ATTACHMENT 6

 

Council Direction on June 10, 2002

 

 

On June 10, 2002, the Town Council adopted a resolution that provided specific direction to the Town Manager and Consultant regarding changes to make in the Second Draft of the proposed new Development Ordinance, in order to create a Third Draft. The following materials describe the Council’s instructions. 

 

Immediately following is a resolution that we believe reflects the Council’s action on June 10, 2002.  [We note that the resolution for this item that was in the adopted June 10 minutes does not correspond to notes of the staff, Mayor and the tape of the June 10 meeting.  We will be bringing this adjustment to the Council for correction of the minutes at the Council’s next business meeting, September 23.] 

 

The resolution calls for changes as recommended by the Town Manager in a series of 14 Discussion Papers, with additional direction specifically included in the resolution.   We believe that this resolution, immediately following, matches notes and recordings of the June 10 meeting.

 

The 14 Discussion Papers follow the resolution. 


A RESOLUTION GIVING GUIDANCE TO CONSULTANT AND STAFF REGARDING REVISIONS TO MAKE IN PREPARING A THIRD DRAFT OF A PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (2002-06-10/R-10)

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council is revising Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance; and

 

WHEREAS, public discussion has been ongoing on a Second Draft of that proposed new ordinance; and

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council seeks to offer specific direction to staff and Consultant regarding preparation of the next draft of the document;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council offers the following guidance to the Town Manager and the Town’s Consultant working on a new Development Ordinance regarding revisions to make in preparing a Third Draft of the ordinance:

 

Make changes as indicated in the attached fourteen Discussion Papers accompanying the Town Manager’s June 10, 2002 memorandum to the Town Council, with the following exceptions:

 

·        Discussion Paper #1

 

Item #5 - Include Transit Oriented Development Zoning District as an option in the new ordinance.

 

·        Discussion Paper #13

 

Item #13 - Prohibit storage of hazardous material in watershed.

 

Item #36 - Develop a transfer of development rights as an intratown system for use inside town limits, which could be used for the RCD in place of a variance.

 

Item # 37 - Keep incentive for retail retrofit.

 

·        Discussion Paper #14

 

Item #9 - Lower the minimum lot size for non-residential zones.

 

Item #11 - Revise ordinance to include subjecting minor subdivisions to Planning Board approval.

 

Item #16 - Include post-development system in place for each development.

 

Item #18 - Define RCD as 150-foot minimum from stream or 3-feet above 100-year flood elevation, whichever is greater, with no land disturbance permitted within 150 feet, including bridges and streets, unless with a variance from the Board of Adjustment.  Maintain the tiered-structure for areas outside the 150-foot buffer.  Consider accommodations for trails and greenways.

 

Item #21 - Watershed restrictions regarding impervious surface should be applied townwide.

 

Item #22 - Steep slopes should be undisturbed to the maximum extent feasible.

 

Item #23 - Tree ordinance should be refined to include applicability to single lots, specimen trees, groves.  See memo from Sally Greene delivered in testimony dated June 3, 2002, particularly reference to “Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances,” published by the USDA Forest Service and Model Ordinance.  The goal is a system of community forest management for the town that emphasizes the aspect of a tree protection ordinance (see p. 2 of “Guidelines”) and that includes protection for trees on private property (see p. 8 of “Guidelines”).

 

Item # 53 - Include a process for community input on buildings proposed for perimeter areas, re: Section 3.5.2(h)(2).

 

This the 10th day of June, 2002.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION PAPERS

 

June 3, 2002 and June 1 0, 2002

Review of Second Draft of Development Ordinance

 

Discussion Paper #1:   Document as a Whole

 

Discussion Paper #2:   Town Center District

 

Discussion Paper #3:    Mixed Use District 

 

Discussion Paper #4:    Resource Conservation District

 

Discussion Paper #5:   Use Matrix

 

Discussion Paper #6:    Dimensional Matrix

 

Discussion Paper #7:    Inclusionary Zoning (Affordable Housing)

 

Discussion Paper #8:    Concept Plan Review

 

Discussion Paper #9:    Suggestions for Design Manual

           

Discussion Paper #10:  Stormwater Management

 

Discussion Paper #11:  Buffers

 

Discussion Paper #12:  Definitions

 

Discussion Paper #13:  Additional Comments and Revisions

 

Discussion Paper #14:  Comments Offered on June 10, 2002

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

 

83.    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

 

 

84.    RCD:  Revisit the idea that man-made water bodies (e.g., farm ponds) should be defined as RCD.

 

 

Recommend reconsideration.

 

85.    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

 

 

86.    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.

 

 

87.    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.

 

 

88.    Parking Requirements:  There should be a work group to study parking.

 

 

Recommend asking Consultant to revise parking standards in Third Draft.

 

 

89.    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.

 

 

  1. 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

 

 

91.    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.

 

92.    Charter Schools:  Are charter schools treated as public schools?

 

 

Yes.

 

93.    Hazardous Materials:  Include more information about hazardous materials:  definitions, regulations, prohibitions.

 

 

Recommend as suggested.