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