SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, March 18, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Stormwater Management Engineer Fred Royal, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Acting Town Clerk Vickie Hackler.
Mr. Horton stated this meeting was the first part of a series of four public workshops/hearings on the Development Ordinance Revision—March 18, April 15, May 20, and June 3. He said the first three parts were for the Council to receive a detailed presentation on each of the key elements of the proposed Development Ordinance, Second Draft. Mr. Horton said the fourth part would be an opportunity for the Council to receive public comment from citizens. In addition to these meetings, he said, there would be three Development Ordinance Workshop Forums for citizens to hear staff presentations and ask staff questions—March 19, April 18, and May 21.
Planning Director Roger Waldon said that after the June 3 meeting for a formal public hearing for citizen comment, the Council would give directions for the preparation of a Third Draft of the Development Ordinance, followed by a public hearing to receive comment on that draft at a September 18 meeting. He gave a brief chronological background:
· May 8, 2000: Comprehensive Plan
· Fall, 2000: Begin Work on Ordinance
· Spring, 2001: 1st Draft Completed
· June, 2001: Hearing on 1st Draft
· August 2001 2nd Draft Completed
· September 2001: Hearing on 2nd Draft
· January, 2001 Begin Forums and Meetings
Objectives for New Ordinance
· Neighborhood Protection
· Environmental Protection
· High Quality Design: Scale that fits
· Innovative Transportation Management
· Affordable Housing Mechanisms
· Downtown Vitality
· Citizen Involvement in Decision-making
The material has been organized to make the draft user-friendly, Mr. Waldon said, adding that much of the language had to be written in legal terms.
Ordinance vs. Design Manual
Ordinance Design Manual
· Use Buffer Width
· Density Street Design
· Height Limits Bicycle Storage
· Size Restrictions Site Arrangement
· Requirements Guidelines
Mr. Waldon explained that the Ordinances are law, and the Design Manual is a guideline. He said what the discussion would be this evening for Session 1:
· Article 1 – General Provisions
· Article 2 – Use Patterns
· Article 3 – Zoning Districts
· General, Conditional, Special, and Overlay
· Use Regulations
· Dimensional Standards
· Incentive Zoning
· Inclusionary Zoning
· Legislative Authority
· Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
· Permit Required (for everything)
· Conventional Subdivision
· Conservation Subdivision
· Traditional Neighborhood Development
· New Development in Older Areas
· Vertical Mixed Use
· Commercial Center
· Commercial Retrofit
Mr. Waldon said that many of the ideas need some real attention paid to them, and the staff suggested deferring Article 2 until after the Development Ordinance was adopted.
Council Member Strom said one of the issues in Article 2 was calculation of parks and open space, and he felt this was a very important issue to resolve and should not be deferred. Mr. Waldon responded that it would be a mistake not to address those issues, but he believed that Article 5 would be the place to do it because Article 2 addresses one particular use pattern. He said the most important issue to address in Article 2 would be conservation subdivision as the first one to undertake. Mr. Waldon said the most substantive article would be discussed the most this evening—Article 3:
· Define Districts
· Establish Use Regulations
· Establish Intensity Regulations
· Inclusionary Zoning (Affordable Housing)
Mr. Waldon said the biggest change would be design standards added to the Town Center District. He highlighted the approach to the changes in the Downtown, which would be law, rather than a guideline, and would not allow for flexibility. Mr. Waldon added that procedural incentives for the Town Center were offered as an alternative, which was new for the Ordinance. He said that Conditional Usage Districts were where nothing was proposed to change, because it had been very successful. Mr. Waldon said a third kind of zoning was Special Districts—Mixed Use.
New Mixed Use District:
Dimensional Matrix (p. 3-14)
· Require Residential Component
· Minimum and Maximum Frontage
· Minimum and Maximum Lot Width
· 114’ Maximum Height along Arterials
· No Setbacks on Collector or Local Streets
· 70% Impervious Surface Ratio
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Waldon to elaborate more on Minimum and Maximum Frontage and Minimum and Maximum Lot Width. Mr. Waldon referred the Council to the Matrix explaining these, noting the objective was to try to force a series of small buildings rather than large ones.
