1.
Neighborhood Conservation Districts
Council Direction: No Change to 3rd Draft. 51% threshold for initiating a process, with final approval of a Neighborhood Conservation District by Town Council. Note that the Council may itself initiate the process of developing a Neighborhood Conservation District.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 70
2. Minor Subdivisions
Council Direction: No Change to 3rd Draft. Require approval by Planning Board.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 119
3. Burial of 3-phase Electric Lines
Council Direction: No Change to 3rd Draft. Require burial by developer if present legal tests are satisfied; seek legislation to authorize broader requirement.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 215
4. Height Limits
Council Direction: Retain existing regulations, in current Development Ordinance, establishing a 29’ height limit at the setback line of a property in most residential zones.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 88
5. Parking
Council Direction: Retain existing regulations, in current Development Ordinance, which establish minimum parking requirements (no maximums). Include language that would give flexibility to the reviewing body (Planning Board or Town Council) to be able to waive minimum requirements in specific circumstances, based on facts of each case.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 203
6. Front Yard Parking
Council Direction: Same as 3rd Draft. Parking limited to 40% of front yard Town-wide.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 211
7. Floor Area Ratio for Single-family, two-family dwellings
Council Direction: Change to require Floor Area Ratios for new duplexes, but not for single-family dwellings; change proposed ratio for duplex from .3 to .4; add that existing duplex structures are NOT nonconforming.
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 92, and 254
8. Occupancy Restrictions
Council Direction: Specify that, if there are more than 4 unrelated persons per dwelling unit, the use is treated as a rooming house.
Location in Fourth Draft: Included in definitions of:
Dwelling, Single-Family;
Dwelling, Two-Family;
Dwelling, Two-Family - - Including Accessory Apartment; and
Dwelling, Two-Family - - Duplex.
Pages 285-286
9.
Tree Protection Regulations
Council Direction: Extend regulation to single-family and two-family development, as shown in Third Draft, but raise threshold to 4,000 or 5,000 square feet of newly disturbed land area.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 182
10. Resource Conservation District - Distance for Protected Area
Council Direction: Protected corridor should be specified as 150’ from stream bank for perennial streams, with 3 zones: 50’ streamside, 50’ managed use, 50’ upland. For intermittent streams, protected corridor shall be 50’ from stream bank. Prohibit installation of stormwater management facilities within 50’ of any perennial or intermittent stream. Eliminate limit on expansion of non-residential uses. Existing lots (including those to be created pursuant to Preliminary Plats approved prior to enactment of new ordinance) and existing development are subject to the current 50’, 75’, and 100’ distance requirements from perennial streams in the current Development Ordinance, and are not subject to protection of intermittent streams.
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 40, 41, 42, 43, 51, and 52
11. Resource Conservation District - 2’ or 3’ Above Floodplain
Council Direction:: No Change to 3rd Draft. Increase Resource Conservation District elevation from its present definition of 2’ above the regulatory floodplain, to 3’ above. Upon receipt of new floodplain maps, RCD elevation would be set as the 100-year flood elevation.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 42
12. Resource Conservation District - Variance for Streets/Bridges
Council Direction: Require Special Use Permit or Preliminary Plat approval from the Council, rather than a Variance from the Board of Adjustment, for streets and bridges within the RCD.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 43
13. Resource Conservation District - What is Exempt from Regulation
Council Direction:: Include language that specifies that, for ANY zoning lot existing as of the date of enactment, or for which a Preliminary Plat or Site Plan Review has been approved, the RCD boundary shall be calculated based on Development Ordinance language that applied immediately prior to enactment of a new ordinance. Specify also that existing, non-residential development within an RCD (outside of a federally regulated floodplain) would be able to expand, just as an existing residence would be able to expand.
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 40, 51, and 52
14. Steep Slopes
Council Direction: For portions of a site that have slopes 25% or greater, limit land disturbance in those areas to 50%; apply to all development except single-family dwellings; apply only to newly disturbed land after the date of enactment of new ordinance.
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 162-165
15. Impervious Surface Limitations
Council Direction: Limit new impervious surface on a lot to 24% (or 50%, if stormwater facilities are provided) of the currently pervious areas. Consider possibilities for raising the maximum percentage, with stormwater facilities, to 70%. Exempt from calculations all impervious surfaces as of the date of enactment, unless otherwise regulated as part of watershed rules. Exempt single-family and two-family uses constructed or to be constructed on existing lots created prior to the date of enactment (or for which a Preliminary Plat has been approved by the Town Council prior to the date of enactment).
