ATTACHMENT 3

AGENDA #9

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT:       Follow-up Report on Development Ordinance Revision Project

DATE:             January 14, 2002

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum reviews the history of this project to revise Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance, transmits to the Council written comments that we have received on the most recent version of this revision (“2^nd Draft”, originally released in August, 2001), suggests a means for the Council to offer direction to staff and consultant for preparation of a next draft, and discusses procedural options.  The Town’s consultant, Mr. Mark White, will be at tonight’s meeting for discussions with the Council.  We recommend that the Council take one of the following possible actions tonight:

1. Give direction to Mr. White and Town Staff regarding changes the Council wishes to see incorporated into the 3^rd Draft;  or

2. Decide on an amended schedule for further consideration of the 2^nd Draft.

BACKGROUND

The Town Council held a Public Hearing on September 20 to consider a Development Ordinance text amendment for the second draft of the revised Development Ordinance.   The Town’s consultant, Mr. Mark White of Freilich, Leitner, & Carlisle, was on hand to present the 2^nd Draft, answer questions, and participate in the discussion. The Council discussed changes that had been made in the 2^nd Draft, and heard presentations by Advisory Boards and citizens. Attachment 1 includes all written correspondence that has been presented in reaction to the 2^nd Draft, with a cover memorandum that summarizes and highlights the key suggestions that have been offered.

At the conclusion of the September 20 hearing, the Council asked the Town Manager to prepare a follow-up report with suggestions about next steps, which the Council subsequently discussed on October 10.  On that date, the Council decided:

· To extend the schedule for this project (along with the consultant’s contract);

· To allow additional time for review of the 2^nd Draft;

· To direct the Manager to conduct a workshop to examine how the proposed regulations would affect actual projects;

· To discuss on January 14 what direction to give the consultant for a 3^rd Draft;  and

· To call a Public Hearing for April 15 to consider a 3^rd Draft.

A copy of our September 20 memorandum is attached, which reviews the background and context for this project, highlights key new ideas that are being proposed with this Development Ordinance Revision, and highlights the changes between Draft #1 and Draft #2. 

Paper copies of Draft #2 have previously been distributed, and continue to be available for review in the Town Clerk’s Office, the Planning Department, and the Chapel Hill Public Library.  Electronic versions are available on compact disk (available in the Planning Department at no charge) and on the Town’s website: www.townofchapelhill.org.

DISCUSSION

We believe that the next key step is for the Council to give specific direction to staff and consultant on a variety of key points.  Examples of the types of direction that would be helpful include:

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

· Are the maximum parking specifications acceptable?  Should they be reconsidered?

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

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

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

· Should Transfer of Development Rights be included, or reserved?

· Should there be stronger requirements for sidewalk construction?

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

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

· Should the “Inclusionary Housing” provisions be included?

· Should the alternate approaches to “small house” provisions be incorporated?

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

We offer a discussion paper that is organized as outlined above, with recommendations for direction to the consultant (please see Attachment 2).  We suggest that the Council use this attachment as a guide for tonight’s discussion.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the Council adopt the attached Resolution A, giving our consultant direction regarding preparation of a 3^rd Draft of the Development Ordinance Revision.

An alternate approach would be for the Council to decide to take additional time for consideration of the 2^nd Draft, before offering direction as to changes to make in preparing a 3^rd Draft.  If the Council chooses this approach, we suggest that the Council schedule a time to discuss the draft in a work session format, with intent to offer direction to the consultant at the Council’s February 25 business meeting.  Accordingly, the scheduled Public Hearing date on the 3^rd Draft would need to be shifted from April 15 to May 20.  This would still keep alive the possibility of the Council being in a position to adopt a new ordinance before summer.  If the Council chooses this approach, we will discuss with the consultant what changes/extensions to the contract for this project would be necessary, depending on the schedule and sequence of meetings the Council determines appropriate.  Adoption of Resolution B would shift the Public Hearing date and declare the Council’s intent regarding schedule.

Attachments

1. Comments from Advisory Boards and Citizens (p. 6).

Review of 2^nd Draft of Development Ordinance Revision:

BOARD, CITIZEN, AND STAFF COMMENTS

August-December, 2001

Compiled January 8, 2002 by Chapel Hill Planning Department

The Town Council held a Public Hearing on September 20, 2001 to consider the 2^nd Draft of a proposed Development Ordinance for Chapel Hill.  This report contains copies of all comments that were submitted before, during, and after the hearing.  In order to collect all comments together, this compilation also includes staff comments that have come from Town and County departments.  Please refer to the attached memoranda for full comments from boards and citizens.  Immediately following are summaries and highlights of the attached documents.