Council Member Strom asked what impact the setbacks would have on some of the large areas in Meadowmont for mixed use. Mr. Waldon said he would look into this question and get back to the Council.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested that the label for the Dimensional Matrix should be specified for Mixed Use. She added that there were several places in the document which could be made clearer, noting that it was hard to follow easily.
Council Member Harrison suggested opening up each section of the document with the highpoints which were displayed on the slide screen, and would make it more user-friendly.
Other Special Districts:
· Office/Institutional-4 zoning is exactly what the Council had approved last October of the O/I-4 district.
· Traditional Neighborhood Development District—property could be rezoned. This is new for the new Ordinance. Mr. Waldon suggested deferring this.
· Transit Oriented Development—not fully worked out yet, but leave in the Ordinance as consultant had proposed.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested changes for organizational purposes on pages 3-22 and 3-23.
Mayor Foy asked if the Transit Oriented Development was rezoned, how would a developer know what they were supposed to do. Mr. Waldon said nothing would happen unless somebody came forward with a proposal for a piece of land in the vicinity of a transit stop, to develop the property around the transit stop. He suggested keeping this zoning proposal in the Ordinance as a “place holder” until some person came forward about a specific piece of land. Mr. Horton clarified that it would be there to try to draw a proposal from a developer.
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper detailed the following presentations:
· Airport Hazard District
· Historic Districts
· Resource Conservation District
· Watershed Protection District
· Neighborhood Conservation District
· [Special Appearance Districts] in existing Ordinance, but not in the new Draft, and might have been an oversight.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked why the time to act on applications had been lengthened for the Historic District Commission and asked if that might have a down side to it. Mr. Horton said it was to allow the Commission more time to interact with the applicant. Ms. Culpepper said it was not unusual for an ordinance to have time limits, and it helped move things along. She said the Commission had also asked for a change that, if non-conforming structures were demolished or destroyed, the structures could be rebuilt.
· 3 Segments Within Stream Buffers
· Stricter Regulations Closest to Streams
· Streets/Bridges Only With Variance
· Narrower Streets
· No Sidewalks, No Curb/Gutter
Responding to a question from Mayor Foy, Ms. Culpepper said the language on page 3-40 of the materials had to do with how large the area was draining into a stream and described the current regulation, versus the consultant’s breaking it into three segments. She said it was possible that the Resource Conservation District (RCD) in a flat area could extend beyond the 100’ for the federally regulated areas.
Council Member Harrison said that the chart was an expansion of the existing RCD, citing that other municipalities were looking into this. He asked if it would be an idea for the Town to retrofit the standards to the federal standards for the Cape Fear Basin, and there was a good State set of rules for the RCD. Ms. Culpepper said they would pass that information on to the consultant.
Council Member Strom said it would be helpful to know how the proposal compared with the State standards. He said he did not think the Council had established goals for clean water and stormwater and asked the staff to bring back to the Council a way to discuss the issue of clear regulations, standards and goals for clean water and stormwater. Mr. Waldon said what Council Member Strom was describing went beyond the Development Ordinance, and he asked how fast the Council wished to move on the Development Ordinance. He asked if the issue of clean water and stormwater was one that the Council wished to make, did they want to wait on the Ordinance while addressing the other matters.
Council Member Strom said the Council should go well beyond what was in the draft Ordinance, because the approach the Town had been taking was not working. He said the proposal in the draft Ordinance regarding the RCD did not get at the root of the problem
Council Member Harrison said he believed that other communities were developing stronger standards and he felt there should be conversation on these, adding that the State regulations were just holding the line, but could be adopted by the Town.
Mayor Foy said this section should be flagged for further discussion and asked the staff what kind of guidance the staff wanted from the Council to help them bring back more options for the Council. Mr. Waldon suggested comparing the Town’s standards with the State’s and bring that back to the Council. Mr. Horton said one of the challenges was that so much of the community had already developed. He said he thought that the Town would need a Stormwater Utility to help clean up the water and regulate the flows in a progressive way.
Council Member Strom said there was a lot of data, and maybe the Town should have different standards for different streams, and try to address the existing conditions. Mr. Horton said he did not believe that the challenge could be met through the Development Ordinance, but the staff would do its best to be responsive.