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 91-92
16. Stormwater Management
Council Direction: Exempt single-family/two-family development on existing lots from volume requirements. Include a threshold of 4,000-5,000 square feet of disturbed land area, with the final proposed threshold based on a staff estimate of resource costs and estimates of benefits. Specify a threshold for stormwater management requirements that are identical to the threshold for tree protection requirements (item 9, above). Make language clear that the exemption recommended above applies only to single family/two family development on existing lots or lots pursuant to a Preliminary Plat that was approved prior to the date of enactment; the exemption would not apply to future subdivision applications, not yet approved as of the date of enactment. Such future subdivision applications must demonstrate compliance with stormwater management requirements.
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 167-168
17. Nonconforming Status
Council Direction: Incorporate all recommendations noted above, which will eliminate all nonconforming issues for single-family development (both for existing structures and for undeveloped single lots).
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 40, 50, 51, 52, 162, 214, 251, 252, 254
18. Water/Sewer Requirement
Council Direction: Add language to clarify that development that exists as of the date of enactment without public water and sewer is NOT nonconforming. Also add language to establish variance option if water and sewer cannot practically be extended to a site.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 214
19. Setbacks in Planned Developments
Council Direction: Delete required perimeter setbacks for a Planned Development (currently 50’ on exterior boundary, 25’ on interior boundary).
Location in Fourth Draft: Pages 242, 244, 246, 248
21. Response to University Comments
Council Direction: Add language to clarify the extent to which zoning regulations apply to development on State-owned property.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 2
22. Remove Sentence in Watershed Regulations
Council Direction: Remove the sentence in Section 3.6.4e of the Watershed Protection District, which refers to the Resource Conservation District.
Location in Fourth Draft: Page 60
12/9/02
Discussion of Additional Ideas
Land Use Management Ordinance
December 9, 2002
On November 5, 2002, the Town Council asked for additional study and discussion of the following issues related to the Land Use Management Ordinance in general:
- Request for Additional Information: Cost Comparison for above/under ground lines for recent installation along Weaver Dairy Road Extension.
Staff Comment: We will present information on December 9.
- Request for Additional Information: For Tree Protection regulations in the Fourth Draft, include a threshold of 4,000-5,000 square feet of disturbed land area, with the final proposed threshold based on a staff estimate of resource costs and estimates of benefits. Also, explore the possibility and implications of establishing this threshold at 2,000 square feet, with consideration of impact on property owners.
Staff Comment: We provided a report to the Council on November 25, detailing probable resource implications involved with proposed Tree Protection regulations. We believe that a threshold of 5,000 square feet of disturbed land area would mean that most new house construction would need to comply with Tree Protection regulations, but that most additions to existing dwellings would not trigger the requirements. A threshold of 2,000 square feet would likely mean that all new house construction, and most additions to existing houses, would need to comply with the regulations.
- Request for Additional Information: For Steep Slope regulations, prepare an illustration showing how this recommended restriction compares to other proposals that have been offered.
Staff Comment: We will present illustrations on December 9. We note that Council Member Harrison has prepared additional suggestions for steep slope regulations as requested by the Council, which are attached here, including limiting land disturbance in steep slope areas to 25%. We believe the proposed adjustments would be desirable, and note especially the point that there would be provision for case-by-case exemptions by the Town Council in consideration of a Special Use Permit, or by the Board of Adjustment in case of a variance request.
- Request for Additional Information: For Stormwater Management requirements, explore implications of a 2,000 square foot threshold.
Staff Comment: We provided a report to the Council on November 25, detailing probable resource implications involved with proposed Stormwater Management regulations. We believe that a threshold of 5,000 square feet of disturbed land area would mean that most new house construction would need to comply with the regulations, but that most additions to existing dwellings would not trigger the requirements. A threshold of 2,000 square feet would likely mean that all new house construction, and most additions to existing houses, would need to comply with the regulations.
On November 25, 2002, the Town Council asked for discussion of options for the Fourth Draft, to address each of the following issues:
- Reduce threshold for Small House requirements, from the current regulation and proposal of 13 lots to a threshold of 5 lots, and consider implications of a payment-in-lieu option.
Staff Comment: This change could be made with adjustment to language on page 84 of the Fourth Draft. The implication of reducing the threshold means that it would be possible that only 1 house in a group of 5-7 homes would be limited in size. We believe that it would be consistent with the Council’s policies as stated in the Comprehensive Plan to lower this threshold from 13 lots to 5 lots. Regarding the Payment-in-lieu option: If the Council wished to avoid the scenario where only one house in a subdivision is size-limited, the Council could add language that would allow the Council to authorize a payment-in-lieu of such restriction.
- Eliminate minimum parking requirements.
Staff Comment: As directed by the Council, the Fourth Draft does not specify maximum parking requirements. The Fourth Draft contains the same minimum parking requirements that exist in the current Development Ordinance. The Council could eliminate most of Section 5.9, beginning on page 199 of the Fourth Draft, to eliminate minimum parking requirements as well. If minimum parking requirements are eliminated, we would suggest still retaining in the ordinance standards for parking lot design, to be applied in situations where an applicant proposes parking (even though it might not be required). We note that the Council has indicated intent to study options for parking requirements during 2003.
