current Development Ordinance and the 2^nd Draft include a requirement that 25% of lots in new subdivisions (over 12 lots in size) be restricted to construction of small houses. A developer has proposed an amendment that would allow the Town Council flexibility to accept either creation of affordable housing opportunities or equivalent payments in lieu of the small house restriction.

Recommendation: We believe that this idea has merit, and should be included in the 3^rd Draft for discussion.

12. Which of the comments that have been suggested by citizens and Advisory Boards should be included in the 3^rd Draft?

Attachment 1 contains the written comments of Advisory Boards, citizens, and organizations. We suggest that the Council ask the consultant to carefully consider all comments. In addition, if there are specific comments that the Council, in reviewing Attachment 1, finds particularly desirable, we suggest that the Council identify those for particular attention by the consultant in preparation of the 3^rd Draft.