ATTACHMENT 1

 

 

DISCUSSION PAPERS

 

June 3, 2002

Review of Second Draft of Development Ordinance

 

 

 

                                                                                                                    Page #

 

Discussion Paper #1:   Document as a Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        2

 

Discussion Paper #2:   Town Center District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        4

 

Discussion Paper #3:    Mixed Use District  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      5                     

 

Discussion Paper #4:    Resource Conservation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      6

 

Discussion Paper #5:   Use Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      9

 

Discussion Paper #6:    Dimensional Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      10

 

Discussion Paper #7:    Inclusionary Zoning (Affordable Housing) . . . . . . .       12

 

Discussion Paper #8:    Concept Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    14

 

Discussion Paper #9:    Suggestions for Design Manual  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      15

           

Discussion Paper #10:  Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     16

 

Discussion Paper #11:  Buffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      18

 

Discussion Paper #12:  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       19

 

Discussion Paper #13:  Additional Comments and Revisions . . . . . . . . . . .        20

 

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #1

June 3, 2002

 

DOCUMENT AS A WHOLE

 

 

Several comments and recommendations have been made that relate to the general structure and formatting of the entire document.  Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Numbering of Sections needs attention in entire document - - check all cross-references, page numbering

 

 

Correct in Third Draft

 

2.  Document is not “user-friendly”

 

Attempts will be made to enhance “user-friendliness.” However, much of the language needs to be precise and written in the form of legal regulations, which are inherently not user-friendly, and the extent to which this goal can be achieved is limited. 

 

3.  Defer Consideration of Article 2 until after adoption of Development Ordinance;  Take up use patterns one at a time with Planning Board

 

 

Defer consideration

 

4.  Create a new Traditional Neighborhood Development  Zoning District (Sec. 3.5.3)

 

 

Defer consideration

 

5.  Create a new Transit Oriented Development Zoning District (Sec. 3.5.4)

 

 

Defer consideration

 

6. Combine Watershed Protection District and Water Quality District (Sec. 3.6.4)

 

 

 

Combine as shown in Draft

 

7.  Incentive Zoning:  New provision would grant bonus densities for extra parks/open space, and for redevelopment of existing shopping centers.(Sec. 3.9)

 

 

Delete provision.  Require desired amount of parks/open space elsewhere.

 

8.  Transfer of Development Rights:  New provision would allow property owners in one location to sell development rights that would increase allowable densities on the purchasing property.   (Sec. 3.9.2)

 

 

 

Delete provision.  Level of intergovernmental cooperation to initiate this concept has not yet been pursued;  questions have been raised about the prospect of properties being able to increase allowable densities, over and above what would otherwise be specified as acceptable.

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #2

June 3, 2002

 

TOWN CENTER DISTRICT

(Sec. 3.3.1)

 

 

A key change proposed in this Draft is a set of specific design guidelines for development and redevelopment in the Town Center zoning districts.  Also proposed is a set of procedural incentives to help encourage achievement of Town objectives.

 

Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

1.  Design Details:  Second Draft specifies Town Center Design Details in Ordinance (Sec. 3.3.1)

 

 

Remove Design Details from Ordinance; place in Design Manual

 

 

2.  Procedural Incentives:  Second Draft allows for Site Plan Approval only or Building Permit only for projects meeting Design Criteria in Town Center (Sec. 3.3.1)

 

 

Continue present system of Special Use Permit for projects greater than 20,000 square feet of floor area, Site Plan Approval for others.

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #3

June 3, 2002

 

MIXED USE DISTRICT

(Sec. 3.5.1)

 

Chapel Hill’s current Development Ordinance has two Mixed Use zoning districts:  Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1, and Mixed Use-Residential-1.  The two zones are very similar.  Consensus is that the provisions do not guarantee the kind of mixed-use development the community desires. 