- Raise maximum impervious surface limit (outside of Watershed Protection District) from proposed 50% to 70%.
Staff Comment: Page 88 of the Fourth Draft contains the Dimensional Matrix table that includes impervious surface limitations (Column K) for areas outside the Watershed Protection District. The Council could choose to change the 24/50 limitation (24% under the low density option, 50% under the high density option) to 24/70. We note that the proposed impervious surface maximum of 50% would be consistent with and comparable to the current Development Ordinance’s Livability Space Ratio of .53 for high-density residential zones. A 70% impervious surface limitation would be consistent with and comparable to the current Development Ordinance’s Livability Space Ratio of 27% for commercial zoning districts. We note that the more rigorous stormwater management requirements in the Fourth Draft address many of the objectives that might otherwise be addressed by impervious surface restrictions. We believe that, outside of the Watershed Protection District, the Council could reasonably set the maximum impervious surface limit under the high-density option at 70%. A change within the Watershed Protection District would need the concurrence of the State.
In addition, we note the clarification to the definitions of Intermittent Stream and Perennial Stream that have been suggested by Council Member Harrison (attached), to refer specifically to natural springs and specifically to plant species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We believe that these clarifications would be useful.
FROM: Ed Harrison –December 3, 2002
TO: Council Colleagues
CC: Manager and Planning Director
SUBJECT: Additional language for LUMO Draft #4, section on steep slopes (pages 162-165)
I would like to thank the Manager for supporting my proposed revision in the purpose statement for this section of the ordinance. On my part, this was a reaction to participant comments in this fall’s workshop.
This memo is an attempt to address what I believe are some unresolved issues regarding steep slopes, which are a new area of land use management and regulation for our Town.
(1) Clarify the definition of a slope
Section 5.3.2.a (page 162) defines a slope as including “only those areas with a horizontal distance of at least twenty (20) feet. This does not define the minimum overall area to be regulated. I propose that that this section also include a 20 by 20 foot (400 square feet) area threshold for regulation of slopes meeting the slope percentage threshold.
(2) Maintain the threshold for regulation at a 25 percent slope.
(3) Limit land disturbance to 25 percent of the area containing 25 percent or greater slopes.
Exceptions would be: (a) Town Council decision, on a case-by-case basis to grant a waiver for the land disturbance percentage in consideration of applications for Special Use Permits or Preliminary Subdivision plats; or (b) granting of a variance by the Board of Adjustment
In my opinion, this standard better reflects the language in Table 5.3-1 for slopes of 25 percent or greater: “Generally unsuitable for development.” In our Design Guidelines, these areas are called “Preserved Areas.” I do not believe that it reflects the intent of this Council to allow disturbance on land whose slope makes it “unsuitable for development” or “Preserved” at a percentage as high as half of the steep slope area.
(4) Redevelopment for sites which contain steep slopes meeting these thresholds should have to meet the same standards as newly disturbed land. In these cases, the exceptions listed in (3) above could be applied, depending in whether final action was by (a) Council or (b) Planning Board or staff.
This set of standards, in particular the limit on land disturbance, would be among those under continued review by Council over a one-year period after our adoption of the LUMO.
FROM: Ed Harrison – December 3, 2002
TO: Council Colleagues
CC: Manager and Planning Director
SUBJECT: Additions to RCD definitions
This memo proposes; (1) to make explicit the inclusion of “springs” in the RCD through amending a definition, and to propose a buffer amount; and (2) to add a definition to clarify the already-present definition of Perennial Stream.
(1) Proposed definition and distance for “springs.”
Discussion: Neither the current DO nor any draft of the LUMO has made any explicit reference to the RCD buffer for springs – at least none that I can see anywhere. They are not included in the list of terms (3.6.3.a) which are defined in the Glossary for the LUMO. However, Council has received at least one project this year in which a buffer is required for a spring, in the most recent case a spring which is not on the applicant’s property. It is not my experience that the kind of surface runoff which can be controlled so well by buffers has more effect on springs than does disruption of the underground water table by drilling for wells and by other excavations.
On consultation with Fred Royal, who now administers field verifications for RCD determinations, I propose:
Amending the definition of Intermittent Stream” to insert the sentence after the word “depression” – “The latter includes natural springs.”
This would give every spring the minimum buffer distance applicable to an intermittent stream, of 50 linear feet from the edge of the water. All limitations for the Streamside Zone should apply to this buffer.
If the spring has a stream flowing out of it which can be verified in the field as perennial, then staff can have discretion to require the buffer to be that for a perennial stream, 150 feet. Language to this effect could be added to the definition for Perennial Stream. All limitations for the full 150 buffer should apply by zone to this buffer.
