SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, APRIL 15, 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, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Stormwater Management Engineer Fred Royal, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Engineering Director George Small, Principal Planner Rob Wilson, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Planner Kay Pearlstein, and Acting Town Clerk Vickie Hackler.
Second Draft, Development Ordinance
Mayor Foy explained that this was a continuation of the last meeting and that the Town Council would review Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the second draft of the Development Ordinance revision.
Town Manager Cal Horton introduced Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper to make the presentation. Ms. Culpepper noted that this was the second of three public hearings and that the Manager had also scheduled five citizen forums and two workshops. She said that the Council had expressed its intent to be ready on June 10th to provide guidance to consultant Mark White as he begins preparing the third draft of the Development Ordinance.
Ms. Culpepper said that the workshop scheduled for May 11th at the Town Hall would focus on environmental regulations that are contained in the proposed Ordinance. She noted that the final meeting in the sequence would be a public hearing on June 3rd for citizens to comment directly to the Council prior to the Council's decision on next steps. Ms. Culpepper listed some of the key points that had been discussed as objectives for the Ordinance.
· Neighborhood Protection
· Environmental Protection
· High Quality Design: Scale that fits
· Innovative Transportation Management
· Affordable Housing Mechanisms
· Downtown Vitality
· Citizen Involvement in Decision-making
She summarized the plan for the evening's session on Articles 3, 4 and 5 as follows:
· Article 3 -- Zoning Districts (continued)
--Use regulations
--Dimensional Standards
--Incentive Zoning
--Inclusionary Zoning
· Article 4 -- Procedures
· Article 5 -- Design Standards
--Stormwater Management
--Landscaping
--Access/Circulation/Parking
Article 3 – Use Regulations
Ms. Culpepper suggested that the Council resume its discussion of Sec. 3.7 - Use Regulations. She pointed out that this includes the basic concepts of Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses, and Special Uses. Ms. Culpepper explained that there was a fundamental Use Matrix which identifies which are Permitted Uses, which are Accessory Uses, and which are Special Uses in each of the Town's zoning districts. She noted that all of the uses had been listed together alphabetically and that the notion of three different use groups had been de-emphasized. She also pointed out that the footnotes were important and that they include such things as "the infamous 20/40 rule."
Ms. Culpepper stated that the Dimensional Standards section (3.8) is one of the most important in the Development Ordinance. She noted that the standards vary by zoning district and no longer vary by use groups A, B & C. The key differences from the existing ordinance, she said, are as follows:
· No variation in ratios due to Use Groups
· Livability Space Ratio replaced by Maximum Impervious Surface Ratio
· New concept: Maximum Lot Width
· New concept: Maximum Street Setback
· Changed: Smaller Setbacks Overall
· Changed: Higher Floor Area Ratios
· "Rules for Interpretation" accompanying table has key information
· Recreation Area/Space
Ms. Culpepper also noted that the concept of livability space had been replaced in this second draft with a maximum impervious surface ratio in every area of Town but the Downtown. She explained that this would apply to single-family and two-family use Town-wide and suggested that Council members consider whether or not they want to do this.
Mayor Foy asked what the ratio (.24/. 5) meant. Ms. Culpepper replied that it was a limit on how much built-upon area is permissible. For example, she said, 24% of a lot could be paved area or a structure, but the impervious surface could be up to 50%. Mayor Foy wondered if that was more typically done for developments rather than individual lots. Ms. Culpepper replied that some subdivisions have restrictive covenants that regulate the amount of impervious surface on individual lots.
Council Member Harrison pointed out that Dimensional Standards section does not include an explicit statement about impervious surface. He argued that this was important enough to be included up front in the Intent section, and Ms. Culpepper recommended passing that comment on to Mr. White at the June 10th meeting. Ms. Culpepper pointed out that the new standard for maximum lot width and street setback, noting that the Town had only minimum standards for both. Overall, she said, the proposal was to reduce setbacks in general and to make floor area ratios higher than the existing ratios.