 

There appears to be consensus that the revised, single Mixed Use district proposed in the Second Draft is an improvement over what we have, but that the proposed provisions still need attention. A suggestion has been made that Chapel Hill’s 3 existing mixed-use developments, Chapel Hill North, Southern Village, and Meadowmont, be reviewed to offer comments on how designs would have had to be different under the proposed zone.  We intend to prepare illustrative comparisons and report back along with delivery of a Third Draft.

 

We note that eliminating our two existing Mixed Use zoning districts would require that properties currently carrying those zoning designations would have to be re-zoned. Accordingly, we would recommend retaining the two existing zones — so that application to developed properties would continue — while creating this new zone that can be applied in the future to undeveloped properties.  Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Require all 3 uses:  Residential, Office, Commercial

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

2.  Adjust buffers/setbacks

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

3.  Height, intensity allowances too high

 

 

Reduce in Third Draft

 

4.  Include provisions to promote alternate transportation modes

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

5.  Include provisions about phasing a mixed-use development

 

Include in Third Draft

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #4

June 3, 2002

 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

(Sec. 3.6.3)

 

The Second Draft tightens restrictions over Resource Conservation District regulations that currently exist.  Most comments seek further tightening, beyond that which has been proposed.

 

One major issue concerns the fact that Chapel Hill’s flood maps are 25 years old and out of date, and that the actual elevation for the 100-year flood is believed to be higher in all areas than current maps indicate.  A suggestion has been made to increase the RCD elevation from the existing definition of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation to 3 feet above.  Increasing the elevation would include more area within the RCD.  A disadvantage is that some of this additional area likely is developed and would become nonconforming.

 

A second major issue concerns buffers.  Currently, required buffers are 100’ for streams draining more than 1 square mile, 75’ for streams draining less than 1 square mile.  Also, for lots created prior to 1987, the required buffer is 50 feet.  It has been suggested that all buffers be a minimum of 100 feet.  An advantage of this change would be to better protect stream corridors.  A disadvantage is that some of this additional area likely is developed and would become nonconforming. 

 

A third major issue is whether or not to extend stream protection regulations to intermittent streams and, if so, what level of regulation to pursue.  Related to this issue is Chapel Hill’s current definition of perennial stream, which is broad and includes streams that may be called “intermittent” in neighboring jurisdictions.  The key choices focus on the definitions of perennial and intermittent streams, and what regulations to apply to intermittent streams.

 

A final major issue involves concerns not directly related to the Development Ordinance.  Among these issues are clarification of Chapel Hill’s goals for water quality in impaired streams, and consideration of upcoming state regulations that will be applied to the Neuse River Basin.  These topics will need ongoing attention, beyond consideration of changes to the Development Ordinance, and should be included in upcoming discussion about a possible stormwater utility.

 

Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Increase RCD elevation to 3’ above 100-year flood elevation

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

2.  Include protection for intermittent streams

 

Include in Third Draft, with attention to definitions, standards

 

3.  Change the definition of perennial stream to include 1 of 3 characteristics, rather than 2;  add surface waters (e.g., pond)

 

Consider changes, with attention to maintain differences between perennial, intermittent, and man-made channel

 

4.  How to define 3 component parts of RCD in the context of an area defined as RCD by elevation above the floodplain?

 

 

Clarify in Third Draft

 

5.  Require all buffers from perennial stream to be 100’ or RCD elevation, whichever is greater

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

6.  Re-organize to put all RCD regulations in one place (uses, standards, variance procedures, nonconforming section, definitions)

 

 

Re-organize in Third Draft

 

7.  Adjust table limiting disturbed area and impervious surface so that standards in all components of RCD are at least as rigorous as current standards; include standards about land disturbance

 

 

Adjust in Third Draft

 

8.  Second Draft would require variance for streets and bridges

 

Remove requirement for variance for public streets and bridges

 

9.  Second Draft would preclude sidewalks along streets in RCD

 

Adjust to allow sidewalks, public greenways and trails

 