(2) A definition for vegetation indicators used in the field verification of a Perennial Stream.
This should be added to Appendix A , Definitions.
Obligate and facultative wetland vegetation – Species of plants which are known to occur, respectively, more than 99 percent of the time in wetlands, and more than 67 percent in wetlands. These species are listed in the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2), published periodically by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal agencies consider these plant species to be the best indicators that an area is consistently inundated or saturated. When found between or along stream banks, these species can be considered to be excellent indicators that the stream is perennial.
[Comment – While this does bring the Town into the business of wetland protection via regulation, it signifies that the most easily visible indicator of wetland status can be used as one of the factors for classifying a stream as perennial, and therefore requiring a 150-foot buffer.]
12-9-02
Additional Suggestions for Fourth Draft
Compiled by Chapel Hill Planning Department
December 9, 2002
In review of the Fourth Draft by Town staff members and citizens, a number of suggestions have been made for adjustments and clarifications in the final version of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
- To the greatest extent possible, add Section numbers to the headers on each page.
- Add a listing of the specific overlay zoning districts to the Table of Contents.
- Add an index at the end of the document.
- Page 2: Last paragraph of Section 1.4, add phrase “enacted under that Part.”
- Page 40 states that for any lawfully established lot existing on January 6, 2003, the RCD boundary shall be that as prescribed by the Development Ordinance prior to enactment of the new Land Use Management Ordinance. We note that this means that, for most new development proposals, the RCD boundary will not change, since almost every lot in Chapel Hill was lawfully established. We understand that Council intends that the new RCD boundaries should apply when new development is proposed (e.g., new Special Use Permit applications). Accordingly, the language should be adjusted.
- Key typographical error on page 43: Stormwater basins are to be permitted in the Managed Use Zone of the Resource Conservation District, per Council direction.
- Page 69: Need reference to Durham County, under Watershed Protection District, to clarify that some portions of Chapel Hill are in Durham County.
- The key to the Use Matrix on page 81 needs adjustment and clarification.
- Small House Regulations: Simplify regulation (on page 84 of Fourth Draft) to require that 25% of lots carry restrictions, limiting house size to 1,350 square feet.
- Key typographical error on page 88: Floor Area Ratios listed for the MU-R-1 and MU-OI-1 zoning districts are incorrect - - they are listed as .264 and .076 but should be .429 for both (as noted on pages 17 and 20).
- Page 134: Adjust formatting of bullets.
- Steep slope regulations, on page 162, do not apply to single-family dwelling units or two-family/accessory apartment dwelling units. We believe that the Council’s intent was to exempt such dwelling units on existing lots as of the date of enactment. New subdivisions being proposed are required to comply with the steep slope regulations, which might mean, in some cases, conditions of approval that require restrictions on newly created lots. Language on page 162 should be clearer in indicating this intent.
- We have identified what we believe would be a desirable clarification for Section 3.8.6 of the Fourth Draft. That section offers subdivision applicants the option of providing affordable housing in lieu of providing small houses. Specifically, the ordinance (both current and proposed) requires that 25% of lots in new residential subdivisions carry restrictions on the size of houses that can be built. The ordinance allows an applicant to substitute a restriction on the price of 15% of the houses that are built.
As we have worked with a recently approved subdivision on these provisions, it has become clear that while the price of houses would be restricted by ordinance language, the income of buyers would not be restricted. In our recent experience, we have been pleased that the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust has negotiated income limits for buyers. We believe that it would be helpful to include those provisions in the ordinance, so that such negotiations would not be necessary in the future. Accordingly, we offer the following suggested change to Section 3.8.6 (additional language indicated with underline):
3.8.6 Substitution of Affordable Housing for Floor Area Restrictions
With the approval of the Council, for a major subdivision or a Planned Development Housing proposal with 13 or more single-family or two-family lots, an affordable housing component, as defined below, may be substituted for the floor area restrictions described in Section 3.8.5.
The affordable housing component shall provide initial and continued affordability of at least 15% of the dwelling units. The dwelling units shall be priced to be affordable to individuals and families who have incomes at or below 80% of the area median income for a family of four. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded with the dwelling unit(s) to ensure the continued and ongoing compliance with these requirements, and shall be sold to individuals and families who have incomes at or below 100% of the area median income by family size, as published periodically by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The minimum number of affordable units shall be determined as described in Section 3.8.5 with the number of units based on the permissible units on each lot and with resulting fractions dropped.
The subdivision preliminary and final plats and the Planned Development-Housing proposals minor subdivision plats shall indicate clearly each lot on which an affordable unit must be constructed, and the builder, developer and purchaser shall be bound by the restriction. The recorded plat shall cross-reference the restrictive covenants.