As an example of how much higher the proposed floor area ratios are, Ms, Culpepper explained that University Mall had been developed at a floor area ratio of .25, just under what would be permitted in the current regulations of .264. She explained that the proposed floor area is significantly higher at .429, which would increase allowable floor area. Franklin Park, she said, was developed at .25-.26, just under the current floor area limit of .264. The second draft of the Development Ordinance would raise that to .328, she said.
Ms. Culpepper pointed out that there no longer was a recreation space ratio in the table for Dimensional Standards. She explained that there was a recreation space requirement for multi-family, which requires that it be improved. She said that the recreation area requirement for subdivisions does not require that the area be improved, but noted that the ratio is much higher with a greater requirement for land to be set aside for potential recreation improvements. The draft ordinance, Ms. Culpepper explained, combines the recreation area and recreation space requirements and replaces them with "parks and open space requirement."
Ms. Culpepper noted that there were lots of options for the Council to consider before giving direction to the consultant on June 10t,h, including deciding on: appropriate floor area ratios, impervious surface limitations, how to address existing impervious surfaces for existing development, whether and when to require ponds, whether to set maximum lot width, setbacks, and what to do with recreation requirements.
Town Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that the proposed ordinance does change and, in some cases, lowers the recreation area recreation space requirements. He said that the consultant had recommended providing incentives and that one of those would be that the developer becomes eligible for some additional units if the ratio is above what is required. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the incentives in the current ordinance had not been meaningful and were hardly ever used. He noted that the staff had previously recommended that the Council not include this section. Mr. Waldon argued against reducing the open space requirements and then providing an incentive for a developer to give more. "Why not just require what we want?" he said.
Mr. Waldon noted that the staff had made a similar recommendation regarding transfer of development rights. Chapel Hill is not trying to preserve farmland, he said, so it would not make sense for Chapel Hill to do unless it was in a regional context. Mr. Waldon noted that such a transfer of rights could allow someone to increase density over and above what exists. He argued in favor of having a maximum density rather than allowing higher density if transferring rights from someplace else.
Mayor Foy asked if the transfer of rights concept could apply to the Resource Conservation District ordinance so that rather than giving a variance the Town could give development rights that would have some value that the property owner could use or sell and get some value for the property. Mr. Waldon replied that this was very possible. He suggested making a note of that to ask the consultant. Mr. Waldon added that the staff's recommendation had been to not include transfer of development rights in the ordinance. But Mayor Foy's comment was an interesting one, he said, and something that the staff would pass on to the consultant.
Mr. Waldon then discussed Inclusionary Zoning, which he said was designed to directly address the Council's affordable housing objectives. He listed several issues to be discussed.
· Issue: Legal Authority
· Issue: Whether to Require
· Issue: Include Non-Residential?
· Issue: How much to Require?
· Payment-in-Lieu? Off-Site Dedication
Mr. Waldon commented that he did not think the language in this second draft was ready for adoption if the Council wants to mandate affordable housing. Regarding the question of legal authority, he explained that there was no way to know until the ordinance was put in place and then challenged. Mr. Waldon said that the key issue is whether to require or encourage affordable housing. He noted a new requirement (sec. 3.9.2) for affordable housing initiatives for non-residential development in addition to residential development. This probably would be a payment-in-lieu, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that the draft affordable housing requirement was 10% for small projects (under ten units) and 20% for larger units. He pointed out that the Town's Comprehensive Plan calls for a flat 15% of units. Mr. Waldon said that Mr. White had given the payment-in-lieu figure of $20,000 last summer but the Town had since determined that a minimum of $35,000-$40,000 is needed.