10.  Change to preclude use of pesticides in a Managed Use zone

 

 

Change as suggested

 

11.  Existing Ordinance and Second Draft require the lowest floor of a mobile home, if located within the RCD, to be at least 2’ above the 100-year flood elevation;  but similar language requires all other structures to be 3 ½ feet above

 

 

 

Increase required elevation of mobile homes to match other structures

 

12.  Require Best Management Practices facilities (BMP’s) for all development within the RCD

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

13.  Do not permit pastures or plant nurseries in the streamside zone of the Resource Conservation District

 

 

Include in Third Draft


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #5

June 3, 2002

 

USE MATRIX

(Sec. 3.7.2)

 

The Use Matrix in Section 3.7.2 is the main control mechanism to specify what uses can go where.  A key change from existing regulations is de-emphasizing the concept of Use Groups.

 

Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Formatting changes are needed throughout this table

 

 

Adjust format

 

2.  Clarify that a duplex is not a permitted use in R-1.  (Current regulations permit a duplex on R-1 lots which were platted before a certain date.)

 

 

Change to specify that duplexes are not permitted in R-1, regardless of date of plat recordation

 

 

3.  Adjust footnote to limit special provisions that currently apply to all schools, such that the special provisions only apply to public schools

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #6

June 3, 2002

 

DIMENSIONAL MATRIX

(Sec. 3.8, Table 3.8-1)

 

 

 

We believe that the Dimensional Matrix in Article 3 is the most important page in the Second Draft.  This is the location where a number of major changes are suggested.  The general nature of our recommendations, appearing below, and as discussed in the attached memorandum, is that these proposed Second Draft provisions would not result in development patterns desired by most citizens.

 

Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Floor Area Ratios (FAR’s) are too high

 

 

Study and reduce in Third Draft

 

2.  Floor Area Ratios should apply to single-family, duplex

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

3.  Reduced setbacks are too low

 

 

Study and raise in Third Draft

 

4.  Maximum lot widths and maximum setbacks are problems

 

Eliminate in Third Draft

 

 

5.  There should be a minimum lot size for multi-family construction (including two-family)

 

 

Include in Third Draft; eliminate exemption for older lots

 

6.  Continue approach to apply Impervious Limits Townwide

 

 

Continue to include in Third Draft

 

7.  Apply Impervious Surface Limits to construction of    single-family/two-family dwellings

 

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

8.  Adjust Impervious Surface requirements to account for  existing impervious areas on a site

 

 

Adjust in Third Draft

 

9.  Vary impervious surface restrictions by drainage basin

 

 

Defer consideration

 

10.  Adjust impervious surface ratios for small lots

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

11.  Distinguish between types of pervious surface (e.g., lawn different from forest) and regulate accordingly

 

 

Defer consideration

 

12.  Revise recreation ratios; require at least as much as current regulations;  coordinate with open space, impervious surface rules

 

 

Revise in Third Draft

 

 

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #7

June 3, 2002

 

 

INCLUSIONARY ZONING (AFFORDABLE HOUSING)

(Sec. 3.10)

 

 

The Council has asked the consultant to prepare affordable housing regulations.  This section is included in the Second Draft, and is accompanied by a discussion paper prepared by the consultant. 

 

After discussions with the Town Attorney we believe that there are substantial questions about whether such requirements could withstand a challenge.  We note that the Council has requested special legislation repeatedly, and we intend to recommend that the Town continue making such requests so that Chapel Hill can obtain clear authority for this type of requirement. We also note that the Council has been increasingly successful over the past two years in encouraging applicants to provide an affordable housing component to projects that are brought before the Council for approval.  Accordingly we do not recommend that the Council include an Affordable Housing requirement at this time.

 

Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Continue to include an affordable housing requirement? 

