SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 3, 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 Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Principal Planner Rob Wilson, Stormwater Management Engineer Fred Royal, Planner Kay Pearlstein, and acting Town Clerk Vickie Hackler.
Item 1 - Review of Development Ordinance Discussions
Mayor Foy explained that tonight's public input would be for the action that the Town Council planned to take the following week, on June 10, 2002. At that time, the Council will consider a resolution that will give specific guidance to the consultant, Mark White, he said. Mayor Foy explained that Mr. White would then bring back a third draft Ordinance for the Council's consideration in the fall.
Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that tonight's comments would be on the second draft of the proposed new Development Ordinance. He listed the Ordinance's objectives, which he said were based on concepts included in the Town's Comprehensive Plan:
· Neighborhood Protection
· Environmental Protection
· High Quality Design: Scale that fits
· Innovative Transportation Management
· Affordable Housing Mechanisms
· Downtown Vitality
· Citizen Involvement in Decision-making
Mr. Waldon outlined a process for receiving public comments, noting that tonight's speakers were likely to be well informed and well educated. He stated that Council members would refer materials received tonight to the June 10th meeting. He recommended that Council members make "provisional" decisions on June 10th regarding what the staff and consultant should bring back for a public hearing in September. Mr. Waldon noted that the staff had highlighted key themes in tonight's memorandum and had put the details in a series of discussion papers. He mentioned a few of those key items: infill and redevelopment, single-family/two-family housing, stormwater management, and the Resource Conservation District (RCD).
Mr. Waldon explained that many people view the kind of infill and development that could occur under the second draft as unacceptable. It would include property owners turning single-family homes into duplexes or building additions to create much larger houses, he said. He mentioned the resulting potential problems of overflow parking and houses being replaced by those which are larger and out of scale with the neighborhood. Mr. Waldon noted that the Town had been trying to decide how far from the bank of a stream to restrict and regulate development. He noted that there had been strong support for making it at least 100 feet, but that "intermittent" streams should be treated differently.
Mr. Waldon explained that the staff had discussed inclusionary zoning with the Town Attorney and had concluded that what the consultant had prepared would be legally questionable. Therefore, he said, the staff was not recommending it. He recommended that the issue of non-conforming status also be addressed in the third draft. Mr. Waldon predicted that a number of properties that currently meet requirements would become non-conforming in the proposed Ordinance. If the Ordinance is adopted, he said, the Town should give serious attention to minimizing hardships for those whose existing developments will suddenly not meet regulations.
Mr. Waldon noted that taking the recommended action on June 10th would allow Mr. White to submit the final draft, with options and analysis, in September. A public hearing would be held on September 18th, he said, with Council members adopting the new Development Ordinance later in the fall. Mr. Waldon explained that the staff would begin revising the Design Manual after the Ordinance was adopted.
· Comments from Citizens
Milton Heath summarized his memo to the Council, dated May 25, 2002 (revised), and highlighted some of his recommended changes in the proposed Ordinance. He suggested directing the consultant to rename the Ordinance to The Land Use Ordinance, The Land Use Control Ordinance, or The Land Use Management Ordinance. Mr. Heath asked the Council to revive the Environmental Impact and Assessment Ordinance, which had been adopted but later repealed, and calendar consideration of that for the fall of 2002.
Mr. Heath recommended that the Town rewrite the Subdivision Control Ordinance. He suggested taking the watershed-wide plan that had been developed by the Morgan Creek Association (and any similar plan that may be developed by the Bolin Creek Association) as a point of departure for implementing ordinances for protection of the stream bank, stream buffer and watershed values that are involved. Mr. Heath noted the need for updating the Town's flood plain parameters. He urged Council members to update the Town's flood maps, noting that stormwater review and many other things depend on current maps.
Scott Gardner, District Manager for Business and Community Relations for Duke Power in the Triangle, read his letter to the Mayor and Council, dated June 3, 2002. He listed several concerns about lighting issues and encouraged the Town to review Illuminating Engineering Society of North Carolina (IESNA) reports, which include documents that recommend lighting levels for certain applications. Mr. Gardner said that IESNA guidelines provide a safe level of lighting for both public and private applications and address issues of offsite illumination.
