Development Ordinance Discussion Paper #14

June 10, 2002

COMMENTS OFFERED ON JUNE 10, 2002

(with staff recommendation)

The Town Council held a Public Hearing on June 3, 2002, to hear citizen comments on the Second Draft.  Twenty citizens spoke at the hearing, and offered the comments and suggestions as noted below.  For each, we offer a recommendation regarding what guidance to give to the Town’s consultant in preparation of a Third Draft.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
1. Review of the Ordinance:  We urge the Council to request the next draft of this document to be written in plain English and to hold a public hearing to obtain further input on the new version.	A Public Hearing has been scheduled, for September 16.  We note that a Development Ordinance needs to be written in a legally enforceable manner;  we will make efforts to avoid unnecessary complexity, but some is unavoidable. After adoption of a new Ordinance, the Council may wish to direct the Manager to prepare a Guide.
2. Comprehensive Plan:  Connect Comprehensive Plan goals to the Development Ordinance.  We want to see where each goal set forth in the Comprehensive Plan is translated into the Development Ordinance.  We also want to see within the Development Ordinance references, where appropriate, to the Data Book as a key component of the process.	We will prepare a summary table to deliver to the Council with the Third Draft.  We believe that the Data Book is a valuable resource with useful information, but is not a policy document.
3. New Residential Development.  We support the inclusionary housing requirements in the Draft.	We believe there are substantial questions about legal authority to enact this, and cannot recommend it.
4. Neighborhood Character:  Maintain and enhance character of established residential neighborhoods.	Many provisions and recommendations are aimed at exactly that objective.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
5. Historic Districts.  We recommend that the ordinance procedures governing the reconfiguration of lots make the Historic District Commission the primary advisory board authority.  This would apply to zoning changes and all major subdivisions within any historic district.	The recombination of lots, or adjustment of the property line between two lots, is a ministerial function that we believe is well suited to an administrative process.  There is no discretion in an issue of this nature; the task is to affirm compliance with dimensional requirements.  Accordingly, we do not recommend that this function be transferred to an Advisory Board.  We note that the Historic District Commission serves in the place of the Community Design Commission for all matters related to the Historic Districts.
6. Residential Conservation Areas.  This concept needs to be recognized in the Development Ordinance through implementation of particular steps to achieve the goal.	This concept of Residential Conservation Areas is established in the Comprehensive Plan, to state that it is Town policy to give extra weight to preservation whenever policy choices are before the Town Council that affect these areas.  We note that a new provision in the Second Draft is a process for creation of Neighborhood Conservation overlay zoning districts.
7. Neighborhood Conservation Districts.  A zoning change application for designation as a Neighborhood Conservation District shall be initiated (1) at the direction of Town Council, (2) at the request of owners representing 51% of the land area within the proposed district, or (3) at the request of 51% of property owners in a proposed district.	Recommend as suggested.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
8. Lot widths, sizes, and setbacks.  Additionally, we recommend the deletion of maximum lot widths and maximum setbacks in all zoning districts in existing neighborhoods, with the possible exception of commercial districts.	Recommend as suggested.
9. 5 acre minimum for special use permits (SUP).  Given the amount of infill development, we expect over the years in Chapel Hill we are uncomfortable with changing the minimum acreage needed from 5 acres to 1 acre.  We endorse keeping the 5 acre for special use permits in established neighborhoods.	Recommend as suggested;  consider lowering minimum lot size for non-residential zones only.
10. Floor Area Ratio for R 1 and R 2.  For multifamily units the draft ordinance specifies maximum floor area ratios, but for single family houses and duplexes it does not.  We believe it should.	Recommend as suggested.
