Supplement #3

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:           Chapel Hill Planning Board

 

SUBJECT:      Summary of Planning Board Discussions on Proposed Land Use Management Ordinance

 

DATE:             December 19, 2002

 

The Planning Board discussed the Fourth Draft of the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance at a meeting on December 17, 2002.  After much discussion, the Board found consensus on some points, differences of opinion on others.  This memorandum provides the recommendations of the Planning Board.  

 

Following are the issues in the Land Use Management Ordinance for which the Planning Board as a whole chose to make a specific comment/recommendation to the Council.  The vote on each of these recommendations is shown. 

 

On December 17, 2002, nine of the ten Planning Board members were present.  Tim Dempsey was absent.

 

Regarding Burial of Electric Utility Lines

 

The Board voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council pursue, with all deliberate speed and by all means available, requiring that new electric lines be installed underground and that existing lines be relocated underground.  The Board supports seeking special legislation from the NC General Assembly to help accomplish this.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS – SINGLE FAMILY LOTS

 

With respect to the application of tree protection regulations and stormwater management regulations to single family lots (as well as all other lots), the Planning Board supports the establishment of 5,000 square feet as the threshold for these regulations.

 

Regarding Section 5.7, Tree Protection

 

The Board voted 5 – 4 to recommend that the Council enact the 5,000 square foot land disturbance threshold for application of the tree ordinance provisions to single-family and two-family structures.

 

Aye:  Julie Coleman, Coleman Day, Gay Eddy, Nancy Gabriel, Scott Radway

Nay:  Thatcher Freund, Sally Greene, Suzanne Haff,  Ruby Sinreich

 

Regarding Stormwater Management Regulations:

 

The Board voted 5 – 4 to recommend that the Council support the 5,000 square foot   land disturbance threshold for application of the new stormwater management provisions as proposed in the Fourth Draft.

 

Aye:  Julie Coleman, Coleman Day, Gay Eddy, Thatcher Freund, Scott Radway

Nay:  Nancy Gabriel, Sally Greene, Suzanne Haff, Ruby Sinreich

 

STEEP SLOPE REGULATIONS

 

Steep Slope Disturbance

 

The Board voted 7-2 to recommend that the steep slope provisions be revised to allow no more than 25% disturbance in areas with steep slopes greater than 25%.

 

Aye:  Julie Coleman, Coleman Day, Gay Eddy, Thatcher Freund,  Sally Greene, Suzanne Haff,  Scott Radway

Nay:  Nancy Gabriel, Ruby Sinreich

 

Comment:  Through the Subdivision and SUP application process the Council and advisory boards will see very quickly if this limitation on disturbance is set at an appropriate level.  This is one new regulation for which the one year evaluation and monitoring process should provide good information about the effect of the regulation.

 

The Board voted 7-2 to recommend that the single-family exemption for steep slope regulations be clarified to accomplish the following:  (Please note that recommendation number 2 below does not support the “what you bought is what you get” philosophy.  It supports extending this environmental regulation to all lots with the knowledge that a property owner may get a variance from the Board of Adjustment that provides for the least amount of disturbance needed to make the lot usable.)

 

  1. For existing SF house on existing lot, requirement does not apply.
  2. For existing vacant lot where new house is proposed, requirement should apply.
  3. For lots not yet created, requirement should apply.

 

Aye:     Julie Coleman, Gay Eddy, Thatcher Freund, Sally Greene, Suzanne Haff, Scott Radway,

            Ruby Sinreich

Nay:     Coleman Day, Nancy Gabriel

 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULATIONS

 

A.     The Board by acclamation supports the policy in the 4th Draft that stormwater detention basins and  their associated support facilities (including outlet structures & dissipation devices such as rip-rap channels and swales) be prohibited within 50 feet of any perennial or intermittent stream.  See Table 3.6.3-2 Permitted Uses within Resource Conservation District.

 

In this regard the Planning Board recommends that the language for item 12, Detention/Retention Basins, be expanded to clarify that basins and “all support facilities” should be permitted only in zones C & D.

 

B.     The Board also recommends that the ordinance be clear that for existing lots that would be subject to the existing RCD setback distances (e.g. 75 or 100 feet) that the stream corridor zones be as follows:

 

RCD Zone Distance        Stream Side Zone       Managed Use Zone

     75 Feet                                 50 Feet                            25 Feet

   100 Feet                                 50 Feet                            50 Feet

 

Regarding Small House / Affordable Housing Provisions: 

 

The Board voted 8-1 to recommend that the threshold for application of the small house provisions be reduced to apply to all major subdivisions (Subdivisions of 5 or more lots, etc.). 

 

Aye:  Julie Coleman, Coleman Day, Gay Eddy, Thatcher Freund, Sally Greene, Suzanne Haff, Ruby Sinreich, Scott Radway

Nay:  Nancy Gabriel

 

The Board voted 7-2 to recommend that the “Substitution of Affordable Housing for Floor Area Restrictions” in Section 3.8.6 specify that the option is available for all subdivisions of 5 lots or more.

 

The Board voted 7-2 that the Final Draft retain the small house requirement of Section 3.8.5 that some homes be limited to 1,100 sq. ft. and some be limited to 1,350 sq. ft.;  and that the time limit for prohibition of expanding a size-limited house be specified as 5 years.

 

Aye:  Julie Coleman, Coleman Day, Thatcher Freund, Sally Greene, Suzanne Haff, Ruby Sinreich, Scott Radway

Nay:  Gay Eddy, Nancy Gabriel

 

Comment:  The Board discussed the desirability of permitting “Payment-in-lieu” as a third option for meeting an affordable housing obligation, but does not recommend it to the Council.  The Board reaffirmed (without a vote) its support for the concept of the distribution of small homes or affordable homes in new subdivisions and residential development.

 

Regarding the Downtown Incentive for Residential Development:

 

The Board voted 9-0 to recommend that the bonus floor area provisions of Section 3.8.7 be increased to make the provision of residential floor area more attractive in the downtown.

 

Regarding Parking Requirements

 

The Board discussed the proposal by one Council member that the minimum parking requirements be removed from the ordinance and that decisions be made on a case by case basis.

 

Although the Board did not vote on this proposal, members supported the prior Council decision to retain the existing parking standards and to revise them – if needed - after the study of Chapel Hill specific situations that Council has asked the staff to undertake after adoption of the new LUMO.

 

Regarding Automotive Repair Use

 

The Board agreed by consensus to suggest that special attention is needed to the parking needs of Automobile Repair and Convenience Store uses as the Council undertakes its study of townwide parking needs and possible requirements.

 

Other Comments

 

Individual Board Members offered the following additional comments:

 

 

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­