Mr. Gardner suggested that the reference to roadways be stricken from the "Applicability" section (5.11.1). He also recommended that the Town review IESNA recommendations before limiting lighting fixtures as proposed in "Mounting Heights" (5.11.2), lighting levels as proposed in "Offsite Illumination" (5.11.4), and "Streets, Driveways, and other Passageways" (5.11.5). Lastly, Mr. Gardner argued that having a sealed PE lighting plan as proposed in "Submittals" (5.11.6) was too limiting. He stated that any certified lighting specialist would be qualified to submit lighting plans.
Engineer Judy Weseman, a member of the Stormwater Management Committee, one of the Town's representatives to the OWASA Board, and a writer of stormwater manuals, suggested that engineering policies be included in the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual. She also suggested that the language on submittals be clarified and made available on the Town's web page. Reading from her letter to the Town Council, dated June 3, 2002, Ms. Weseman noted that the Town was using one-year storm peak flow as a design storm. She said that the language used invites confusion among engineers and developers. Ms. Weseman recommended being consistent with the standard that municipalities will be going with State-wide (design for a 10-year storm and test for a 100-year storm) rather than adopting a "watered-down" standard.
Ms. Weseman recommended using post-development rater than pre-development conditions as a basis for stormwater calculations. She asked Council members to reinstate the option of having qualified professionals in addition to registered landscape architects where required. She pointed out that evolving bioremediation, stormwater retention, and wetlands restoration work requires engineers, biologists and other professionals.
Rudi Juliano cautioned that some of the provisions of the new Development Ordinance would undermine the stability and quality of life in his neighborhood and similar areas. Mr. Juliano raised the possibility of multi-family dwellings or mansions being built in these neighborhoods. He objected to the idea of reducing minimum setbacks to ten feet and imposing maximum setbacks. He described this as an open invitation to developers to buy up the properties, tear them down, and build huge homes that are out of proportion to the neighborhood. Mr. Juliano objected to reducing the maximum lot size for multi-family dwellings from five acres to one acre by an SUP. He opposed seeing lots of multi-unit dwellings going up on the one-acre lots.
Noting that this Council would never approve such inappropriate projects, Mr. Juliano pointed out that this Council will not always be here. He asked Council members not to undermine the character of some of Chapel Hill's most stable neighborhoods, and suggested either amending the R-1 zoning designation or providing another more suitable zoning designation for such neighborhoods. Mr. Juliano asked that the new Ordinance provide a simple and clear mechanism for neighborhoods to apply to become Neighborhood Conservation Districts with stricter standards than those imposed by the basic zoning regulations. He requested that a simple majority (51%) of property owners be able to initiate such a process.
Arne Gray told of how he and his wife had converted their single-family home into a duplex and begun renting half of it so that they could afford to live in Chapel Hill. He said that his son had done the same thing with another piece of property, which he had bought from his grandparents. Mr. Gray explained that the Town planning and zoning staff recently had originally told them that duplexes were allowable and that they could have three bedrooms on each side but no more than four unrelated people on each side. He was told last week, Mr. Gray said, that there had been a new interpretation of the ordinance and that now only two people per side were allowed. He explained that this would lower the value of these properties by half, and noted that his son would not be unable to afford the mortgage on the home he had bought from his grandparents. Mr. Gray asked for clarification of the Ordinance. He also asked that existing duplexes be allowed to comply with the ordinances that have been conveyed to them over the years.
Elaine Barney, representing residents of the Westwood, Westside, and Mason Farm neighborhoods, read a letter to the Council, dated June 3, 2002, containing suggestions regarding OI-4 zoning. In the letter, Ms. Barney proposed that the Development Ordinance:
1. Carry out the Comprehensive Plan's stated mission of protecting vulnerable near-by neighborhoods from proposed development through the creation of "residential conservation neighborhoods."
2. Develop a process to allow neighborhood residents time and opportunity to review the Individual Site Plan as well as the Development Plan.
3. Notify property owners within 1,000 feet of proposed buildings that could impact residents or neighborhoods, especially in the Perimeter Transition Areas.
4. Start buffer zones at the property line, not the edge of the OI-4 zone. Mandate a transitional buffer zone where buffer heights would be compatible with the adjacent residential zone.
5. Require that sound abatement techniques be designed in all new buildings with special attention given to preventing light pollution at night. Stormwater management needs to prevent run-off onto existing neighborhood properties.
6. Have development plans for perimeter areas go before the Town Council rather than the Planning Board. Establish time limits for completion of the plan, after which another plan must be submitted and approved. Consider periodic reviews on the progress to date. Incorporate the use of street views and "as built" drawings into site plans that show scale, landscaping, lighting and visual impact.
Philip Berke, a Professor of City and Regional Planning at UNC, commented on his recommendations for improving water protection that he submitted to the Council in a letter dated June 3, 2002. Mr. Berke stated that the Ordinance should include criteria for identifying intermittent streams and should require buffers along those streams. He argued lack of such designation and protection could significantly reduce the benefits of downstream watershed protection. He also suggested that the language for the uses in the three RCD zones be more concise, and gave examples of where the wording should be specific. Mr. Berke suggested ways to tighten the language under the "Open Space and Parks" section. He suggested that planning for stormwater management account for the watershed scale and that the following be done:
· Predict what will happen to water resources in the face of future change, particularly in accordance with the Town's zoning provisions.
· Obtain consensus on the most important water resource goals.
· Propose future land use patterns that are compatible with goals for sub-watersheds. This includes reducing or shifting impervious cover, and creating strategies that integrate different types of low impact design techniques that are tailored to different types of sub-watersheds.
· Integrate watershed protection goals and programs with other goals and programs involving smart growth principles and transportation and infrastructure systems.
· Develop a watershed monitoring program to determine degree of compliance to watershed plan and level of effectiveness of different techniques in achieving goals.
Margaret Heath requested that the Ordinance be written in plain English with a glossary of terms that are flagged in the text. She expressed concerns about clear cutting of trees and said that the tools in Chapel Hill for protecting water, soil, trees, and special habitats were failing. Ms. Heath submitted an excerpt from "A Diagnosis Report: Chapel Hill Development Ordinance," written by Lane Kendig, Inc. Regarding Low Impact Development and the Environment, she noted that the article suggests strengthening environmental standards in the Ordinance, specifically the sections dealing with floodplains, water quality, stormwater management, and tree and slope protection. Ms. Heath pointed out that even if Chapel Hill were to try and clean up its Land Use Intensity system and document there would still be a lack of user-friendliness and connection to the community. She thanked Council Member Ed Harrison in particular for championing the inclusion of intermittent streams in the RCD.
Richard Goldberg, representing the Haw River Assembly Board of Directors, spoke on the proposed protection of intermittent streams. Referring to his letter to the Town Council, dated May 31, 2002, Mr. Goldberg said that numerous studies had shown that smaller, intermittent streams that feed larger creeks can be a significant source of run-off pollution during storms. A natural buffer along the edges of these smaller streams, he said, will significantly reduce the stormwater surges from impervious areas and the sediment eroding from construction projects.
Mr. Goldberg explained that the Haw River Assembly had found over the years that a bad sediment incident in the larger creeks, or the Haw River, had stemmed from stormwater run-off from an intermittent stream. He explained that a small disturbance of land along a normally "dry" creek can result in a large amount of mud entering the stream during a storm. Likewise, he said, water rushing off pavement to a small stream scours the streambed and erodes the banks.
Mr. Goldberg noted the beneficial effects of protecting the natural forest and vegetated areas on each side of streams:
· Buffers slow down runoff during storms and prevent sediment, nitrogen and pesticides from reaching the stream.
· Buffers protect the stream from the scouring effects of bursts of stormwater rushing through.
· Trees along the bank provide shade to keep streams cool, which is important to aquatic life.
· Stream buffers are an important habitat for many species of wildlife and provide a connected green corridor.
James Carnahan, commenting on behalf of the Village Project, stated that the Town's Rural Buffer and Urban Services Limit create a boundary to growth. He said that it was critically important to the Development Ordinance to support denser growth within this boundary, along with more mixing of commercial, residential and institutional activities. Noting that critical stormwater issues make impervious surface limits a necessity, Mr. Carnahan said that the best way to reconcile these limits with the need for increased density is to raise building height limits and to increase floor area ratios and some of the allowable densities as identified in table 3.8-1 of the dimensional matrix.
Mr. Carnahan stated that the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Special Use District outlined in paragraph 3.5.4 of the draft Ordinance is of critical importance, and encouraged the Council to enact this without delay. He recommended placing either the new TOD zoning or the existing Town Center zoning on the already intensely developed part of Chapel Hill. He proposed that the Town increase impervious surface limits for TOD or Town Center development, where there is a stormwater management infrastructure in place. Mr. Carnahan said that the Town's greatest environmental and fiscal crisis is the pattern of local and regional land use and development that makes citizens utterly dependent on cars.
Johnny Randall applauded the previous suggestions about stormwater management improvements and erosion control and said that venting these is important since prevention is superior to enforcement. He praised the Town Council for speaking up on restrictions to single- and two-family units, especially with respect to stormwater control. He noted the additive effect from stormwater runoff when 100 individual houses are going up at one time, since sediment control requirements apply only to large developments.
Mr. Randall suggested placing restrictions on lights pointing upwards, noting that this can negatively affect bird migration and insect behavior. He recommended instituting "real" tree protection of the type that UNC is using. Regarding recognized natural areas, he suggested instituting setback requirements. Mr. Randall recommended finding alternatives to curb and gutter and perhaps requiring a development concept plan before the final development application is submitted. He asked that Morgan Creek be added to the Watershed Protection District and Water Quality District (section 3.6.4).
Sally Greene read her letter to the Town Council, dated June 3, 2002. She argued that Chapel Hill needs an ordinance that protects specimen and rare trees on private property even after the developer has gone away. Ms. Greene submitted excerpts from "Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances," published by the USDA Forest Service through the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council and other groups. She said this document outlines an entire system of community forest management and should be part of the larger set of land use management tools.
Ms. Greene asked the Council to have Mr. White include language that would protect specimen and rare trees on private residential property as well. With regard to objections that this would mean trespassing one private property and that enforcement would be too difficult, Ms. Greene argued that it would only prevent indiscriminate cutting and that education and incentive programs would lead to community support. She suggested that fines be steep and that community members help monitor compliance.
Linda Convissor, Coordinator of Local Relations at UNC, read her letter to the Town Council, dated June 3, 2002. She expressed appreciation for the careful, thorough, and inclusive process that the Council had undertaken in assessing the second draft of the Development Ordinance. She noted that members of the University and the UNC Healthcare System had appreciated the opportunity to participate as well as the email updates from the Planning Department. Ms. Convissor said that she looked forward to the next draft and would continue to participate in the process.
Valerie Broadwell, a board member with Citizens for Livable Communities, submitted a memo, dated May 31, 2002, which contained ten recommendations. She highlighted several key points:
1. Write the next draft in plain English and hold a public hearing to obtain further input on the new version.
2. Connect the Comprehensive Plan's goals to the Development Ordinance.
3. Build inclusionary zoning requirements into the Ordinance to increase the stock of affordable housing and set a consistent standard for developers.
4. Ensure that the major theme of the Comprehensive Plan to enhance and preserve the character of established neighborhoods is adequately reflected in the draft.
Regarding setbacks, Ms. Broadwell stated that the Town should not approve any more development that has parking in front, such as the Ballet School on Franklin Street. Regarding inspections, she recommended that the Development Ordinance have a mechanism to enforce building codes imbedded in it. Ms. Broadwell also suggested requiring a green strip of land between sidewalks and roads. She suggested that a task force be formed to deal with the problem of parking.
Council Member Verkerk asked for clarification when this item comes back of Mark White's views on eliminating minimum parking. She asked if Mr. White was referring to commercial or residential areas.
Scott Radway suggested using a name such as Land Use Management System or Land Use Management Ordinance rather than Development Ordinance. He recommended focusing on maintaining the neighborhoods that Chapel Hill has rather than feeling compelled to allow every new proposed development. Mr. Radway agreed with the staff's recommendation to defer some of the ideas, such as the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) or the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), to a later time. Those complex areas need a lot more thought before being put into place, he said.
Regarding the Mixed Use District, Mr. Radway agreed with the proposed approach to resolving it, but challenged the statement that intensity allowances are too high and suggested that the staff explore the numbers before automatically ruling it out. Regarding the RCD, he said he was happy to see the intermittent stream category being considered but was concerned about ponds becoming RCDs. He commented that if that means the Town cannot do anything within a hundred feet of a pond or a lake then that should be further considered. Regarding Item 5, he asked the Council to consider carefully making 100-foot buffers a requirement that would apply retroactively to the portions of the community that have already developed at 75 feet.
Mr. Radway remarked that requiring setbacks from buffers is a reasonable policy that is employed by a number of communities in the region. He praised the footnote for schools and the special provisions in the Use Matrix (item #3 on page 9). Regarding inclusionary zoning, he expressed disappointment that there was a preliminary recommendation to continue with the present policies, perhaps refined. He suggested getting non-residential development to be part of the solution. Regarding Concept Plan Review (page 14), Mr. Radway noted that he and the Community Design Commission had discussed this issue in depth. He explained that there were mixed feelings regarding Setting a Threshold for Applications, since more and more projects come through the process that are not five acres and not 100,000 square feet. He suggested that the Council think about what else it would like to see, such as location or edge issues, rather than merely acreage or square feet.
Dave Cook addressed some of the language in the Ordinance and displayed pictures of Demming Drive, which he said gave a sense of how the forest can act as a buffer when big rainstorms come through. Capillary roots retain water, he explained, and reduce stormwater runoff. Mr. Cook displayed pictures of areas that had been clear-cut and replanted with grasses, which caused erosion into Wilson Creek and sediment deposit into Wilson and Morgan Creeks. He encouraged the Town Council to make the Ordinance less difficult to interpret. He noted that the statement, "filling shall be permitted only if necessary to afford legally reasonable use of the property," had been dropped from the original ordinance. Mr. Cook commented that this had been important language that had helped people know how restrictive to be in protecting that stormwater area.
Betsy Pringle urged the Town Council to follow the Manager's recommendation to defer Article #2 and the New Traditional Neighborhood and the Transit Zones. She said that the Town needed more time to study and consider this and an opportunity to digest those issues. Ms. Pringle remarked that many citizens do not think a development ordinance applies to them and will continue not to think so until redevelopment comes to their neighborhood. She asked Council members to look carefully at setbacks, adding that the proposed minimum setbacks would have a huge impact on older and developed neighborhoods. Ms. Pringle suggested keeping the present setback distances until the Town can come up with one that works for both old and new development.
Aaron Nelson, Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, explained that the Chamber had not had a chance yet to review all 180 comments. He said that developers and engineers had told him that the Infill and Development section seemed geared toward new development and that the regulations would make it difficult to do redevelopment. Mr. Nelson wondered if there could be a caveat regarding existing conditions in some circumstances. He agreed with comments by Council Member Ward that the standard for parking should be based on some national standard rather than 110%. He suggested looking at projects that had improved the land in Town and examining how the new regulations would have applied if they had been in place at the time. Mr. Nelson asked how some buildings, such as grocery stores, would be oriented if parking were in the back near the loading docks.
Mr. Nelson suggested playing some scenarios out, such as what would happen to the Downtown and commercial centers if the Town were to reduce parking without doing transit-oriented development. He also recommended looking at how 24% maximum impervious surface might impact the construction of a single-story home on a ¼-acre lot. Mr. Nelson noted that the new regulations might require a homeowner to hire a professional to expand a kitchen or build a garage or add a deck to their home. He stated that the Chamber membership hoped that the Council would allow a period of grace to educate commissions, boards, the development community, and the Town staff.
