MEMORANDUM

AGENDA #1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Review of Development Ordinance Discussions

DATE: June 3, 2002

This memorandum reviews the status of discussions regarding a draft new Development Ordinance for Chapel Hill. The attached resolution would offer direction for revisions to be made in preparing the next draft. The Council is scheduled to consider taking action on this resolution on June 10, 2002.

BACKGROUND

Following adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan in May 2000, the Town Council began a process to revise Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance. A first draft was prepared in the spring of 2001, reviewed by citizens and advisory boards, and considered at a Public Hearing in June. A second draft was prepared over the summer of 2001, and reviewed again by citizens and advisory boards. A Public Hearing on the second draft was held in September. In October, the Council decided to invest additional time in review of the draft.

A workshop was conducted on January 11, 2002, attended by approximately 50 citizens, advisory board members, designers, developers, and staff, to examine how proposed provisions of this second draft would affect the form of new development. On January 14, the Council decided that additional workshop opportunities would be desirable, and that work sessions for the Town Council would be helpful. The schedule called for a series of Council meetings, Public Forums, and workshops, followed by a Public Hearing for the Council to hear public comments on the Second Draft. The Council discussed the draft on three separate evenings: March 18, April 15, and May 20.

The schedule from this point forward is as follows:

June 3, tonight, the Council will hear public comments.

June 10, the Council will decide what directions to give the consultant in preparation of a Third Draft.

September 18, 2002, will be a Public Hearing to review the Third Draft.

DISCUSSION

We have prepared a summary of all the information in our notes and files that we have collected as discussions about the Second Draft have unfolded over the past 9 months. We offer the following documents:

· This memorandum, which describes the main issues and suggestions for revision.

· A series of 13 Discussion Papers, each of which focuses on an issue that has been particularly significant. For each item, we list a Preliminary Recommendation for direction to the Consultant. There are approximately 180 individual recommendations. We suggest that this set of recommendations be used as a starting point for the Council’s discussion regarding directions for the Consultant.

· A Preliminary Resolution for consideration tonight and for possible adoption on June 10, transmitting information and directions to the Consultant.

· A copy of our January 14, 2002 memorandum to the Town Council, summarizing the status of this project as of that date.

· A set of the written materials that we have received from Advisory boards, organizations, citizens, and staff members, all offering suggestions for the Development Ordinance, including summaries from the various citizen workshops that were held.

We will make a summary presentation tonight, leaving most of the evening available for citizens to address the Council with their ideas and comments.

GENERAL THEMES

This draft has been under study by our community for 9 months, and been the subject of Council discussion at 8 Town Council meetings, discussed by 6 Town Advisory boards, been the subject of 5 citizen forums and 3 Saturday workshops. Not surprisingly, some distinct patterns and themes have begun to emerge. We offer our observations and comments on these general themes here:

Infill and Redevelopment: The Comprehensive Plan noted that Chapel Hill is approaching build-out, and suggested that redevelopment is important to Chapel Hill’s future. The Comprehensive Plan also noted preferences for fine-grained mixed use (e.g., corner store in a residential neighborhood), increased walkability, and diversity in housing types to accommodate a growing population and affordable housing needs. Our consultant, in addressing these objectives, has suggested changes in our regulations that would allow/encourage redevelopment and small-sized multi-family, office, and commercial development.

Our conclusion, after this 9-month period of community dialogue, is that the changes proposed in this Second Draft would allow a level of infill and redevelopment that the community does not find acceptable. Examples of proposals in this Second Draft include: reduced setbacks, elimination of minimum acreage for planned developments, reduction of minimum lot size for duplex dwellings, and maximum lot widths. All of these changes would promote some of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. But in our observation, community reaction has been that these objectives would come at the expense of unacceptable changes to existing neighborhoods.

Accordingly, our preliminary recommendations for the Third Draft suggest revisions that emphasize neighborhood preservation.

Tighten Regulations: The Council’s directions to date to our Consultant have been clear on many fronts, especially relating to regulations that involve environmental protection: Propose more rigorous regulation. We note that the Consultant has done that in the Second Draft, and that the community reaction has been positive. We also note that there have been multiple suggestions for even more rigor.