 

 

Eliminate requirement in Third Draft; continue to pursue affordable housing objectives as is done presently, on a case-by-case basis

 

 

2.  Require non-residential development to provide affordable housing?

 

 

Eliminate in Third Draft

 

3.  Coordinate affordable housing provisions with small house requirements for subdivisions

 

 

If Affordable requirement is retained, adjust as suggested in Third Draft

 

 

4.  Second Draft has a sliding scale for the affordable housing requirement - - keep or adjust?

 

If Affordable requirement is retained, adjust to require a standard 15%

 

5.  Include rental opportunities in the affordable housing requirement

 

 

Precluded by State law related to rent control

 

6.  Second Draft has provision for Manager to adjust requirement

 

If Affordable requirement is retained,

eliminate this provision in Third Draft

 

 

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #8

June 3, 2002

 

CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW

(Sec. 4.3)

 

One of the Council’s goals, both for this Development Ordinance revision and in general, is to seek ways to design processes that are less adversarial than current systems.  One way to accomplish that would be for the Council to be able to participate at an early stage of a major development application, at a time when adjustments to a development plan are most easy to accommodate.

 

To help accomplish that, the Council has indicated interest in becoming involved in review of Concept Plans, a task currently performed by the Community Design Commission.  Early proposals for this had the Council replacing the Commission in performing these reviews.  Two problems immediately became apparent with this idea:  it would lose the benefit of review by design professionals and Advisory Board representatives who serve on the Community Design Commission; and it would create a need for many more Town Council meetings.

 

A key may be to design a system whereby the Community Design Commission continues its review of Concept Plans as it does now, with a mechanism for Council review in addition for certain categories of proposals.  Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Set a threshold for applications (e.g., land area greater than five acres, floor area greater than 100,000 square feet), which would trigger subsequent review by the Council. 

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

2.  When the Council does review a Concept Plan, there should be action - - a Council vote on a resolution to transmit a set of comments

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

3.  For Concept Plan applications below thresholds, applicants may request Council review

 

Include in Third Draft, with language indicating that the Council may choose to decline

 

4.  Require Transportation Analysis as part of Concept Plan

 

Do not require


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #9

June 3, 2002

 

SUGGESTIONS FOR DESIGN MANUAL

 

Provisions in the Development Ordinance are law.  They must be followed.  Provisions in the Town’s Design Manual are guidelines.  A statement at the beginning of the Design Manual asserts that the guidelines shall be followed unless it can be demonstrated to the Town Manager that an alternate solution will achieve an equivalent or better result.

 

For most issues, this Second Draft does not propose shifting items between the Manual and the Ordinance;  but a few topics have been raised during recent discussions.

 

For each of the items listed below that is currently included in the Second Draft, we recommend shifting to the Design Manual. Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Downtown Design Details

 

 

Shift to Design Manual

 

2.  Buffer Specifications - Need additional Study

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 

3.  Planting lists - - trees, buffers, invasive exotics

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 

4.  Need Alley Standards to go with street standards

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 

5. On-street parking guidelines, including streets with no curb

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 

6.  Lighting Standards:  cutoff, spillover, night sky impacts

 

Keep references in Ordinance; specifics in Design Manual

 

7.  Open Space Guidelines (e.g., connecting open space)

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 


 

Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #10

June 3, 2002

 

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

(Sec. 5.4)

 

 

This is one of the key issues that has emerged during review of the Second Draft. The Second Draft is more rigorous in its stormwater management requirements than is the case with current regulations.  Most discussion on this topic has focused on the need to go further.