Robert Dowling, representing the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (OCHC), explained that the OCHC Board had not yet had an opportunity to discuss the new draft Development Ordinance, and he was commenting tonight as an individual. Mr. Dowling predicted that housing would get very expensive over the next 20 years, and praised the Town Council for taking steps to ensure that there will be some affordable housing. He encouraged the Town to remain true to its goal of getting affordable housing whenever and wherever it can. If the Town Manager and Town Attorney do not think that can be achieved through an ordinance because it could be challenged in court, then the Town should rethink putting it in the Ordinance, he said. Mr. Dowling suggested focusing on getting affordable housing built and not worrying so much about the tool.
Referring to his written submission to the Council dated June 3, 2002, Mr. Dowling listed several ingredients of successful policies that have been used in other communities:
· They are simple and easy to apply.
· They offer developers a density bonus in return for the affordable units.
· The affordable housing requirement is typically 10%-15%. (The Council's current standard of 15% seems to be quite workable.)
· The minimum number of units that triggers the affordability requirement is 50, although many jurisdictions are reducing that threshold. As contemplated in the draft Ordinance, the Council might want to consider reduced requirements for smaller developments.
Mr. Dowling added that long-term affordability would be a key aspect to any policy the Council adopts.
Council Member Strom pointed out that Mr. Dowling had mentioned offering a density bonus as an incentive. He said that in negotiated up-zonings this Council had asked for some units to be affordable. Mr. Dowling replied that giving developers more units while asking for 15% affordable units in return is an approach that works. Noting that the Town Council had recently expanded its request beyond rezonings, he said that developers in very wealthy communities around Washington, D.C. (such as Fairfax and Montgomery Counties) get a 20% density bonus in return for the requirement of 15% affordable. Council Member Strom asked if Mr. Dowling thought 20% was a workable number. Mr. Dowling replied that it seemed to be the average in places where the approach works.
Philip Post, representing the Governor Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, recommended being attentive to every provision in the new Ordinance that encourages redevelopment. He asked the Council to specifically preserve what is in the second draft to allow the power of planned development to apply to smaller tracts. Noting that projects that have parking in front will become non-conforming with the new ordinance, he recommended that provisions such as item 59 on page 24 become key for the Town. Otherwise, they could be an impediment to new investment in the community, he said.
Mr. Post suggested that the Town increase the RCD to be set at three feet above the floodplain. He urged the Town Council to notify property owners that those changes were being made to their property. Mr. Post agreed with the suggestion to protect intermittent streams, but recommended that the Town unify the definition of intermittent. He cautioned against identifying man-made ponds as part of the RCD.
Loren Hintz praised the reduced number of parking spots and noted the importance of applying more rules to single-family homes. He recommended writing the Ordinance so that pedestrian access is provided first, noting that under the old system pedestrian access was one of the last things to be built. Mr. Hintz pointed out that lists of Transportation Board recommendations had not been incorporated in the new Ordinance. He encouraged Council members to look at them and see which ones they think are worthwhile.
Mr. Hintz requested increased protection for trees and asked the Council to continue to consider reducing the size of specimen trees and protecting small diameter trees. Mr. Hintz agreed with the suggestion to increase protection for streams to 200 feet for permanent streams and 100 feet for intermittent streams. He noted the difficulty with enforcement, showed slides of erosion problems, and noted that there were many situations where even the current ordinance was not being enforced. Mr. Hintz recommended creating easier and better mechanisms for enforcing the rules.
· Comments from Council Members
Council Member Harrison requested a brief legal opinion on the obligations of the Town and the policy implications of notifying property owners of areas that would be brought into a new RCD zone, as Mr. Post had requested.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that it would be helpful if the impacts of having a non-conforming property were defined before the Town expands on regulations. She commented on the unintended consequences of increased regulations on affordable housing, noting that it increases the cost for the segment that has to pay. Regarding stricter preservation of trees on residential lots, she said that unintended consequences should be addressed there as well. Mayor pro tem Evans commented on the unintended consequences of intermittent stream regulations, pointing out that many homes probably are situated in the proposed buffer zone. As far as raising the RCD level, she said, most of Glen Lennox probably would be non-conforming because it would be in areas where the Town probably would not allow building to occur.