Regarding Incentive Zoning, Council Member Jim Ward noted that the Dimensional Matrix on page 366 included planned developments while the one on page 377 did not. Ms. Culpepper explained that the planned development concept in the current ordinance would carry over in the second draft. She said that any SUP for a planned development would be at the intensity allowed for that particular zoning district. Council Member Ward urged the staff to include that information in table 3.8-1 so that it will be more consistent with the previous matrix.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if all comments from previous meetings and workshops would be referred to the consultant. Mr. Waldon replied that the staff intended to provide summaries to the consultant and would then compile everything and bring it back to the Council on the June 3rd public hearing and again on June 10th for the meeting with Mr. White. Mayor pro tem Evans explained that because she would not be at the June 10th meeting she wanted to comment tonight on some of the issues.
Regarding page 314, Mayor pro tem Evans wondered if the maximum of 15 units per acre was high enough. In section 3.3.1, she asked if allowing "variety" in the Town Center would be consistent with the Town's previous goal of uniformity and if "landscaping of doorways" would be even more difficult than maintaining planters on Franklin Street had been. Under 3.3, she suggested including something about interior lighting as well. Regarding awnings, canopies and roof overhangs, she wondered if every building would need to have one of those or whether it would be optional. Regarding the Dimensional Matrix (3.8-1), Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the Town should have the impervious surface ratio for everything but Downtown, since a mixture of house styles and sizes have evolved in the historic districts. She argued that this type of development had worked in Chapel Hill and should be encouraged in the closer in neighborhoods.
Mr. Waldon explained that the staff had raised a question about the feasibility of a 24% impervious surface requirement on individual, single-family lots, noting that the smaller the lot the more difficult this is to achieve. He noted that the watershed requirement did not apply to houses built before the requirement was adopted and that the current draft before the Council did not have any of those exemptions.
Mayor Foy pointed out, though, that there was the option of 50% if the landowner handles the stormwater. Mr. Waldon replied that this option requires a retention pond, adding that it might not be feasible to accomplish that on single-family and smaller lots.
Regarding A3 of 3.8.4, Council Member Wiggins asked how the nine-foot fence regulation had been decided. Ms. Culpepper replied that it had been in the Town's regulations since 1981. Council Member Wiggins said that this seemed high to her. Mr. Horton replied that such a fence would be very unusual in the Chapel Hill community. Council Member Wiggins suggested dropping the requirement to seven feet, adding that six feet would be even more aesthetically pleasing.
Council Member Harrison asked if anyone had any objection to Council members writing memos directly to Mr. White. There was no objection.
Council Member Kleinschmidt requested that any Council member who did write directly send a copy of his or her letter to other Council members. Mr. Horton remarked that it would be helpful to the staff to receive the comments of the Council as a whole, adding that five or six different opinions expressed in individual letters would actually give no guidance to the staff. He recommended that the Council vote on issues where they disagree and consolidate their guidance to the staff. Mr. Waldon recommended getting written comments to the staff by the second or third week in May so that they can incorporate them into the package that goes out for public hearing.
Council Member Harrison proposed that the subject of Mayor pro tem Evans's comments on impervious surface outside the Town Center be discussed as a primary topic on the May 11th.
Council Member Bateman asked when the Council would decide whether or not to require affordable housing. Mayor Foy and Mr. Horton agreed that tonight's meeting was for exploration and that the Council would be prepared to give the consultant firm guidance on June 10th.
Council Member Wiggins asked when the Council would ask for options to consider. Mr. Horton replied that this would be on June 10th.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the Council should make decisions about inclusionary zoning, impervious surface, and the RCD limits, for example, before June 10th so that they can direct Mr. White to come back with a plan in the fall.
Mayor Foy asked if the inclusionary zoning section had been written in relation to the Land Trust. Mr. Waldon replied that it did not make any reference to the Land Trust.
Mayor Foy asked the staff to explain again what their objection to incentive zoning (sec. 3.9) had been. Mr. Waldon replied that on something that the Town currently can require, such as parks and open space, he feels reluctant to tell developers that they can have more units or more density if they give more. If the Town wants more, Mr. Waldon said, it should merely say that. He argued that the reason for having an incentive is to try to encourage somebody to do something that can't be required, so why not just require it. Mr. Waldon said that he was interested in Mr. White's proposal about providing incentives to do commercial retrofit of existing shopping centers. He added, though, that he was not sure that there are many shopping centers in Town that were not already the subject of attention for improvement. Mr. Waldon explained that his main concern was over the parks open space incentive. Mayor Foy asked if the other two (redevelopment and retail site design) were acceptable. Mr. Waldon indicated that they were.