 

Many stormwater-related comments are addressed in sections focusing on the Resource Conservation District, impervious surface restrictions, tree ordinance, and soil erosion control measures.  Specific additional comments on stormwater management issues in the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  The threshold in the Second Draft to trigger stormwater management requirements, 40,000 square feet of disturbed land area, is too low.  It should be no higher than 20,000 square feet

 

 

Change in Third Draft

 

2.  Single-family and two-family construction should not be exempt from stormwater requirements;  require attention at building permit application

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

3.  What will be the effect of proposed stormwater management requirements on public projects?

 

 

Prepare discussion for consideration along with Third Draft

 

4.  For detention:  need attention to where site is in drainage basin, as part of determination of detention requirement

 

 

Prepare discussion for consideration along with Third Draft

 

5.  Prohibit detention basins in RCD or on steep slopes

 

 

Include in Third Draft, with provision for exemption if no other option

 

 

6.  Address parking surfaces;  encourage low-impact surfaces

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 

7.  In the Stormwater Management introductory sections, refer to requirements of the National pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

8.  Be more specific about requirements for Stormwater Management Plan and related Operations and Maintenance Plan

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

9.  Be more specific about minimum stormwater control requirements, site design, and facility design, and maintenance

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #11

June 3, 2002

 

BUFFERS

 

Proposed buffer and setback requirements conflict in some situations in this Second Draft.  Also, we note that community conditions and objectives have evolved since buffer requirements were first introduced.

 

Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Adjust buffer and setback requirements to eliminate conflicts.  Consider new approach to buffers:  heavy buffers where parking lots abut street, lighter buffers where buildings abut street. (Sec. 5.6)

 

 

Adjust in Third Draft


Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #12

June 3, 2002

 

DEFINITIONS

(Appendix A)

 

Definitions often contain key substantive regulations.  Specific comments on the Second Draft appear below, along with our preliminary recommendation for revisions.

 

 

Comments/Suggestions

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

1.  Definitions of Open Space - - Needs to be coordinated with other definitions and requirements; use term other than “Passive Open Space.”

 

 

Adjust in Third Draft

 

2.  Definition of Contiguous Property - - Proposal to change to a customary definition

 

 

Change in Third Draft

 

3.  Occupancy Restrictions in Definitions - - Current restrictions in the definitions of dwellings and rooming house contain some impractical restrictions (e.g., no more than 4 unrelated people per structure, even if the structure has multiple dwelling units);  suggestion made to eliminate occupancy restrictions in favor of efforts to manage parking.

 

Adjust restrictions to eliminate impractical and un-enforceable rules.  Keep occupancy restrictions in the ordinance, to become part of a strategy (along with parking restrictions and floor area limits) to address concerns about impact on nearby residences.

 

4.  Definition of Perennial Stream - - Definition currently specifies 3 possible characteristics of a stream, and defines a stream as perennial if 2 of the 3 are present.  Suggestion is that stream should be considered perennial if any 1 is present.

 

 

Revise as suggested, with attention to assure that revised definition does not include all drainage channels

 

 

5.  Definition of Service Station - - Current definition is archaic. Give attention to possible impacts conversion from a Service Station to a Convenience Store.

 

 

Update definition


 

Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #13

June 3, 2002

 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND REVISIONS

 

This Discussion Paper summarizes the wide array of comments and suggestions that have been made on the Second Draft, with a Preliminary Recommendation regarding direction to the Consultant for preparation of a Third Draft.

 

 

Comment/Suggestion

 

 

Preliminary Recommendation

 

 

1.  Allow Home Occupations in the R-SS Zoning District.

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

2.  Amend exemption for walls – change from 9’ to 6’

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

3.  Consider impact of Homeowners dues on affordability

 

Not a Development Ordinance issue

 

4.  Can off-site impacts of a development be considered?

 

 

Yes, several existing provisions

 

5.  Prepare a Comparison of New Ordinance with Comprehensive Plan

 

Will deliver along with Third Draft

 

6.  How would Meadowmont have been different under the new        Mixed Use proposal?

 

Will deliver illustrative comparisons along with Third Draft

 

7.  How do Neuse River Basin rules compare to the RCD?

 

 

Will deliver along with Third Draft

 

8.  What is status of, goals for Town-impaired streams?

 

Needs separate discussion, as part of discussions about a Stormwater Utility.