Regarding #13 on page eight, Mayor pro tem Evans wondered if not permitting pastures or plant nurseries in the stream side zone of the RCD would create problems for the Botanical Gardens. She suggested addressing the issue of charter schools in shopping centers, pointing out that those are public schools. Mayor pro tem Evans questioned whether stormwater management for single- and two-family construction meant new construction or additions of a deck as well. Regarding storage of hazardous materials, she asked about cleaning companies, landscaping programs, gardening centers, and gas stations that already exist.
With reference to Council Member Harrison's question, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that on large area zonings there is a procedure by which one can advertise in the newspapers and not have to send individual first class mail to property owners in the community. But it does require a type of advertisement that is somewhat beyond the normal advertisement the Town uses when it does a rezoning or a text amendment, he said. Mr. Karpinos added that this must be published for four weeks in a half page newspaper ad.
Mr. Horton stated that it would not be feasible for the staff to identify all of the properties that would be affected by the change in RCD elevation limit from two to three feet. He added that it probably would not be possible to identify all of the properties that would be affected by intermittent streams, either. Mr. Horton explained that the Town did not have enough knowledge to do that jurisdiction-wide, given the limits of present technology.
Council Member Harrison noted that the Town had not yet decided how to identify intermittent streams. He said that he had submitted suggestions on how to do that. He added that jurisdictions that are using those techniques had not succeeded in identifying every one, however.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked, regarding #100 on page 28, what deleting the connectivity ratio means. Mr. Waldon replied that the consultant had proposed trying to quantify, through a mathematical formula, the extent to which any given development design connects to adjacent properties. The higher that ratio the more interconnected it is to the things around it, Mr. Waldon said. He explained that the consultant had suggested that the Town set a ratio of at least 1.8 for every development. But almost nothing in Chapel Hill would be able to meet that ratio, Mr. Waldon said, adding that even 1.0 was problematic. He explained that the more the staff looked at the ratio the more they determined that having an objective of connectivity would be better.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if this meant that there would not be an actual mechanism in the Ordinance to provide for connectivity. He asked if it would be left up to the Council to determine that each time. Mr. Waldon replied that the staff would continue to do what it has done in the past, which is to use design guidelines for streets to be connected to adjacent properties. Then the community would provide input to the Council on what to do about a particular site, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the Small House Ordinance and its impact on affordable housing (page 12) was a request for the consultant to come up with a way to bring these two issues together. Mr. Waldon replied that it had become clear that there was not enough attention paid in the second draft as written to how those two potentially related requirements coordinate with each other. He noted that the staff was expressing reservations about inclusionary zoning but were not recommending deleting the Small House requirement.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Waldon to explain why the staff was advocating keeping the Small House requirement. Mr. Waldon explained that the staff agreed with the Council's policy on requiring diversity in the type and size of housing. He added, though, that they also agreed with the argument that this is not by itself an affordable housing strategy.
Council Member Bateman clarified that affordable housing was still a Town goal. She also clarified that a Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District was different from a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zone. She asked how each of these specifically addressed the concerns that neighbors have. These include conversion of owner-occupied dwellings into rentals for transients, students, people who do not take care of their property, and absentee landlords, she said. Council Member Bateman asked how both of these address these concerns and how they address the incursion of large educational institutions into neighborhoods.
Mr. Waldon replied that the Traditional Neighborhood Design Ordinance, as recommended, has very little to do with existing neighborhoods. It is a set of regulations, similar to what is in place for Southern Village, he said. The regulations would apply to a vacant piece of land as it is developing. Mr. Waldon explained that this has nothing to do with the kinds of concerns that existing neighborhoods have. The Neighborhood Conservation District, he said, would allow a neighborhood, in working with the staff, Planning Board and the Town Council, to design their own zoning district for their neighborhood. Mr. Waldon explained that properties that are problems for existing neighborhoods could be addressed, in part, through the Development Ordinance. But enforcement of existing Town codes and ordinances and regulations would be outside the Ordinance, he said. Mr. Waldon remarked that the Development Ordinance could be used as a tool, though, to get at some of those concerns through parking and occupancy restrictions.
Council Member Wiggins determined that the Town was free to call the Ordinance by any name it chooses. She then suggested incorporating "Land Use" in the title. Mr. Waldon praised that suggestion.