Regarding the Small House Ordinance (sec. 3.8.6), Mayor Foy noted that a change the Council had previously made should be included in this ordinance as well. Mr. Waldon agreed.
Mayor pro tem Evans inquired about C1, C2 & C3 in the incentive zoning and retail site design, and Mr. Waldon explained that those were a mistake.
Council Member Ward wondered if there was a way under the current system for the Town to apply affordable housing to non-residential projects. Mr. Waldon replied that this was a huge question and that the consultant had tried to make a connection between employment and housing.
Council Member Strom wondered if there were communities that were looking at impervious surface with more specificity than merely treating a front lawn in the same way as a natural forest. He also pointed out that the impervious surface numbers will become less important if the Town is moving toward instituting the stormwater guidelines that are included in OI-4 one a Town-wide scale. He wondered if going with 24%, or even 50%, requirement would completely eliminate the cottage zone possibilities and become an impediment to some of the Town's affordable housing initiatives.
Mayor pro tem Evans expressed concerns about veering to much from state law and inviting challenges by pushing affordable housing to include office, institutional and/or commercial developers. She expressed a preference for restricting it to residential development.
Council Member Ward noted that the University had many different categories of imperviousness and might be a good source of information regarding Council Member Strom's concerns.
Regarding sec. 3.10.7, Council Member Verkerk inquired about how "property without just compensation" would "come into play." Mr. Waldon replied that he did not have an answer for that, adding that Mr. White had been trying to draft this Ordinance so that it would stand up to legal challenges and that this probably was why that section was there. Mr. Waldon added that the goal probably was to make the intent clear if a judge were reading it.
Council Member Ward asked why the impervious surface ratios were all the same rather allowing a grade of acceptability. Mr. Waldon replied that the last direction the Council had given to the consultant was to get aggressive about stormwater management and to apply the impervious surface limits from the south side of Town to development throughout Town. He also said that it would not make sense to vary the ratios by zoning district because those variations are beyond the scope of what can be in a Development Ordinance.
Article 4-Procedures
Ms. Culpepper explained that most of the procedures described in this section were unchanged. The one area where there was some change contemplated, she said, involved Concept Plan Review. Ms. Culpepper said that the consultant had proposed a change to the process and had provided a variety of procedural options involving the Community Design Commission and the Town Council.
Council Member Harrison asked when the Concept Plan Review process had begun. Ms. Culpepper replied that it was 1996. Council member Harrison asked if there had been threshold before that. Mr. Horton explained that a promise of expedited treatment had been the original inducement to bring a proposal for review. After a while, he said, the Council that process became a required one without thresholds.
Mayor pro tem Evans added that the Design Commission then became involved at three points in the review process to insure that the plan was followed through. She asked if the Town Council had abandoned the idea of having a threshold trigger a Council committee to explore Conceptual Plan options with the developer. Ms. Culpepper and Mayor Foy replied that the current proposal states that the Mayor can appoint a committee in consultation with the Community Design Commission.
Mayor Foy said that the suggested alternatives in the box on page 4-3 were some that the Town might incorporate. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said that the idea was to give an applicant feedback prior to his submitting a formal application. This is not meant to be a Council vote, Mr. Karpinos explained, and certainly not intended to commit the Council to a position where an application is actually filed.
Mayor Foy noted that one possible alternative was to require a concept plan approval rather than a recommendation with the vote of the Town Council. He said that he was not interested in that, however, but only in what Mr. Karpinos had just articulated.
Council Member Strom agreed that it would be helpful if the Council could give some input at the concept stage. He commented that Mayor's committees had been helpful in reaching compromises with applicants.