Council Member Ward asked what value the language on development had on redevelopment. Mr. Horton said it applied to development whether on raw land or land now developed.
Council Member Ward said that what the Town was doing presently was not enough to protect its water quality, and he would like the Town to go further. He asked to see the standards in an overlay of a map of Chapel Hill in a future presentation so that the Council could have a clear picture of what it will look and how it compared with the current RCD.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked what effect this proposal would have on already existing structures such as Eastgate if they were not allowed to improve their structures, which would lead them to become more rundown. Ms. Culpepper reminded the Council of the University Mall Special Use Permit which the Council granted a few months ago which is in the RCD, and allowed some modifications of some regulations. She said this was considered in the section on Non-conformity in the draft Ordinance, which would be discussed at one of the later meetings.
Mayor Foy asked about some confusion on Streets/Bridges on page 3-42 of the materials. Ms. Culpepper said that provision was included by the consultant for the Board of Adjustment to grant a RCD variance, if that was a necessity.
Mayor Foy asked about fertilizers and pesticides being 30 feet close to a stream. He thought the distance should be further.
Council Member Strom asked for an alternative chart that showed more restrictive measures within the 100’ buffer for minimal disturbance to keep the contaminants out of the water.
Council Member Verkerk, referring to the same chart, asked whether this allowed mobile homes within the RCD. Ms. Culpepper said this was not a use that was permitted by the Board of Adjustment and there would have to be a variance from a set of standards. Ms. Culpepper said that there was a long tradition in Chapel Hill not to treat manufactured homes differently than other homes as far as building code regulations, so they could be built on an already-owned lot in the RCD.
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that the same could be for a manufactured home outside of the Town limits, but under Town regulatory authority. Ms. Culpepper said there were specific regulations regarding the length and width ratio.
Council Member Wiggins asked if a home was currently in the RCD and was destroyed by a force of nature and needed to be rebuilt, how would that be affected by the Ordinance. Ms. Culpepper said that in the current RCD restrictions the house would not be considered as a non-conformity and could be rehabilitated under certain circumstances and the house was built before the RCD standards went into effect in 1984.
Council Member Wiggins said she would hate to see a family displaced because they had lost their house to a force of nature and could not rebuild because of the change in the buffer requirements in the RCD.
Mayor Foy said he thought the Council should look at where there is genuine redevelopment, to use the land in a different way.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if all existing homes considered lawfully established would be allowed to be rebuilt in the RCD. She asked why were homes built required to be 18”, but mobile homes had to be only elevated. Ms. Culpepper said that was FEMA regulation.
Council Member Harrison said a map would not look much different, but pictures of sites would be helpful for the workshops.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if a current home in the RCD in compliance with the RCD today needed to be rehabilitated and it would not be in compliance in the future when the footage was changed, would it be permitted to be rebuilt. Ms Culpepper said the consultant would have to make reference to those kinds of situations.
Council Member Ward asked if, in the rebuilding, could the homeowner be required to manage the stormwater in the rebuilding. Ms. Culpepper said the Council would have to give the consultant guidance on who could or could not rebuild and on stormwater control issues.
Council Member Ward asked for on-site guidance for stormwater control.
Ms. Culpepper said the consultant suggested the overlays of Watershed Protection District and Water Quality be merged.
Council Member Strom asked about the chart on page 3-51, and said it was working at cross-purposes of low-density. Mr. Horton said the way it was written prevented both having more than two dwelling units and prevented having more than 24% built-upon area. He said it could be rewritten to make it clear. Mr. Waldon added this was adopted from wording by the State.
Council Member Harrison said the RCD should be clarified as intermittent or perennial streams, and the history of the ordinances had different levels low and high, adding that he thought that 50% could be done.
Council Member Strom said he had understood that the watershed regulations were to be applied Town-wide. Ms. Culpepper said they generally applied Town-wide, with a few exceptions.