11. Minor Subdivisions.  (4.6.4)  Minor subdivisions have been reviewed by Town staff with standards set by the Town Manager.  Although this arrangement made sense in the past, it makes less and less sense as Chapel Hill approaches buildout, and infill development becomes more usual.  The Council should consider whether it wants to review minor subdivisions the same way it reviews major subdivisions (in which case the distinction would disappear), or whether it would be willing to have  minor subdivisions subject to Planning Board approval followed by cursory Council approval on a consent agenda which could be pulled for greater scrutiny.	North Carolina Statutes exempt certain types of subdivision activity from regulation.  For all other subdivisions, it is desirable to establish threshold conditions to distinguish between small, minor proposals that can reasonably be reviewed at a staff level, and major proposals that need community, Advisory Board, and Council attention.  In Chapel Hill that threshold is set at 4 or fewer lots.  If any new streets or utility lines need to be extended, a subdivision application is automatically major.  We believe that this threshold works well and do not recommend changing as suggested.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
12. Notice for subdivision applications.  As a matter of Council policy or Town procedures, we request that the staff ensure that the list of property owners to be contacted is accurate.  Further in the case of master plan developments, new major and minor subdivisions and for developments adjacent to Residential Conservation Areas, the town policy should require a broader notification, e.g. 2500 or 5000 feet.	Address lists used by applicants are prepared using information from the Orange County Land Records Office, which we believe to be the most up-to-date and accurate source of property owner information.  We believe that 1,000 feet for notification is sufficient.
13. Inspections.  We recommend that the Town invest more resources in its Inspections Department.  A recent presentation made to the Council underscored the zoning irregularities present in Chapel Hill’s neighborhoods.  The Town needs to enforce existing zoning laws and regulations in neighborhoods.	We intend to address this issue in the fall, along with our description of proposed changes to the Development Ordinance that would require additional review and enforcement resources.
14. Stormwater.  Overall we think this section of the draft ordinance is weak.  We suggest changing the requirement controlling for the first one inch of rain or 50 year storm.  Normally, a two year storm is used for several reasons – first, it is by definition the worst storm (statistically) in two years instead of one, i.e. more intense.  Second, as stormwater engineering defines design storms, a one year storm is undefined due to the mathematical derivation of storm event and is less restrictive.	The standard proposed in the Second Draft is to control for the 1-year and the 50-year storm, to control the first inch of runoff, and to achieve an average annual 85% removal of suspended solids.  We believe that this would be a very rigorous standard, more rigorous than is suggested in this comment. We intend to explore, with the Third Draft, the issue that controlling a 50-year storm might do more harm than good depending upon the location of a detention basin in a drainage basin.  Some flexibility may be desirable.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
15. Buffer and Wetland Standards.  Standards for riparian buffers, wetland restoration, and bioremediation areas need to be put in the Development Ordinance.	Standards for the RCD are in the Development Ordinance.  Wetland regulation is a State issue.  Bioremediation is a tool that may be used as part of a stormwater strategy for a particular site.
16. Thresholds.  We think that storm water controls should apply to 20,000 square feet of disturbed area, not 40,000 square feet.	Recommend as suggested. See Discussion Paper #10.
17. Storm to Control.  There is no reference to policy here for what level storm should be allowed to overtop a road and if the town would consider the backing up a stormwater detention method.  A policy is needed here.  The Council needs to ensure that stormwater management standards apply to lots in residential subdivisions even if lots are phased.	The standard proposed is that stormwater devices would need to control the 50-year storm.  Control includes not allowing water to overtop a road.  The Second Draft does propose applying stormwater standards to individual lots.
18. RCD.  Maintain and enhance Resource Conservation District standards.  The Ordinance should simplify stream buffer requirements.  We think the 3 tier system in the revisions make a needlessly complicated system which offers less stream protection than the current ordinance.  Detention ponds should not be allowed in the RCD.  The definition of perennial stream must be simplified so only water need to present.  Intermittent streams need protection.	We recommend that the Third Draft contain no provisions that will make regulation of any part of the RCD less restrictive than today.  We believe more restriction closer to the stream bank is desirable.  We agree that detention ponds normally should not be in the RCD.  But some flexibility is needed for situations where there is no other acceptable option.  This will especially be true if stormwater requirements are extended to apply to single-family lots where options for a basin may be limited.  We believe that definitions of perennial and intermittent streams need close attention.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
19. RCD:  The Town needs to communicate with the OWASA Board a desire to require sewer lines be set back at least 30 feet from streams.  The Ordinance should require span bridges, not culverts in the RCD.  Standards for stream crossings should be in Design Manual and Ordinance, and those should be limited, requiring a waiver from Board of Adjustment for more than one crossing.  The Town Manager cannot be allowed to grant exemptions.	The Town Council communicates regularly with the OWASA Board and may want to raise this issue.  We believe that it is not always possible to set sewer lines 30 feet from streams.  We believe that some culvert designs can meet RCD objectives.  We note that RCD standards are included in the Development Ordinance.  We do not recommend requiring a variance for street crossings of the RCD.  We note that the only exemptions that the Manager can grant are application information requirements in some circumstances.