Council Member Wiggins agreed, recalling that a subcommittee had once met with a developer and reached goals that had later facilitated the approval process. She added that she did not want the CDC to feel that their importance has been diminished, but that early communication of Council goals can minimize the adversarial position that they often find themselves in.
Mayor pro tem Evans explained that she had once served on the Community Design Commission. She pointed out that the CDC does have professionals on it and suggested that the Council work along with the CDC rather than doing it without it. Mayor pro tem Evans agreed with the idea of establishing goals early on for a large project but questioned whether the Council should double its number of meetings by review each one.
Council Member Wiggins asked Council Member Strom, who had been on the committee that she had just referred to, if the committee had actually seen anything before bringing back goals. Council Member Strom replied that they had looked at the land and at maps and had talked about community amenities and goals that might be achieved through the design. Their ideas had been conveyed to the applicant, he said, and the applicant changed the way it had been thinking about the parcel based on that feedback from the Council.
Mayor Foy added that the same approach had been used with University Mall and with Ram's Plaza. He expressed interest in institutionalizing that in a way that would not eliminate expertise but would give applicants information early about the Council's concerns. Mayor Foy asked Mr. Karpinos if such a committee would be discretionary or mandatory. Mr. Karpinos replied that it could be either, adding that the Council should tell Mr. White which they want. Mayor Foy said that he would like it to be within the Council's discretion to decide whether or not it intervenes in a specific project.
Council Member Ward agreed that this would get the Council and the developer started down the right path.
Council Member Verkerk supported the idea of keeping it discretionary. She suggested deleting Town Council Review (#3 under D on page 4.4). Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out, though, that this was a way of letting things pass without getting involved if the Council does not want to. He pointed out that this might be the best way to operate discretion. Council Member Verkerk argued that developers should have a signal from the Town Council before moving on and possibly encountering roadblocks.
Council Member Strom commented that the Town Council could offer it as a service that applicants could take them up on if they wish.
Council Member Wiggins suggested that the applicant could request Council goals.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had initiated the process in the past and that it should continue to be a judgement call as it has always been.
Council Member Bateman remarked that it did not have to be one way or the other but could be both.
Article 5 - Design and Development Standards.
Mr. Waldon described this section as "incredibly important" in terms of influencing the form of new development and the impact that new development will have on the community. These include:
· Link to Design Manual
· Stormwater Management
· Parks and Open Space
· Landscaping/Tree Protection
· Access and Circulation
· Parking
· Lighting
· Signs
· Performance Standards During Construction
Mr. Waldon described this as a long list of very substantive items. He discussed the difference between the Ordinance, which is law, and the Design Manual, which is a guideline. The Ordinance addresses use, density, height limits and size restrictions, he said, while the Design Manual addresses buffer width, street design, bicycle storage, and site arrangement. Mr. Waldon noted that as soon as the Town Council adopts a new Development Ordinance the staff will recommend completely overhauling and redesigning the Design Manual.
Sec. 5.4 - Stormwater Management
· Link to Design Manual
· All Development except Single/Two Family
· Required Concept Plan
· Required to Control for 1-year and 50-year Storm
· Required Detention/Retention
· Required Bond for Construction
· Required Inspections
· Required Maintenance Agreement.
Mr. Waldon said that the Council will have to decide how specific it wants to get regarding stormwater management. He noted that the Council had asked the consultant to get more aggressive than the guidelines in the Design Manual require. He said that the rigorous requirements on this list apply to all development, except single-family and two-family dwellings. Mr. Waldon pointed out that controlling for both the one-year and fifty-year storm is in this second draft. Noting that one applicant had recently said that water detention can make things worse in some cases, he recommended that the Council decide whether or not this should be an absolute mandate.
Mr. Waldon also noted that there was no current requirement that subdivisions have detention as proposed in this second draft. He added that the draft goes further to recommend retention and removal of suspended solids. Mr. Waldon explained that the maintenance agreement could be part of conditions for approval. Not maintaining would be a violation, he said, and remedies could be pursued through the zoning violation process.