Mayor Foy asked why hazardous waste was discussed in this section of the draft and not elsewhere. Ms. Culpepper said it was that way in the current Ordinance to apply to the watershed protection, and the Council had that authority to deny a permit. Mr. Horton said the University was engaged in cleaning up a watershed hazardous waste area. Ms. Culpepper said the Water Quality Critical Area Provisions were used by the Triangle J Council of Governments to apply to the whole area. Mr. Horton said the Council could prohibit those types of hazardous waste in particular areas, and it could be included as a standard in the Ordinance.
Council Member Ward said he did not see ways to deal with the amount of exposed, disturbed soil within this area. He said he felt it would be important that this be looked at for the large developments. Ms. Culpepper said the erosion control provisions were located in the Town Code of Ordinances, not in the Development Ordinance. Mr. Horton said all of the provisions of land disturbance from developments would be controlled by the Sedimentation and Soil Erosion Control Ordinance rather than in the Development Ordinance. Mr. Horton said the Council could review the Ordinance, but he would recommend having it as a separate ordinance, and the staff could do this. He said it was last modified in 1999. Ms. Culpepper said provisions for water quality had been included in the RCD as well.
Council Member Strom said in the last sentence in C on page 3-53 after Hazardous Materials Section, should be struck. Ms. Culpepper said the State regulations indicated that the Town should have responsibility. He said it was a large liability for a Stormwater Utility to take on. Stormwater Management Engineer Fred Royal indicated that that was not a requirement of the State.
· New Idea for Overlay Zone
· Petition from Neighborhood Required
· Customized Standards Developed
· More Rigorous Approval Process
Council Member Bateman asked what would be the reason for not signing for the designation. Ms. Culpepper said some people are reluctant to have an additional layer of regulations imposed on their neighborhood, such as those in the Historic District. She said the Northside neighborhood had a Comprehensive Plan designation, but did not have an overlay zoning district. She said many of the neighborhoods had a Comprehensive Plan Protection Area designation.
Mayor Foy asked what happened after the Planning Board went through its process. Ms. Culpepper said the neighborhood would come back to the Council to ask that these particular standards be applied to that neighborhood.
Council Member Strom said that getting 75% of the property owners to agree was difficult, and he felt that 51% was a reasonable standard.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked what the requirement was for the Historic District. Ms. Culpepper said it was a Council control, not a specific percentage.
Mayor pro tem Evans said 51% did not seem to be close to enough for a neighborhood to decide to request an overlay.
Council Member Bateman said 75% seemed reasonable to her, and a lot of people ought to be able to say whether they approve or not.
Council Member Ward said he would be inclined to keep the percentage fairly high, so that there would be a significant percent of the people in the neighborhood expressing approval for the overlay.
Council Member Strom said the process should be encouraged. He said he favored a lower limit so that citizens could get a dialogue going.
Mayor Foy asked if citizens wanted their neighborhood to be changed from R-1 to R-2, how would they initiate it. Mr. Karpinos said most likely they would come to the Council and ask them to initiate the zoning change, but they could fill out an application from the Planning Department for a zoning change.
Council Member Verkerk asked why a neighborhood would want on overlay zoning. Ms. Culpepper said the Planning Board would work with the neighborhood developing the standards, and there would be certain requirements that would have to come before the Council, as well as design standards.
Mayor pro tem Evans said this could also be used to prevent the density of Chapel Hill from increasing. Ms. Culpepper said it was not specifically intended to get into design usage, which would be what the Neighborhood Conservation Overlays would do.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked what would happen if the neighborhood was diverse, with many different designs. Ms. Culpepper said that would be challenging, especially if the neighborhood had some diversity.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked how homeowners’ associations effected the overlay concept. Ms. Culpepper responded that certain homeowners’ associations actually owned property and these regulations would apply.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked about the homeowner association agreements, which expire in a certain amount of time. Mr. Karpinos said if the neighborhood association had legal authority over individual property owners it would be up to the neighborhoods to work this out, and the Town would not have authority over them. He said it would be up to the Council to adopt the regulations ultimately.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the Northside neighborhood was asking for what the overlay called for or were they asking for something different. Mr. Karpinos said there had been discussion and some of the standards the neighborhood was asking for went beyond some of the specific standards. He said that the property owners would still have the general provisions of a protest petition available to them and would require a super majority vote of the Council.