20. Impervious surfaces and watershed protection.  We strongly endorse the no greater than 24% impervious surface (and the 50% limitation with controls) as written in the draft ordinance.  However, several issues need to be addressed.  One issue is how properties under redevelopment are treated under the ordinance for impervious surface requirements.	Recommend as suggested.
21. Impervious Surfaces.  The Council needs to address a loophole in the 24% rule.  It says, “24% or 2 dwelling units/acre.”  You can put two houses on an acre of land than take up more than 24 percent of the surface (sometimes way more).  We need to change the language so it means no greater than 24%.  Information we have received from the NC Division of Water Quality indicates that if we intend to limit the impervious surface to 24%, we need to say so.  Alternatively, we need to amend the language to take out the phrase “two (2) dwelling units per acre (gross land acre).”	We believe that the current language is workable and consistent with State standards.  We note that if impervious surface restrictions are applied Townwide, as is suggested in the Second Draft, this suggestion becomes moot.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
22. Steep slopes and tree protection.  Council should direct that the Ordinance require that steep slopes (over 25%) not be disturbed, thus preserving native vegetation and trees.  The ordinance should be structured to provide for the maximum amount of undisturbed area per building lot.  We think an exception to the steep slopes policy could be made for single family home if the remainder of the site is left undisturbed.	We agree with the suggestion to include more specifics in the steep slope guidelines. We do not recommend pursuing a maximum amount of undisturbed area per lot; such a requirement could preclude reasonable use of property such as lawns and gardens.
23. Tree Protection.  We need to require the planting of street trees in new subdivisions.  The shade required in parking lots needs to be increased, and the specimen tree definition need to be changed from 24" to 18" circumference.  The tree ordinance should prevent clear-cutting and needs to apply to single to single-family or duplex construction.	Street trees are managed in the Design Manual and Town Code of Ordinances. Recommend  enhancing requirements for parking lot landscaping, reduction in size to define specimen tree, and including some protection for trees in individual lots.
24. Transportation.  Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plans says the Town should revise its engineering standards in the Design Manual to address issues including “Consideration of ‘community character’ issues, such as the effects of roadway widening on visual quality and adjacent land uses.”  We advocate adopting the NC DOT standards for urban street standards into the Ordinance.  We think narrower streets encourage community, are safe, and do far less damage to the environment by reducing the storm water problems caused by large areas of pavement.	We acknowledge this goal of the Comprehensive Plan, and note that this issue will get further consideration as the process of revising the Design Manual begins this fall.
25. Zoning for Horace Williams Tract.  O -I 4 should be extended to this tract pending negotiations with the University.	Not a Development Ordinance issue.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
26. Application Submittal Requirements:  Appendix C is missing from the draft, leading to inability to determine submittal requirements.	Appendix C will list application submittal requirements, designed to demonstrate compliance with regulations.  Adoption of Ordinance comes first.
27. Stormwater Standards:  Town is using one year storm peak flow as design storm and states it in a way that invites confusion among engineers and developers.  We should be consistent with standard municipalities are going with statewide: design for a 10 year storm and test the stormwater system for a 100 year storm to ensure that public safety is protected with not flooding or flow that endangers life.	See recommendation for item 14, above.
28. Stormwater Analysis:  Use post development conditions as a basis for stormwater calculations, not predevelopment.	Current policy and practice includes analysis of  post-development conditions.
29. Plan Approval:  Recommend plans be subject to approval by Town Engineer instead of Town Manager.	In Ordinance, Town Manager means Manager or his designee.
30. Certifications:  In places where a registered landscape architect is required, the ordinance struck the option of other qualified professionals.  This should be reinstated.	Recommend as suggested.
31. Stormwater Management Plans:  On As Built Plans and other places in Article 5, they require plans to show design specifications for all stormwater management facilities but not for conveyances, i.e. there are not controls for open channels, buried culverts, etc.  Undersized culverts are responsible for many existing stormwater problems in Chapel Hill.	We review conveyance systems as part of final plan review.  Note reference to this in Section 5.4.8.  Recommend clarifying by eliminating phrase “located on-site” from Sec. 5.4.14.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
32. Stormwater Management Standards:  Some municipalities allow more severe storms, i.e. 25 year, 50 year, and 100 year, to exceed the drainage capacity of a culvert and back up against a road, eventually overtopping it.  There is not reference to policy here for what level storm should be allowed to overtop a road and if the town would consider the backing up a stormwater detention method.	See comment for #17, above.
33. Design Details:  It is very difficult to assess opportunities for improvement in the Development Ordinance without the associated Stormwater Manual which has not been written yet.	We have many standards in the Design Manual now, and propose to update those upon completion of the Development Ordinance.
34. RCD:  In talking about Best Management Practices, we should use terminology consistent with that used in NC state level publications – call riparian buffers just that, not use euphemisms.  The whole issue of buffer seems weak – most towns are going to 100 ft buffers with a requirement for base floor elevation 2 ft above the 100 yr floodplain elevation.	The RCD involves more than riparian buffer attention.  The current and proposed Ordinance both require base floor elevations to be 3 ½ feet above the 100-year floodplain.
35. Off-site Drainage:  Town Council should consider requiring developers to put stub outs at terminations of their stormwater systems so future development can tie into existing subsurface structures.	We routinely require coordination with off-site drainage systems.
36. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations:  Inclusionary Zoning policies should be simple and easy to apply, offer developers a density bonus in return for the affordable units, include an affordable housing requirement of 10% - 15%, specify a minimum number of units that triggers the affordability requirement, and address long-term affordability.	Note comment in item #3, above.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
37. Drive-in Pharmacy:  Change Ordinance to allow drive-in pharmacies.	Allowed in both existing and proposed Ordinances.
38. Setbacks:  Maximum setbacks are not a good idea - they threaten the character of existing neighborhoods when redevelopment and infill development occur.	Recommend deleting maximum setbacks in residential zones.
39. Duplex:  Conversion of single-family homes to duplexes promotes affordable housing.	Recommend further restrictions on conversions; potential damage to existing neighborhoods outweighs affordable housing objective.
40. Occupancy Restrictions:  Occupancy restrictions need to be revised in the Third Draft.	Recommend revising.
41. Street Standards:  Provide alternatives to traditional curb and gutter.	Consider when revising the Design Manual.
42. Density:  The Development Ordinance should support denser growth within the town limits with more mixing of residential, commercial and institutional activities.	We do not recommend increasing allowable densities.
43. Density:  Critical stormwater issues make impervious surface limits necessary. The best way to reconcile these limits with the need for increased density is to raise building heights limits, increase permissible floor area ratios, and increase the allowable densities as identified in table 3.8-1 of the Dimensional Matrix.	We do not recommend increasing allowable floor area ratios, heights, or densities.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
44. RCD:  Consider 100-150 foot protected zones on each side of every perennial stream.	Recommend requiring minimum of 100 feet from each bank of a perennial stream (200 foot wide corridor.
45. New District:  We believe that the “Transit Oriented Development” Special Use District, outlined in paragraph 3.5.4, is of critical importance.  We encourage the Council to enact this District without delay.	Recommend deferring pending additional study and discussion.
46. Impervious Surface:  We propose that impervious surface limits be increased for Transit Oriented or Town Center development where there is a stormwater management infrastructure in place, or when acceptable long-term best management practices are put in place.  Also, the “transfer” of impervious surface might be allowed so long as the impervious surface budget for the entire town was not exceeded.	Recommend deferring consideration of Transit Oriented Zoning District, pending additional study and discussion. We note that the Second Draft would exempt Town Center from impervious surface requirements.
47. Impervious Surface:  For some conditional use projects a total aggregate impervious surface limit would be preferable to a per-lot maximum.	Can do with existing ordinance and proposed ordinance.
48. RCD:  For the RCD, consider a setback to push land disturbance away from a creek.	Uses and land disturbance are both highly restricted in the entire RCD.  That is not proposed to be changed.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
49. RCD:  The RCD ordinance should include criteria for identifying intermittent streams and should require buffers along these streams.	Recommend as suggested.
50. RCD:  The language for the uses in the three zones of the RCD should be more concise and tightened.	We believe the language defining the three zones is sufficient.
51. Areawide Planning:  Planning for stormwater management should account for the watershed scale.	Not a Development Ordinance issue.
52. Neighborhood Protection:  The Development Ordinance needs strong reworking in order to be able to carry out the Comprehensive Plan’s stated mission of protecting vulnerable nearby neighborhoods from proposed development through the creation of “residential conservation neighborhoods.”	Much of the work on this draft ordinance is designed to address this objective of the Comprehensive Plan.
53. For OI-4:  Development of a process that would allow ample time and opportunity for neighborhood resident to review not only the Development Plan but the Individual Site Development Plan(s).	Previously addressed by the Council in the development of the OI-4 zoning district.
54. For OI-4:  Notification of property owner within 1,000 feet of proposed buildings that could impact resident or neighborhoods, especially those in Perimeter Transition Areas.	Previously addressed by the Council in the development of the OI-4 zoning district.
55. For OI-4:  Buffer zones should start at the property line, not the edge of the OI-4 zone.  There should also be a transitional buffer zone where building heights would be compatible with the adjacent residential zone.	Previously addressed by the Council in the development of the OI-4 zoning district.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
56. For OI-4:  Sound abatement techniques should be designed in all new buildings and special attention should be paid to lighting to prevent light pollution at night.	Previously addressed by the Council in the development of the OI-4 zoning district.
57. For OI-4:  Any Development Plan for perimeter areas should go before the Town Council rather than the planning Board to allow for the full involvement of our elected officials and to promote additional citizen input at Public Hearings.	Previously addressed by the Council in the development of the OI-4 zoning district.
58. Lighting:  We encourage the Town to review the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) reports which include many documents that recommend lighting levels for various applications.  IESNA guidelines provide for a safe level of lighting for both public and private applications and address issues of off site illumination.	Recommend reviewing reports for possible inclusion of standards.
59. Lighting:  With reference to 5.11.1 titled “Applicability”, we suggest the reference to roadways be stricken from this section.	Recommend as suggested.
60. Lighting:  With reference to 5.11.2 titled “Mounting Heights”, the Town is proposing the prohibiting of such desired lighting options as flood light (unless used for sports lighting), wall packs on buildings, and some fixtures.  We are of the opinion the Town is limiting reasonable lighting fixtures and would suggest a review of IESNA recommendations.	Recommend reviewing reports for possible inclusion of standards.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
61. Lighting:  Regarding 5.11.4 titled “Offsite Illumination” and 5.11.5 titled “Streets, Driveways, and other Passageways”, we again refer the Town to IESNA recommended lighting levels.  These lighting levels are based on nationally accepted research for viewing a task, for safety, and for security.  Many of these documents have been adopted as ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standards, and have been defended in the court systems.	Recommend reviewing reports for possible inclusion of standards.
62. Lighting:  Regarding 5.11.6 titled “Submittals”, we are of the opinion the need to have a sealed PE lighting plan is too limiting.  Lighting specialist who are Lighting Certified (LC) by NCQLP (National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions) are recognized as having the highest degree of lighting expertise by IESNA, the California Energy Commission, New York State Energy Research, US Department of Energy, and others.  We are of the opinion that any Lighting Certified specialist is qualified to submit lighting plans.	Recommend as suggested.
63. Lighting:  With regard to subsection (c)(1) requiring certification that all facilities have been installed, Duke will not provide permanent service to any customer unless all facilities necessary to provide electric service to such structure have been completed to Duke standards.  Therefore, we see this requirement as adding unnecessary time and cost, with not value added to the permitting process.	Recommend retaining present language that is in current Ordinance and also in Second Draft, requiring certifications.
64. Lighting:  Regarding subsection (c)(2). We have noted item 95 on page 27 which has eliminated the requirement for “as built” drawings of utilities and concur with this action.	Agree.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
65. Lighting:  We have reviewed Section 5.11 – Lighting Standards of the second draft of the Town’s proposed development ordinance.  Of concern to us is the reference to .3 foot candles at the property line, inclusion of street lighting in some sections where not applicable, the perceived absence of nationally approved lighting levels for certain applications, and the omission of certified lighting specialists in lighting plan approval.	Recommend reviewing suggested reports for possible inclusion of standards.
66. Lighting:  5.11 – Proposed new reading: Purpose: This section provides standards for lighting which shall be designed to minimize spillover of light onto adjacent property, glare that could impair vision, and/or other condition that deteriorate normally accepted qualified and uses of adjacent property.  (removed “is” from phrase “which is shall be designed” in first sentence)	Recommend as suggested.
67. Lighting:  5.11.1 – With reference to “in buildings’, does the town intend to regulate the lighting within buildings?  If so, does this conflict with state of national approved/recommended lighting levels for building interior?  Also, we strongly suggest that the reference to roadways be stricken.  If the Town retains the reference to roadways, MOST of the lights currently in place will exceed the maximum light levels required at property line (.3 foot-candles as proposed in Section 5.11.4).  Proposed new reading:  The provisions of this section apply to any outside lighting used around buildings, recreation areas, parking areas, walkways, drives, or signs.	Recommend as suggested.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
68. Lighting:  Use caution in setting lighting values.  Chapel Hill has a very high concentration of foot and vehicular traffic and sufficient light levels have to be provide to permit safe passage of both pedestrian and vehicles.  Lights cannot be cut off or shielded in such fashion that they provide high enough levels for the streets and sidewalks, and no light immediately behind the sidewalks.	Recommend reviewing reports for possible inclusion of standards.
69. Lighting:  We would like the opportunity to review the Design Manual before additional statements regarding these proposed lighting standards.	Work on the Town’s Design Manual will begin following adoption of a new Ordinance.
70. Lighting:  5.11.6 – We question the ability to meet this requirement in all cases.  Does this apply to a resident who wants a safe light installed in their yard?  How close are the grid points?  Is this done through lighting software or actual field verifications?	Recommend reviewing reports for possible inclusion of standards.
71. Tree Protection:  In single-family residential areas, all Chapel Hill has is a street tree ordinance.  What it needs is a real tree protection ordinance, one that protects specimen and rare trees on private property - not just when the house is built, but after the developer walks away.	Recommend mechanism to apply tree protection mechanisms to individual residential lots, to protect rare and specimen trees when a building permit is sought.
72. Tree Protection:  Need language that would protect (a) specimen and rare trees on private residential property and (b) whole stands of urban forest.	Recommend mechanism to apply tree protection mechanisms to individual residential lots, to protect rare and specimen trees when a building permit is sought.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
73. Title:  The title of the ordinance should be changed. Rename the ordinance in the new draft as one of the following: Ø “The Land Use Ordinance” Ø “The Land Use Control Ordinance” Ø “The Land Use Management Ordinance”	Recommend “Land Use Management Ordinance.”
74. Old Lots:  There is a need for a subdivision ordinance that admits of no exemptions, that requires developer to live up to and stick by their original plans unless changes are approved by the town, and that eliminates the grandfathering of old plats.	We do not believe that it is legally possible to unilaterally void a previously recorded plat.  We recommend addressing this issue by increasing requirements of construction of single-family and 2-family dwellings.
75. Areawide Planning:  Take the watershed-wide plan that has been developed by the Morgan Creek Association, and any similar plan that may be developed by the Bolin Creek Association as points of departure for implementing town (and county) ordinances for protection of the stream bank, stream buffer and watershed values that are involved.  Essentially, this means reviewing the existing ordinances associated with the Joint Planning Agreement, identifying ways in which these ordinances are (or are not) already a possible vehicle for watershed protection in the broad sense, not just water supply watershed protection, and go on from there.	Not a Development Ordinance issue.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
76. Stream Restoration:  Chapel Hill should develop stream restoration plans for streams such as Bolin and Booker Creeks that have become degraded by prolonged inattention to storm water management.  This could involve cleanup, occasional bank stabilization, etc.  The Town should take part in the state’s ongoing watershed assessment and restoration project for Little Creek (Bolin & Booker).	Not a Development Ordinance issue.
77. Compliance with Ordinance:  Require the Town Manager and Town Planner to file with the mayor and council and with any Environmental Advisory Board that may be established copies of any discretionary actions they have taken and propose to take that would relieve developers and property owner from compliance with ordinance requirements.	The Manager is not permitted to relieve developers or property owners from compliance with ordinance requirements.
78. Exceptions:  Reword the final paragraph of Section 8.6 to read:  Under no circumstances is the Town Manager permitted to make changes in this chapter or to grant exceptions (a) to the actual meaning of any cause, standard, or regulation contained in this chapter or (b) from any clause, standard, or regulation contained in this chapter.	Item (a) from this suggestion is already in the existing Development Ordinance and in the Second Draft, and is adhered to.  We believe that the addition of item (b) as suggested would reinforce this ongoing directive.
79. Floodplain Maps:  It is vital that the Town use every resource at its disposal to persuade the U.S.G.S. to update our flood maps expeditiously.	Not a Development Ordinance issue.
80. Reference:  The reference in Section 7.5 (RCD) to Section 3.11.4 should be deleted, as there is no such section.	Recommend as suggested.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
81. Concept Plan Process:  The proposed Concept Plan thresholds for Council review are too low.  Consider raising the thresholds while simultaneously specifying other criteria that would automatically trigger Council review (e.g., a downtown location).	Recommend as suggested. See Discussion Paper #8.
83. Effective Date:  Consider an effective date for the new Ordinance that is long enough after adoption to allow people to learn the new Ordinance.	The effective date is important:  no application of any kind may be approved after the effective date unless it complies with new regulations (unless the Council directs otherwise).  We have been advising applicants of this situation and the accompanying uncertainty it creates for the last six months.  We recommend that the Council plan on establishing an effective date that is 30 days after adoption of the new ordinance, to allow time for procedures to be put in place.
84. Notification:  Notify all property owners who would be affected by changed regulations.	State law does not require direct mailings in this case, but provides alternative notification options
85. RCD:  Revisit the idea that man-made water bodies (e.g., farm ponds) should be defined as RCD.	Recommend reconsideration.
86. Resources for Implementation:  How will enforcement be provided for all of these new regulations?	We will bring estimates of needed resources along with Third Draft in the fall.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
87. Design Standards for Parking:  Prohibit parking in front of office and commercial buildings.	Recommend that this be a guideline in the Design Manual.  We note that consideration of Townwide front-yard parking restrictions for residences is under consideration.
88. Planting Strip:  There should be a required 4-5’ grass strip between sidewalks and the road.	The current standard for a street tree lawn is 8 feet.  This is Design Manual issue.  Many existing streets do not have enough right-of-way for an 8’ tree lawn and a sidewalk.
89. Parking Requirements:  There should be a work group to study parking.	Recommend asking Consultant to revise parking standards in Third Draft.
90. RCD:  Current RCD results in clear-cutting down to the banks of a creek.	Current regulations limit land disturbance and removal of vegetation, and minimize clear-cutting in the RCD.  Proposed regulations would continue these restrictions.
91. RCD:  Return language that was deleted from RCD in late 1980’s: “No cutting or filling unless necessary to provide a legally reasonable use of the property.”	Provision was changed in mid-80’s because it was unworkable and unenforceable - - a staff member cannot make a determination about what is necessary to provide a legally reasonable use of property.  Do not recommend returning this language.

Citizen Comments/Suggestions	Manager’s Recommendation
92. Effects of New Regulations:  There are likely to be unintended consequences of many of these regulations if they are adopted:  in areas of affordable housing, tree preservation, parking, stream protection.	We agree that it is not possible to foresee all consequences.
93. Charter Schools:  Are charter schools treated as public schools?	Yes.
94. Hazardous Materials:  Include more information about hazardous materials:  definitions, regulations, prohibitions.	Recommend as suggested.