Sec. 5. 5 - Parks and Open Space
· Definition of Recreation Area Space
· Proposed Changes to Recreation Area
· Proposed Changes to Recreation Space
· Suitability of Recreation Area
Ms. Culpepper explained that this was a new requirement that combined a current recreation area requirement and a recreation space requirement. It is a fairly significant proposed change, she said. Using the recently approved 40-acre Larkspur subdivision proposal as an example, Ms. Culpepper noted that the 86 residential lots were located in an R-2 zoning district and had a 12% recreation area requirement, which plays out at about 4.8 acres as far as the minimum recreation requirement. Applying the new ratio to Larkspur would make their requirement for parks and open space 1.97 acres, she said, noting that the Larkspur developer had proposed setting aside a little less than 13 acres. Ms. Culpepper concluded that the proposed recreation requirements for subdivisions were much smaller than the Town is accustomed to. She pointed out there is a parks and open space requirement for non-residential developments that are proposed in a residential zoning district. She said that this was a new concept that the Town had not seen before.
Sec. 5.6 - Landscaping Trees
· No Major Changes
· Buffers Required (specifics in Design Manual)
· Screening for Parking, Storage, Displays
· No Changes Proposed for Tree Ordinance
Sec 5.8 - Access and Circulation
· Connectivity Ratio for Subdivisions
· Bike/Pedestrian Requirements
· New Parking Standards (min and max)
· Parking Lot Landscaping Standards
Ms. Culpepper noted that no changes were proposed for section 5.6. In sec. 5.8, she said, the connectivity ratio for subdivisions was a new concept. She said that the mandatory ratio of 1.2 had been reduced from the consultant's first proposal and was more in line with what the Town was accustomed to seeing. Ms. Culpepper suggested that the Town Council consider whether this should be a mandatory ratio or a guideline. Council members should also determine whether there would be specific instances where exceptions could be made if it were mandatory, she said. Ms. Culpepper stated that no other changes had been proposed in sec. 5.8.
Mr. Waldon explained that the consultant had done what the Council had directed and created a maximum parking requirement rather than merely a policy though which the Council expressed its intent that parking not exceed 110% of the minimum parking requirement stated in the ordinance. He pointed out that the minimum requirements had been lowered in this draft and that the maximums were close to what the minimums used to be. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the current ordinance says little about lighting. During O&I-4 district discussions, he said, the Town and University had come up with reasonable standards for lighting, which have been put into this second draft ordinance to be made applicable throughout the Town.
Sec. 5.15 - Construction Standards
New Section, specifying Performance Standards During Construction.
Mr. Waldon explained that the Town Council had been concerned at one point about whether or not a particular developer was acting appropriately with respect to neighboring properties. He said that the Council had asked the consultant to draft something that could be put in the new ordinance that would specify performance standards for what is to happen during construction. So this is that new section, Mr. Waldon explained.
Regarding 5.4.6, Council Member Strom asked the staff to compare the general performance criteria for stormwater with what is in O&I-4. Mr. Waldon replied that it is very similar and might even be exactly the same, since O&I-4 was the model.
Regarding 5.4.2, Council Member Strom determined from Mr. Waldon that 45,000 square feet and less of land is exempt from stormwater standards or even from having a stormwater plan. He asked what the rationale had been for that since he could imagine situations in which it would be desirable to have smaller lots included or to have regulations for one-acre lots and smaller. Mr. Waldon replied that it could be changed to make it lower. It could also have an interim step where it would be a little less rigorous than required but still be more than nothing, he said. Council Member Strom remarked that this was the least the Town should do.
Mayor Foy asked Council Member Strom to clarify what he was asking for. Council Member Strom explained that developing a one-acre lot can have a significant impact and there should be a standard in place against which the Town evaluates a plan for one-acre lots.