Accordingly, our preliminary recommendations for the Third Draft suggest further restrictions in many areas, including: Resource Conservation District, stormwater management, steep slope guidelines, and tree protection regulations.

Apply More Regulations to Construction of Single-Family and Two-Family Units: One major policy change that would clearly address items 1. and 2. above would be to begin applying a wider array of development regulations to the construction of single-family and two-family dwelling units. Historically in Chapel Hill, one and two-family dwellings in most parts of Town can be authorized with a simple application for and approval of a Building Permit. The following types of regulations have, by policy, not been applied to single-family/two-family construction: tree protection regulations, stormwater management requirements, and impervious surface limitations. Our preliminary recommendations for the Third Draft include applying these regulations to single-family and two-family construction. This would be a major policy shift for Chapel Hill.

Stormwater Management: A primary topic over this 9-month dialogue has been stormwater management and issues directly related to stormwater management: impervious surface limitations, Resource Conservation District restrictions, water quality, flood damage prevention, detention, tree protection, soil and erosion control requirements. Our preliminary recommendations for the Third Draft would result in changes that would be more aggressive in all of these areas.

Buffers and Urban Design: A key theme in Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan is a set of design principles that emphasize pedestrian movements, active streetscapes, high-quality building design, and buildings set close to streets and sidewalks. These design principles often conflict with the Town’s buffer requirements, which were established in the mid-1980’s. We believe that the underlying principle of the Town’s buffer requirements, which is to screen all new development behind a vegetative buffer, is not consistent with the current urban design principles that are articulated in the Comprehensive Plan.

Accordingly, our preliminary recommendations suggest changes in the Third Draft that would revise buffer requirements. One example of a proposed new approach would be as follows: If a parking lot abuts a street, buffer requirements should be rigorous; if a building abuts a street, buffer requirements should be light or absent. We also note the need to re-think the relationship between buffer and setback requirements, and how those interrelate.

Regulations vs. Guidelines: A key decision for the Council will be, for many issues, “Make it law, or make it a guideline?” Our preliminary recommendations include both, depending on the issue. Regulations should clearly be in the ordinance for issues that need to be consistently enforced Townwide. Examples are impervious surface restrictions, Resource Conservation District requirements, permitted uses and minimum lot sizes. Other issues may need attention to site-specific differences, or involve trade-offs with other objectives, and are better suited to establishing expected guidelines that allow some flexibility. Examples include street construction standards and an inventory of stormwater management Best Management Practices.

As we have listened carefully to all of these discussions during this period of public comment and observed these themes emerge, both from the Council and from citizens, we find that the themes begin to define the guidance that we are seeking in considering revisions for the Third Draft. In the Preliminary Recommendations that we offer with this memorandum tonight, we rely heavily on this community guidance. We look forward to reactions from the community and the Town Council.

NEXT STEPS

We suggest that the Discussion Papers in Attachment 1 become the base for the Council’s review of and comment on the Second Draft. We believe that these papers address the issues that have been raised and suggestions that have been made during this 9-month review period. We suggest that, after review of the preliminary recommendations in these Discussion Papers and in consideration of public comment tonight, the Council identify which of the recommendations need attention, and then focus discussion on those items on June 10. We also invite comments from the Council and the community about any suggestions that were made during these nine months that we might have missed in our compilation.

A resolution that presents the Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation is attached. It is our intent to return to the Council with a revised resolution on June 10, modified to reflect direction that the Council offers tonight.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Series of Discussion Papers (begin new page 1).

Attachment 2: Preliminary Resolution with directions to the Consultant (p. 30).

Attachment 3: Copy of January 14 Memorandum to Town Council (p. 31).

Attachment 4: Comments from Citizens, Boards, Staff, and Workshop Summaries (p. 38).

Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action (p. 39).

Summary of Community Design Commission Action (p. 41).

Memorandum from Greenways Commission (p. 47).

Memorandum from Parks and Recreation Commission (p. 48).

Memorandum from Planning Board (p. 49).

Memorandum from Transportation Board (p. 53).

Memorandum from Mr. Dale Coker (p. 58).