 

9.  Can we have different impervious standards for different drainage basins within Town?

 

Do not recommend.  Can do, but would create complex regulatory environment

 

10.  Would like to see a map of impact of 100’ stream buffers.

 

 

Will deliver along with Third Draft

 

11. Watershed table 3.6.4-1 shows 30’ stream buffer.

 

 

Change to reflect RCD buffers

 

12.  Provide opportunity for Historic District Commission to review proposals for reconfiguration of lots in Historic Districts

 

 

Address as Council Policy

 

 

13.  Prohibit storage of hazardous materials in watershed

 

Consider in Third Draft, with consideration of existing gas stations

 

14.  Require more rigorous soil erosion and sedimentation management during construction; relate soil erosion regulations to stormwater management regulations

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

15.  Eliminate reference to a stormwater utility in Sec. 3.6.4(g)(3)

 

 

Eliminate reference

 

16.  Treat adult day care the same as child day care

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

17.  Review Article 6 “Special Regulations for Particular Uses” and “Definitions” - - consider which provisions should go where

 

 

Consider and adjust where appropriate

 

18.  Consultant to review “Overhead Utility Line” petition from March 25, 2002, and consider incorporating language that would require that 3-phase line be underground

 

 

Consider petition

 

19. Minimize/eliminate acronyms; include definitions of acronyms

 

 

Adjust as suggested

 

20.  Avoid term, “Passive Open Space”

 

 

Adjust as suggested

 

21.  Include definitions related to noise ordinance

 

 

Address in Town Code

 

22.  Parking maximums are too high

 

Consider as parking requirements are reviewed

 

23.  Update definition of “cemetery”

 

 

Adjust as suggested

 

24.  Require maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian systems and access during construction activities

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

25.  Re-think definition of “tree” - - too restrictive

 

 

Adjust as suggested

 

26.  Definition of “Public Facility” should include transit

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

27.  Any way to further encourage/require shared parking?

 

 

Prepare discussion for consideration

 

28.  For Planned Development guidelines, include reference to solar roofs and State energy guidelines in Sec. 6.16.1(e)

 

 

Prepare discussion for consideration

 

29. Consider how to manage parking restrictions where there is no curb and gutter

 

 

Address in revisions to Design Manual

 

30.  Can vacant, nonconforming lots be made unbuildable?

 

No. Address through more requirements for SF/2F construction.

 

31.  Adjust composition of Planning Board

 

 

Prepare discussion for consideration

 

32.  In description of responsibilities for Community Design Commission (Sec. 8.5) add “Final Plan Review”

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

33.  Include more requirements/restrictions before Building Permits are issued:  silt fences, staging details, etc.

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

34.  Create an incentive for residential use in Town Center

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

 

35.  Consider regulating interior lighting

 

 

Note in Design Manual

 

36.  Consider Transfer of Development Rights system for the Resource Conservation District

 

 

Defer consideration of TDR concept

 

37.  Consider Keeping Incentive Zoning for Retail Retrofit

 

 

Defer consideration of Incentive Zoning

 

38.  Incorporate recent amendments to Small House Ordinance

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

39.  Retain “Cottage Zoning” provisions (Residential-Special-Standards zoning district)

 

 

Retain as suggested

 

40.  Add language prohibiting “invasive exotic” plant material to Sec. 5.7.5(c)

 

 

Include as suggested; Specify plant species in Design Manual

 

41. Include references to public alleys in “Access and Circulation”

 

Include as suggested;  Include standards in Design Manual

 

42.  Consider easing restrictions on flag lots

 

 

Retain restrictions on flag lots

 

43.  What more can be done to encourage low-impact design?

 

 

Prepare discussion for consideration

 

44.  Mandate connectivity in open space

 

Include guidelines in Third Draft and in Design Manual

 

 

45.  Consider creation of a parks impact fee

 

Not a Development Ordinance issue;  if desired, pursue with direction to Manager

 

46.  Need better standards for parking lots:  shading, pedestrian facilities, lighting

 