Mayor Foy commented that in some plans there could be five or six units on this much land. Council Member Ward expressed support for the idea and requested figures on what percentage of development would be exempt in this draft because it is on one-acre lots or smaller. He said that everyone should contribute to the solution regardless of size. Regarding 5.7.5C, he expressed hope that the Town would include something on prohibiting landscape plantings of invasive exotic species.
Council Member Ward suggested using organizations such as the Southeastern Exotic Pest Plant Council for guidance on this.
Council Member Wiggins said that she knew of construction of single family homes that had caused severe stormwater problems for their next door neighbors.
Regarding 5.2.5, Mayor pro tem Evans spoke in favor of alleys. She said that she had recently seen flag lots that were sensitively done and appropriate for the community and she suggested reconsidering that issue. After verifying that Carrboro was not participating in the stormwater management plan, Mayor pro tem Evans questioned having detention facilities in all parts of Chapel Hill since much of the run-off comes from Carrboro. She recommended taking a realistic approach, particularly toward redevelopment. She wondered about the unintended consequences that some of this regulation might have on the Town's public works facility, its transportation facility, and its schools.
Regarding buffers, Mayor pro tem Evans noted that some had been eliminated due to security concerns. She suggested including stump removal when removing trees, and recommended preserving groves of trees as well as individual trees. Regarding parking, she asked if requiring an all-weather material would mean that paver blocks could not be used and asked if the impervious surface requirement might be too restrictive in some areas. Mayor pro tem Evans criticized the instructions that recommend that parking be done in "one continuous maneuver." She asked if changes in the Town's recreation requirements would still allow the Town to achieve its goals. Mr. Waldon noted that some of Mayor pro tem Evans's impervious surface concerns might be addressed in the Design Manual.
Ms. Culpepper explained that the "equivalent residential unit" concept carries over to the parks and open space section as well. Council Member Bateman said that if this were a requirement she would like to see the non-profits exempted from it and that the non-residential requirement be satisfied through payment in lieu. Ms. Culpepper replied that there is a provision for that and that this version of the draft ordinance attempts to simplify the payment in lieu process.
Council Member Bateman asked what Mr. White's goal was when he proposed reducing the requirement. Ms. Culpepper replied that she thought he wanted to apply a nationally recognized standard recreation requirement to Chapel Hill. Council Member Bateman concurred with Mayor pro tem Evans that she did not want to change that requirement but would rather move toward payment in lieu.
Council Member Harrison suggested that Council Member Ward rewrite the section on trees to include invasive plants. Council Member Harrison determined that the stormwater provisions applied to all residential development above the 40,000 square foot threshold. He mentioned a code and ordinance worksheet, prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection in Maryland, which he had formerly brought to the Town's attention and wondered if there was a way to integrate parts of that into the ordinance.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had discussed low- impact design and on-site management of stormwater and pointed out that the Town could go further in its regulations to try and achieve those goals. He suggested that the Town Council address the fact that only one unit can have an incremental impact. He also agreed that the information presented by Council Member Harrison should be woven into the ordinance.
Council Member Harrison pointed out that the material includes a provision for preserving a grove of trees, for example, which was something that Mayor pro tem Evans had brought up.
Council Member Ward asked if there was a provision in the second draft for the Town to require connectivity of open space. Mr. Waldon replied that he did not recall anything in the ordinance that would allow the Council to mandate that. Council Member Ward recommended exploring how to do so. Council Member Ward also suggested improving the section on shade in parking lots and Mayor Foy agreed. Mr. Waldon described that as a perfect example of the direction the Council can give on how it wants to become more aggressive on an issue.
Council Member Strom asked how the tree protection ordinance would apply to residential development. Mr. Waldon replied that in the case of multi-family it applies the same way it would to any other development. With subdivisions, he said, it applies to the construction of the streets and the infrastructure but not to the construction of single-family houses on lots that have been created. Council Member Strom asked if that meant that they would be regulating the tree ordinance only for the public areas in those subdivisions. Mr. Waldon agreed that it did.