Council Member Harrison commented that much of the Town's best recent actions seem to come out of rezoning. He noted that Montgomery County, to which Mr. Dowling had referred, no longer does any rezoning. Council Member Harrison stressed the importance of redevelopment. He noted that there is much case law that explains how to fit new environmental regulations and redevelopment together. Council Member Harrison pointed out that the Ordinance was meant to apply to applications for new uses to build something that was not there before. Existing uses will not be subject to it, he said.
Council Member Wiggins asked if this becomes a concern if someone loses their home through tragedy and wants to rebuild. Council Member Harrison replied that laws have been worked out all over the country on how to allow such redevelopment.
Council Member Strom commented that the Development Ordinance process had been a collaborative community effort and that citizen comments tonight had been rich and thoughtful. He asked the staff what would come back to the Council regarding some of the suggestions that had been made tonight. Before answering Council Member Strom, Mr. Waldon replied to Mr. Hintz's statement that the Transportation Board's comments had not been addressed. He said that the staff's intended to reply to every comment from every board and that those responses had been sprinkled throughout the document. Mr. Waldon explained that the staff would take all of tonight's comments and prepare a 14th discussion paper, which will list the ideas and offer recommendations on whether or not to include them in the directions to the consultant. Those 180+ recommendations could either be passed on to the consultant by a simple motion or individual recommendations could be pulled out and the rest could be passed, Mr. Waldon said.
Council Member Strom asked how the 20,000-foot lot size regarding stormwater was arrived at, and asked why not 5,000 feet, for example, or some other number. Mr. Waldon explained the 20,000-foot figure had been mentioned by several people. He noted that the smaller you get with lot size the harder it is to do detention, for example. He said it seemed like a workable figure, which was significantly less than 40,000, and moving in the right direction. Mr. Waldon said that it would be extremely difficult to require BMPs on a 5,000 square foot lot as part of a single-family house construction.
Council Member Strom commented on the one-acre versus five-acre issue described in point #104 for Planned Developments. He said that it seemed to make sense to go significantly lower than five acres. But, he added, neighborhoods are concerned that this opens the door for different uses to be imposed on them. He asked if the staff had thought about reducing the threshold in certain zones that are not neighborhoods. Mr. Waldon replied that he had thought about that while listening to comments. Stressing that the Town does not want to lose the five-acre minimum lot size in the context of residential area, Mr. Waldon stated that Council Member Strom's suggestion had a lot of merit.
Regarding Mr. Randall's comments about identified natural areas, Council Member Strom asked how the staff knows an application is in such an area. Mr. Waldon replied that it comes out of the staff review based on the Town's inventory and the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding floor-area ratios, Council Member Strom requested suggestions for a list of places that are appropriate for floor-area ratios to be raised and others where they could be left alone. Mr. Waldon replied that they would be working on this over the summer, but would not be prepared to bring a response by next week.
Council Member Strom noted that the impervious surface percentages being contemplated could get in the way of redevelopment. He cautioned against getting cornered into an either/or decision that might have negative impacts environmentally and commercially. Mr. Waldon replied that the staff's preliminary recommendation was that the Council pursue both, attending to how the impervious surface is not workable now if applied to a redevelopment situation.
Council Member Wiggins noted that one working group had said that putting parking lots in front of buildings helped reduce impervious surface because it shortened driveways. She asked for feedback on that versus the danger to pedestrians entering buildings. Mr. Waldon replied that in almost all circumstances it is a better site design to have parking behind buildings. In some, it is better to have it in front, he said, such as at the Ballet School where many people wanted to preserve the very valuable tree in front. That is an example, he said, of where parking behind buildings was a guideline rather than a rule and it worked well for the Town. Mr. Waldon cautioned against loosing the flexibility, on a site-by-site basis, to come up with a better solution.
Council Member Wiggins asked if extending protection of specimen trees to individual lots would apply only to new, single-family construction or to existing development as well. Mr. Waldon replied that he had heard a strong sentiment to apply it everywhere and to everything, old and new. Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Waldon to make a recommendation. Mr. Waldon recommended that the Town Council instruct the staff and consultant to include removing the single-family exemption in the third draft for public hearing.
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.