 

 

 

Include in Third Draft and Design Manual

 

47.  Adjust window sign requirements to make consistent and enforceable

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

48.  Include language to encourage energy conservation in site design and structure design

 

Include in Third Draft

 

49.  Adjust current requirement that Parks and Recreation Commission submit recommendations to Planning Board for subdivision applications

 

 

Include change in Third Draft, to have P/R recommendation go to Town Council

 

50.  Add new definition for “flex-space” and use provisions

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

51.  Update definition of Telecommunication Tower

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

52.  Tree Ordinance - - eliminate exemption for SF/2F

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

53.  Eliminate the authority that the current ordinance gives to the Town Manager,  to waive information requirements for applications for RCD variances or encroachments in situations where the required information does not meaningfully apply

 

 

Do not eliminate authority

 

54.  Obtain the services of a professional writer for this document

 

Continue to work with staff and consultant

 

55.  Do not allow any activity in the RCD

 

 

Allow limited activity

 

56.  Require bikelanes, sidewalks, and bus stop amenities

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

57.  Consolidate Stormwater Management requirements

 

 

Re-organize in Third Draft

 

58.  Increase landscaping required for parking lots

 

Include in Third Draft and in Design Manual

 

59.  Need different rules for new vs. existing development

 

Re-consider nonconforming rules

 

 

60.  Link occupancy with car storage

 

Re-think occupancy Re-think occupancy restrictions and link to managing parking

 

61.  Need requirement to preserve/plant street trees

 

 

Address in Design Manual

 

62.  Provisions for Outdoor Skateboard Ramps not correctly stated in Second Draft

 

Adjust in Third Draft

 

63.  Coordinate “definitions” and Article 6 provisions

 

 

Adjust in Third Draft

 

64.  Sign changes needed for service stations - canopies, pumps

 

 

Adjust in Third Draft

 

65.  Do retention basins cause mosquito problems?

 

Prepare discussion for consideration

 

66.  Allow Planning Board to approve Payment-in-lieu for recreation area during a Site Plan Review action

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

67.  Payment-in-lieu fees should be calculated annually, as part of annual Council adoption of fee schedules

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

68.  Reconsider requiring non-residential development to provide recreation

 

Coordinate open space, recreation, and impervious surface requirements

 

69.  Allow pedestrian paths to go through buffers

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

70.  Steep slope provisions should be made more stringent

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

71.  For subdivisions in sensitive areas, require building footprint to be shown on recorded plat

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

72.  Consider creating an Environmental Impact Statement system, with required analysis and statements

 

 

Defer consideration

 

73.  In Planned Development section, language about neighborhood preservation was dropped

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

74.  Require pedestrian access to waste and recycling facilities

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 

75.  Require pedestrian access whenever drive-up access is present

 

Include in Design Manual

 

76.  Consider increasing parking maximums for fraternities and sororities

 

 

Consider along with general review of parking requirements

 

77.  Require separation or screening between eating/drinking establishment and place of worship

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

78. In parking table:  minimum and maximum reversed for “Residence Hall”

 

 

Adjust in Third Draft

 

79.  Reduce widths of local streets

 

 

Consider in Design Manual

 

80.  Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements should be considered in Traffic Impact Analyses

 

 

Consider in Appendix B, “Procedures”

 

81.  Encourage small, neighborhood recreation areas

 

Consider with review of recreation requirements

 

82.  Consider Impact Fee for transportation improvements

 

 

Defer Consideration

 

83.  Consider higher levels of street lighting

 

 

Consider in Design Manual

 

84. Change the current rule which specifies that adding up to10 parking spaces on a site can be considered a minor change to a Special Use Permit

 

No change; leave rule intact

 

85.  Define “Substantial Change in Circulation” (Sec. 4.3(b)(7)

 

Continue to allow judgement on a case-by-case basis

 

86.  Require a performance bond to ensure maintenance of transportation facilities

 

No change.  Bond required now, tied to acceptance of facilities

 

87.  Develop Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for transit facilities

 

Defer consideration

 

88.  Remove requirement for a park/ride terminal to have direct access onto an arterial or collector street

 

 

Retain standard

 

89.  Delete Planned Development requirement, “cannot create traffic in residential neighborhoods outside the development.”