Council Member Wiggins asked if converting single-family houses to duplexes would be something that would be dealt with in the overlay zoning. Mr. Karpinos said it could possibly be and he would check into this question. Mr. Horton added that if the desire would be to prohibit the development of additional duplexes in an area it should be possible to develop a zoning district that would do that, and the staff could look into this process.
Council Member Bateman asked if there would be a survey of the neighborhood with information, regardless of what the percentage of vote was in favor of an overlay. Mr. Horton said this could be done if the Council wished. Mr. Waldon added that the idea was to designate some threshold so that it would establish that there was a large enough portion of the neighborhood who wanted a change. He added that the staff could then go to work to provide the information needed and contact information to everybody in the neighborhood.
Mayor Foy suggested 20% of the property owners saying they wanted something done, and the Town would then do the study, and then require a much higher percentage of the neighborhood to say they wanted the change.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said by having a low percentage, the rest of the neighborhood would have to fight to preserve what they wanted in their best interest of the current status rather than an overlay.
Council Member Strom suggested giving certain options to the citizens. He said he was comfortable with 60%. Mr. Horton said he would ask the consultant to look into what other communities have done in their overlay zoning.
· What can you do?
· Where can you do it?
The second draft has taken what is already in the Ordinance and added Usage into categories A,B,C.
· A – Residential
· B – Office Types
· C - Commercial
Council Member Bateman said she did not think that people living in the special group should be precluded from having a home occupation and should have the same options as others. Ms. Culpepper said she would direct this to the consultant.
Mayor Foy asked what a “tourist home” was. Ms. Culpepper said if a hotel or motel has less than 9 lodging units it would be classified as a “tourist home.”
Mayor pro tem Evans said she did not understand why Adult Day Care was classified as a Special Use Permit, whereas Child Day Care was specified as a permitted use. Ms. Culpepper responded that the Adult Day Care provisions were a carry-over from the current regulations. Ms. Evans asked to make sure they had the same classifications.
Council Member Harrison spoke of a special provision in he footnotes of the Use Regulations which allowed all schools, including private schools, to make significant expansions without having to go through the Council’s Special Use Permit process. He said that Planning staff had shared Council hearing records from 1989, after the 1988 school bond issue passage, which clearly showed that the Council’s legislative intent had been to make this exemption available to our public school system in order to get classrooms and other facilities built before overcrowding set in. Council Member Harrison said he thought that the 1989 Council had failed to close the loophole which allowed private schools to get this exemption for expansions of any size, and that these expansions were having negative impacts with no evident public purpose. He asked if this could be discussed to see if private schools could be made non-exempt from the Special Use Permit process in the new ordinance, so that they would be held to the same standards as uses such as churches and service stations.
Mayor Foy asked what an “accessory use” was. Ms. Culpepper replied that it was customarily incidental to the principle use of the property.
Mayor Foy said that the Council always got applications for Special Use Permits for public schools. Ms. Culpepper said that a new school, public or private, would come before the Council for a Special Use Permit, but if it was an existing school seeking approval for expansion it would not be asking for a Special Use Permit.
· How Much of it Can You Do?
· New: Impervious Surface Town-wide
· New: Maximum Lot Width
· New: Maximum Street Setback
· Changed: Smaller Setbacks Overall
· Changed: Higher Floor Area Ratios
Ms. Culpepper pointed out a chart regarding Floor Area Ratios (FAR).
Mayor pro tem Evans asked for an explanation of what the ratio meant. Ms. Culpepper replied that was the land area square feet multiplied by the ordinance-prescribed floor area ratio, and there were other regulations also in place.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if it would be possible to build something with a floor area ratio of 4. Ms. Culpepper said there were primary and secondary height levels that came into play, so the size of the parcel is also a factor, and setbacks would come into play. Mr. Waldon said there were several ways to determine what height could be. He said that underground parking areas did not count in the measuring of floor areas.
Mayor Foy asked when the staff needed the Council’s advice on deferring Article 2 and deferring a decision on the Traditional Neighborhood concept. Mr. Waldon said the staff was hoping for direction on June 10, when it would be bringing to the Council a menu of options. He said any input before then would be welcome.
Mayor pro tem Evans requested a new rendition of pages 3-74, 75, and 76.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.