ADVISORY BOARD COMMENTS

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: 

• Include more specific requirements for pedestrian circulation systems
• Series of specific comments on proposed “Use Patterns” in Article 2
• Add language to reduce up-spill lighting to protect the night sky
• Require pedestrian access and circulation within parking lots
• Include bicycle parking standards
• Require pedestrian access to waste/recycling locations
• Require pedestrian access to services whenever drive-up services are available
• Note that the Town’s Design Manual also needs to be updated

Community Design Commission:

• Maintain existing Concept Plan Review Process by Commission
• Provide for Council review of Concept Plans following Commission review
• Series of specific comments on proposed “Use Patterns” in Article 2
• The Transfer of Development Rights mechanism should be deleted
• There should be a density bonus to accompany provision of affordable housing
• Include more flexibility for amendment of approved Master Plans
• Require greater levels of parking lot shading
• More parking should be allowed for fraternities and sororities
• Build in limitations on construction of cul-de-sacs (length and # of lots)
• Drop the requirement for Transportation Management Programs downtown

Greenways Commission:

• Specific comments on the Conservation Subdivision Use Pattern in Article 2
• Minimum Recreation Areas required in Section 5.5.2 are too low, resulting in less Recreation Area than current requirements

Parks and Recreation Commission:

• Series of comments on Conservation Subdivision Use Pattern in Article 2
• Minimum Recreation Areas required in Section 5.5.2 are too low

Planning Board:

• Board consensus is to defer action on Use Patterns (Article 2) for now
• Balance of comments are from individual Board members
• Build in more flexibility, allow Council discretion (e.g., parking requirements)
• Series of comments about specific Use Patterns in Article 2
• There need to be disincentives for “mansionization”
• Consider prohibiting drinking establishments next to churches
• The Inclusionary Housing requirement should be a flat 15%
• If parking is structured or underground, there should be no maximum
• Two “Dimensional Matrix,” tables, 3.5.1-2 and 3.8-1, need more attention and work
• Maximum parking requirements are too low and need to be re-examined
• The Transfer of Development Rights section perhaps should be pulled

Transportation Board:

• Street standards should be revised to reduce the width of local streets
• Traffic Impact Analyses should include bicycle and pedestrian factors
• The Ordinance should require expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Bus stops and amenities should be required
• Mixed use should be encouraged
• The Ordinance should promote smaller neighborhood recreation areas
• Require more innovative visual material to aid in review
• Provide a mechanism to assess new development a fee for transportation
• The Ordinance should promote connection of local streets
• Include provisions to minimize light pollution

COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Dale Coker:

• Revise language requiring Landscaping Plans
• Re-examine proposed waivers to Stormwater Management Requirements

Ms. Sally Greene:

• The Neighborhood Conservation District petition thresholds should be lowered

Ms. Patricia Love:

• Series of comments about Use Patterns in Article 2, and clarification suggestions
• Clarify voting procedures of Board of Adjustment
• Under Stormwater Management, general design professionals should be able to prepare Landscape Plans (not exclusively the province of landscape architects)
• Attention is needed to what level of ETJ representation is appropriate on Boards

Ms. Eva Metzger:

• Bicycle and pedestrian ways should be required improvements in new projects
• Parking lots should include pedestrian walkways and amenities
• Attention is needed to make new facilities accessible to people with disabilities

Mr. Adam Zinn:

• 1,100 square feet as the maximum size for a required small house is too small

Central Carolina Bank:

• Drive-up ATM’s should be treated differently than drive-through windows

Duke Power:

• Suggested revisions to proposed lighting standards in Article 5
• Suggested changes to Certificate of Occupancy requirements in Article 5

PSNC Energy:

• Suggested changes to Certificate of Occupancy requirements in Article 5

STAFF COMMENTS

Engineering Department:

• Series of comments on Use Patterns contained in Article 2
• Series of suggestions to make Resource Conservation District more specific
• Suggested clarifications to Section 5.4, Stormwater Management
• Application Submittal Requirements in Appendix B need to be spelled out

Fire Department:

• Require water mains and fire hydrants to be installed and operational prior to the issuance of building permits for new development

Parks and Recreation Department:

• Series of comments on Use Patterns, Article 2
• Minimum Recreation Area requirement would be smaller under the draft provisions;  the requirement should not be reduced

Planning Department:

• Additional review is needed of the proposed merge of two current sections of the existing Development Ordinance:  Watershed Protection District and Water Quality Critical Area
• Series of comments on proposed Inclusionary Housing requirement

Public Works Department:

• The new draft proposes to regulate street lighting levels, which could be problematic
• Series of comments regarding Use Patterns in Article 2, especially proposed street sections that do not appear to adequately address drainage issues
• New dimensional requirements for the Resource Conservation District may unintentionally prevent future passive recreation improvements such as trails and greenways

Solid Waste Department (Orange County):

• Suggestions for revising/correcting where landfills and Solid Waste Management Facilities can be permitted
• Lighting for solid waste collection enclosures should be required
• Request for reserving a place for possible future language regarding recycling of certain components of the construction and demolition waste stream

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *