ATTACHMENT 2

HIGHLIGHTED CHANGES IN THIRD DRAFT

September 18, 2002

Changes compiled by Chapel Hill Planning Department

This paper highlights changes that are proposed to Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance (formerly called “Development Ordinance”).

BACKGROUND

Chapel Hill is in the process of revising its Land Use Management Ordinance, in a manner that implements and addresses objectives articulated in Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan.  A consultant, working with the Town Council, Advisory Boards, citizens, and staff prepared a First Draft in March, 2001.  After a series of public hearings and meetings the Town Council directed that changes be made.  A Second Draft was published in August, 2001.  Following public hearings, the Council determined that a series of citizen workshops and information sessions should be scheduled.  Following that series, and following a Public Hearing in May, 2002, the Council on June 10, 2002 directed that specific changes be made to the Second Draft.  The consultant was requested to deliver a Third Draft, incorporating these changes, by the end of August, 2002.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE THIRD DRAFT

The Third Draft is available in four forms:  Paper copies are being distributed to the Town Council and members of Town Advisory Boards, and are available for purchase in the Chapel Hill Planning Department for $30.00.  Paper copies have been placed for review in the Chapel Hill Planning Department, the Chapel Hill Town Clerk’s office, the Chapel Hill Public Library, the Estes Drive Community Center, and the Hargraves Community Center.  Compact disks are available at no charge, containing the Third Draft in the form of a WORD document.  This version is particularly useful because of electronic hyper-links within the text and the ability to perform an electronic “word search” for key topics.  Also, the Third Draft will be available for viewing on the Town’s website (www.townofchapelhill.org) in PDF format.  Please note that, because of the size of the document, the version on the website is broken into pieces so that it may be downloaded by chapters. 

This paper, “Highlighted Changes in the Third Draft” does not describe every change that was made between the Second and Third Drafts, but rather highlights those that engendered the most discussion during the 6-month Public Information period from January-June, 2002, and also the points of Town Council discussion in June, 2002. 

The Third Draft is organized as follows:

Article 1:  General Provisions

(Legislative Authority, Link to Comprehensive Plan, Purpose of Ordinance)

Article 2:  {Reserved for future consideration}

Article 3:  Zoning Districts, Uses, and Dimensional Standards

(What you can do, where, and how much of it)

Article 4:  Procedures

(What kind of approvals are needed for different types of development)

Article 5:  Design and Development Standards

(How new development must be designed;  what standards must be met)

Article 6:  Special Regulations for Particular Uses

(Some uses, by their nature, require special consideration and treatment)

Article 7:  Nonconformities

                 (Uses that were legally established under previous regulations)

Article 8:  Administrative Mechanisms

(Rules for Town Council, Advisory Boards, Manager)

Article 9:  Legal Status

(Repeal of existing regulations, conflicts with other laws)

Appendix A:  Definitions

A key point of discussion during the past year has been the relationship between Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance and Chapel Hill’s Design Manual.  The Ordinance has the force of law, and its regulations are mandatory.  The Design Manual offers details that are expected to be adhered to, unless alternate design solutions are proposed that accomplish the same purposes in a different way.

The Council has indicated intent to enact a new Land Use Management Ordinance during the fall of 2002, followed by work to begin updating the Town’s Design Manual.

HIGHLIGHTED CHANGES

There are many changes in the Third Draft, either as directed by the Town Council on June 10, or as necessary to make the document internally consistent and workable.  Changes that have been the subject of most discussion are highlighted below:

1. For Ease of Use

The formatting and numbering system has been clarified in the Third Draft.  A detailed Table of Contents is followed by an introductory section, “How to Use This Document.”  The beginning of each key section in the document starts with an italicized description of what is to follow and what that section is intended to accomplish.  An Index will accompany the final version.  Finally, a “Guide to the Land Use Management Ordinance” will be prepared by Town staff upon enactment of the ordinance.

2. Article 2:  Use Patterns

As directed by the Town Council on June 10, this section has been deleted, but its place reserved.

3. Town Center Zoning Districts (Sec. 3.3.1)

The Second Draft included detailed design guidelines for development downtown.  At the Council’s direction, these have been removed for inclusion in the Design Manual.  Also at the Council’s direction, an incentive provision has been included to encourage residential development in Town Center zones.  That provision is included in Section 3.8.7.

4. New Mixed Use Zoning District (Sec. 3.5.1)

A new Mixed Use Zoning District has been created (MU-V, “Mixed Use-Village”) that contains the mixed use ideas from the Second Draft.  The key change is that this new district will accompany retention of the two existing Mixed-Use Districts, which have been in place and under which developments have been approved.  The intent here is that any development previously approved under a mixed use district will not be affected.  But that any new areas to be rezoned to Mixed Use would be rezoned to this new MU-V district.

5. OI-4 Zoning District  (Sec.3.5.2(h))

As the Council directed, a notification requirement has been included in the Office/Institutional-4 Zoning District, mandating that notice be provided for property owners within 1,000 feet of any site that is the subject of a Site Development Permit application in a Perimeter Transition Zone.  (This applies to perimeter development at the edges of the UNC campus.)

6. Traditional Neighborhood Design Zoning District (Sec. 3.5.3)

As the Council directed, this section has been deleted, but a place reserved for possible future inclusion.

7. Transit Oriented Development Zoning District (Sec. 3.5.4)

At the Council’s direction, this section stays in the Ordinance as Section 3.5.4.

8. Resource Conservation District (Sec. 3.6.3)

There have been numerous changes to the Resource Conservation District in response to the Council’s directions on June 10.  Section 3.6.3 is substantially changed.  Following are some highlights:

• New definitions are included for perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream, along with other clarifying definitions.

• The protected stream corridor would be expanded to 150’ from each bank of a stream, instead of the 75’-100’ in the current Ordinance.  The RCD Elevation would also be changed from 2’ above the 100-year floodplain to 3’ above.  These two changes would bring more land under the coverage of the Resource Conservation District regulations.

• Three zones in the stream corridor are established:  Stream Side (50’), Managed Use (50’) and Upland (50’).

• A table on page 43 (Table 3.6.3-2) establishes what uses are permitted in which of these zones.  Permitted uses are severely limited in the Stream Side zone.  In all zones, uses are at least as restrictive as the current regulations for the entire Resource Conservation District. 

• As the Council directed, no street or bridge could be built in any portion of the RCD unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment.

• Trails, greenways, and parks are permitted anywhere within the RCD.

• Lakes and ponds would be permitted within the RCD only with a Special Use Permit granted by the Town Council.

• Detention/retention basins would be prohibited in streamside and managed use zones.  

We also note that there was an inconsistency in the list of changes that we believe was not intended.  In one portion of the list, the direction suggests the kinds of activities that should be permitted, contrasted with those that should occur only with a variance from the Board of Adjustment.  In another portion of the list, there is a statement that nothing, no land disturbance of any kind, should be allowed in the Resource Conservation District without a variance from the Board of Adjustment (a provision that we believe would prove to be unworkable in practice).  We have responded by giving careful attention to Table 3.6.3-2 on page 43 of the Third Draft, to reflect what we believe to be the Council’s intentions with respect to what uses are prohibited, permitted, permitted only with Special Use Permit, or permitted only with a variance.  If the Council’s intent is to allow no land disturbance of any kind in the Resource Conservation District absent a variance from the Board of Adjustment, all the boxes in Table 3.6.3-2 should be changed to “V”. 

9. Watershed Protection District (Sec. 3.6.4)

Language has been inserted prohibiting storage of hazardous materials.

10. Neighborhood Conservation District (Sec. 3.6.5)

The threshold for establishing a valid citizen petition to request a Neighborhood Conservation District has been lowered in this draft from 75% of property owners in a given area to 51%, as directed by the Council.

11. Use Matrix (Table 3.7-1)

A key change here is eliminating “duplex” as a permitted use in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts.  In the footnotes for this table, exceptions that apply to schools are clarified to apply to public schools.

12. Fences (Sec. 3.8.3)

As directed by the Council the exemption for fences now applies to fences 6’ high or shorter (compared to current Ordinance language that exempts fences 9’high).

13. Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1)

There are numerous substantive changes to this table, on page 81, including:

• Maximum frontage and setback requirements are eliminated.

• The minimum lot size is clarified to be two-times the stated figure for multi-family dwellings.

• Primary height limits (the maximum height of a structure at the property line) are reduced in all residential districts.

• Impervious surface ratios apply to all development, including single-family and two-family dwellings, in all zones except Town Center and Office/Institutional-4.

• Maximum floor area ratios have been adjusted to reflect current regulations, and also will now apply to single-family and two-family dwellings.

• The footnotes to this table continue to contain substantive material that further describes these restrictions. 

14. Transfer of Development Rights (Sec. 3.9.2)

This provision remains in the Ordinance, allowing development rights to be transferred out of the Resource Conservation District, and added to any parcel of land that is not in the RCD.

15. Concept Plan Review (Sec. 4.3)

This section has been re-written according to the Council’s direction.  Concept Plan Review by the Community Design Commission remains basically unchanged.  Above certain thresholds, plans would then subsequently be reviewed by the Town Council.

16. SUP Modification of Regulations (Sec. 4.5.6)

Currently, the Council has the authority to modify regulations for only certain types of Special Use Permit applications.  Under the proposed language, the Council could, if it found a public purpose, modify regulations for any Special Use Permit application.

17. Minor Subdivisions (Sec. 4.6.4)

Under current regulations, minor subdivisions (that might create up to 4 lots) can be approved by the Town Manager under certain circumstances.  In this Third Draft, authority for action on all minor subdivisions would shift to the Planning Board.

18. Clarification of Manager Authority to Approve Changes to Site Plans (Sec. 4.7.1)

Section 4.7.1 has been clarified to state that the Town Manager may not approve changes to site plans that have been approved by the Council or Planning Board if the proposed change would affect existing circulation, drainage, relationship of buildings to each other, landscaping, buffering, or lighting.

19. Steep Slope Regulations (Sec. 5.3.2)

Steep slope regulations have been changed from advisory to mandatory.  In the Third Draft, development on slopes greater than 10% is limited, development on slopes of greater than 25% can occur only with a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

20. Stormwater Management (Sec. 5.4)

There have been many numerous, substantive changes to this section, including the following:

• Stormwater management plans and mitigation measures are required for all development proposals which would disturb more than 5,000 square feet of land area, including single-family or two-family dwellings.

• New standards are established to control rate and volume of runoff, along with limits on suspended solids.

• Emphasis is placed on Integrated Management Practices and Low-Impact Design.

21. Open Space (Sec. 5.5.2)

Clarification is included regarding requirements for land (for residential subdivisions) and improved recreation facilities (for multi-family development).  These regulations work in concert with requirements that limit impervious surfaces for all new developments.

22. Buffers (Sec. 5.6)

A new provision is added that allows reduction in the amount of required buffers if a building is the closest development feature to a street.  (Buffer requirements are more stringent if a parking lot is between the street and a building.)

23. Tree Ordinance (Sec. 5.7)

Provisions have been added that would apply selected tree protection regulations to the development of single-family and two-family dwellings, when building permits are sought for construction/addition involving more than 2,000 square feet of land disturbance.  The definition of specimen tree now includes trees with a diameter of 18” (previous diameter was 24”).  In addition, there is now language calling for preservation of stands of trees, in addition to individual specimen trees.

24. Access and Circulation (Sec. 5.8)

Language has been added to require additional attention to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation.  Systems should connect, amenities should be provided.  All new development, including single-family and two-family dwellings, must have demonstrated access to a Town or State-maintained street.

25. Parking Requirements (Sec. 5.9)

Minimum and maximum parking requirements have been adjusted as directed by the Town Council.  A new provision has been added that would allow the Town Council, on a case-by-case basis, if certain facts are demonstrated, to lower stated minimums and/or raise stated maximums for a particular site.  Also, front-yard parking restrictions are proposed Townwide, limiting parking in front yards to 40% of the area in a front yard.  (Currently this regulation applies only in Historic Districts.)

26. Lighting Standards  (Sec. 5.11)

References have been incorporated to national lighting standards, as recommended by representatives of Duke Power Company.

27. Water and Sewer Requirements (Sec. 5.12.1)

All new development within the Urban Services Boundary must be connected to public water and sewer systems.  Also, required water mains and fire hydrants must be installed and operational prior to issuance of any building permit for a development.

28. Electric Lines  (Sec. 5.12.2)

Provisions have been included to say that 3-phase electric lines shall be buried underground under certain circumstances.

29. Sign Regulations (Sec. 5.14)

Additional language has been added to clarify sign regulations for gas stations, canopies, and window signage.  Additional changes will be necessary if the Town Council enacts proposals that are being considered regarding non-commercial signage and signs on utility poles.

30. Nonconformities (Article 7)

Language concerning nonconforming uses, lots, and features has been adjusted to more explicitly allow for rebuilding if structures are destroyed, and to lengthen allowable times for correction of nonconformities.

31. Definitions (Appendix A)

A key change in the definitions section addresses occupancy restrictions.  The current Development Ordinance definition of “Rooming House” states that any structure with more than 4 unrelated individuals shall be considered a rooming house.  This has caused

complications in enforcement:  Example:  a duplex under this current rule could only have four unrelated people for the entire structure (two units).  This rule has been deleted in the Third Draft.  

The approach to occupancy restrictions in this Third Draft is as follows:  Emphasis is first and foremost on the size of a dwelling unit.  For a single-family dwelling of 5 bedrooms or less, there would not be a specific limitation on occupancy.  However, if a single-family dwelling has 6 or more bedrooms, there would be an occupancy limitation stated as “no more than two unrelated persons.”    A duplex that does not have more than 3 bedrooms per side would not have occupancy restrictions;  a duplex with more bedrooms than that would have occupancy limitation stated as “no more than two unrelated persons per side.”  A large single-family dwelling or a large duplex that did not meet these occupancy restrictions would be classified as a rooming house.

We note that the language for this limitation on occupancy refers to “related persons” as persons related by blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership.

The theory behind this approach is that size limitations are more feasible to track and enforce than occupancy.  Under this proposal, occupancy questions would be raised only for the large structures (more than 5 bedrooms for single family;  more than 3 bedrooms per side for duplex).

An alternate approach would be to specify a limitation of no more than 4 unrelated persons per unit for all types of dwelling units.

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

This paper highlights many of the changes that have been incorporated into the Third Draft of Chapel Hill’s proposed new Land Use Management Ordinance.  This paper does not attempt to document every change; emphasis in this paper is on issues that have been the subject of vigorous attention by the Town Council and the community during consideration of the Second Draft.