 

 

Delete as suggested

 

90.  Require additional vegetation along sidewalks and bus shelters

 

 

Consider in Design Manual

 

91.  If front-yard parking restrictions are pursued Townwide, the percentage restriction should vary to reflect lot sizes

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

92.  Require water mains and hydrants to be installed and operational prior to issuance of building permits

 

 

Include in Third Draft and Design Manual

 

93.  Specify need for lighting of solid waste collection enclosures

 

 

Include in Design Manual

 

94.  Clarify in Section 8.6 that the Town Manager does not have authority to approve exceptions to or vary from any regulations stated in the Development Ordinance

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

95.  Eliminate requirement in Section 5.12.2(c)(2) that “as-built” drawings of utilities be submitted to the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy

 

 

Delete requirement  in Third Draft

 

96.  Include requests from Historic District Commission for 180 days to review applications, and for provisions to allow reconstruction of demolished nonconforming structures (Sec. 3.6.2)

 

Included in Second Draft;  carry over to Third Draft

 

97.  Article 3:  New Overlay District - - Neighborhood Conservation District - - Lower threshold for submitting petition for Neighborhood Conservation District Designation (Sec. 3.6.5)

 

Change threshold to “Owners of 51% of properties” as suggested by neighborhood representatives

 

98.  Article 5: Parks and Open Space - - Additional work is needed to coordinate approach to open space, recreation, and impervious surface requirements. (Sec. 5.5, also App. B: Definitions)

 

 

Re-work ratios, requirements, and definitions

 

99.  Tree Protection - - Suggestions for enhancement of regulations include lowering the size that defines a specimen tree, removing the tree protection exemption that is currently afforded to construction of single-family dwellings, and including language that would extend protection to groves of trees.  (Sec. 5.7)

 

 

Revise as described

 

100.  Connectivity Ratio - - Having this ratio as a requirement may be problematic because of constraints for specific sites. (Sec. 5.8.2(b))

 

 

Delete concept

 

101.  Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities - - Consider more aggressive requirements for construction of sidewalks and bicycle facilities, with emphasis on connecting to existing systems and providing for pedestrian access through parking lots.

(Sec. 5.8.1, 5.8.2)

 

 

Include in Third Draft

 

 

102.  Parking Requirements - - Suggestions include more study of stated maximums, eliminating minimums;  also, look for better ways to manage parking related to single-family homes, duplexes;  consider restrictions on front-yard parking townwide.  Review existing developments in Town to better calibrate maximum ratios.  (Sec. 5.9.7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                           

 

Continue to keep minimum parking requirements. Include new language to manage parking on single-family/duplex lots;  extend front-yard parking restrictions beyond Historic Districts.

 

103.  Lighting Standards - - Suggestions include concern that proposed requirements are impractical, and that regulation of internal lighting be considered.  (Sec. 5.11)

 

Review existing developments in Town to better calibrate proposed requirement.  Continue to focus on external lighting impacts.

 

104.  Planned Developments - - Current proposed language would eliminate minimum acreage requirements for planned developments, thereby increasing the locational possibilities for such developments.  (Sec. 6.16)

 

Retain the minimum acreage requirements that currently exist  for planned developments.

 

105.  Nonconformities - - If decisions are made to tighten development restrictions in areas such as stormwater management, minimum lot size for duplex development, RCD, and impervious surface, new nonconformities will be created. (Sec. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)

 

 

Reconsider treatment of nonconforming lots, uses, and features, to determine if existing approach is viable in the context of significantly increased restrictions