Noting that he had mentioned the city of Charlotte's enactment of a percentage of trees on a particular piece of land to be preserved as a stand, Council Member Strom requested more information on that to be presented as an option. In 5.7.2, under permits required, he asked if any development of five acres or less would be exempt from the tree protection ordinance. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said that single-family and two-family dwellings on five-acre lots that would be exempt but five-acre lots used for any other purpose were not. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the tree ordinance would not apply to construction of single-family house on less than five acres. Council Member Strom repeated his view that some percentage of overall preservation might be an effective approach.
Council Member Strom suggested finding ways to increase the amount of revenue the Town gets for payment in lieu of recreation standards. One way, he said, might be to discount the value of RCD grants to the Town and to try and get money or high and dry, good land for recreation purposes rather than RCD wetland.
Mayor Foy tried to ascertain that the Town had the authority to impose a parks impact fee, but no one could positively answer. Mayor Foy pointed out that if the Town does have that authority then it might be ale to impose an impact fee and wave it under circumstances where it gets the good land instead of the wet land.
Council Member Strom described that as a very interesting approach that he would like to discuss further.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that some of the RCD land had enhanced the greenway system and should not be given up. She noted that the Planning Board had twice requested that Council members study the parking space numbers and have them substantiated. Mr. Waldon replied that he recalled the Planning Board asking for a study. He said that the consultant had suggested figures based on national standards and that some of those standards did not make sense for Chapel Hill. Mr. Waldon remarked that blending those two ideas would be a good approach.
Council Member Verkerk requested more information about Mr. White's suggestion that minimum parking be eliminated. She said that she would like to see developers put sidewalks on both sides of the street and asked that those sidewalks be connected as reasonably as possible to existing sidewalks. Mr. Waldon said that the Design Manual would be the best place to specify that. Council Member Verkerk asked that the language regarding connectivity of sidewalks be as specific as it is regarding the connectivity of streets. Mr. Horton stated that the Town could write that but could only require of an applicant what is reasonable under the law.
Regarding the last sentence in the first paragraph in section 5.4.13, Council Member Strom asked if the Town was accepting offsite stormwater management. Mr. Waldon replied that a development can do this offsite. Council Member Strom described the language as very broad and said that it was waiting for some rules, perhaps in the Design Manual. Mr. Waldon commented that the intent was not to introduce a new concept of allowing something to be offsite. But that there might be situation where the best place to put a facility would be offsite, he said.
Regarding the State standard of facilities designed to achieve 85% total suspended solid, Council Member Harrison asked if the Town intended to leave the facility open. Mr. Waldon replied that he did not think the ordinance should specify a particular type of facility. If the Council wants to set 85% as a standard, he said, the place to do so is in the ordinance.
Regarding #C in 5.9.7, Mayor Foy asked the Council to think about how they had attempted in the past to control the traffic count by controlling the number of parking spaces. He asked them to remain cognizant of how its not just a matter of surface area devoted to the parking lot. Mr. Waldon pointed out that this was a new concept and one of those where the Council should make a decision. Mayor Foy ascertained from Mr. Waldon that the Town could not go above the maximum with a new SUP for an undeveloped piece of land. Mr. Karpinos pointed out, though, that the Town could write the ordinance to provide this flexibility.
Regarding 5.9.6, Mayor Foy agreed that the parking landscape standards needed to be strengthened. He said that he also wanted to hear something about the pedestrian orientation in parking lots and to see if the design standards could provide for improved pedestrian safety.
Council Member Ward noted that Homestead Village had been required to put sidewalks in. They did satisfy all of the requirements, he said, but created a large gap between the required sidewalks. He asked for a way to require better sidewalks in cases like this, since this case is not unusual.
Mr. Waldon listed the next steps in the Development Ordinance series:
· Thursday - Citizen Questions on Session 2
· May 20: Session 3 for Town Council
· May 21 Citizen Questions on Session 3
· June 3: Public Hearing
· June 10: Council direction to Consultant
And, May 11 Workshop on Environmental Issues
The meeting adjourned at 9:45