SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 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, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Council Member Dorothy Verkerk was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Senior Planner Phil Mason, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, and Acting Town Clerk Vickie Hackler.
Agenda Item 1 - Review of Proposed Land Use Management Ordinance
(formerly Development Ordinance)
Town Manager Cal Horton explained that this was the third draft of an ordinance that the Town had been working on for about two years. He said that the process had included working with a consultant as well as holding public hearings, special sessions, and workshops. Mr. Horton explained that tonight's comments from Council members and citizens would guide the staff in developing the final Land Use Management Ordinance. He introduced Town Planning Director Roger Waldon to make the presentation, noting that Mr. Waldon and his staff had worked closely with consultant Mark White.
Mr. Waldon presented an overview and timeline of the process so far. He stated that the staff had met its deadlines and was on schedule with this third draft.
Consultant Mark White focused on changes that had been made in response to the Council's direction on June 10, 2002. He pointed out key points in five major categories:
· Those relating to the Resource Conservation District (RCD), which include increasing the buffer zone to 150 feet, requiring a variance for streets and bridges, adding restricted uses throughout the RCD, and limiting the single-family exemption. Regarding Environmental Protection, impervious surface ratios would apply throughout all of zoning districts and there would be new restrictions on the development of steep slopes. There would also be significant changes to the tree ordinance and provisions for transfers of development rights. There would be maximum parking restrictions and a 40% front yard restriction.
· Those made to encourage redevelopment and to respond to what some in the community had seen as inappropriate types of redevelopment. These include additional floor area ratio incentives, incentives to encourage residential construction in the Town Center, and incentives to redevelop existing parking areas.
· Single Family and Two Family restrictions that go along with redevelopment, which includes a floor area ratio that would cap the size of residential buildings in all zoning districts, as well as restrictions on duplexes in R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones.
· Stormwater Management changes. There would be new standards to govern the rate, volume and quality of run-off. These standards would apply to a much wider variety of situations than they have in the past.
· Changes relating to Nonconforming Status and how the ordinance will apply to regulation already in effect.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that there were about a dozen additional staff recommendations, beginning on page five of the Manager's memo. He highlighted four of them:
· The staff recommends that the Council continue to be able to permit streets and bridges within the RCD. The staff believes that the proposal to allow streets and bridges with a variance to be approved by the Board of Adjustment would eliminate the normal Council decision-making process regarding streets, traffic, and connectivity.
· The staff recommends that all RCD stream corridors be established as the area within 100 feet of any perennial or intermittent stream. The staff believes that moving the boundary out to 150 feet of the banks of all streams, while also strengthening the regulations, would create a large number of nonconforming uses and structures to a degree that merits balancing the likely difficulties with the likely benefits. Mr. Waldon presented examples of areas where adding 50 feet would affect properties in the RCD and bring other properties into the RCD that had not been there before.
· The staff recommends that, along with raising the RCD elevation from two to three feet above the current 100-year floodplain elevation, the Council make a statement of intent that the RCD elevation should be adjusted to be equal to the 100-year floodplain adjustment at the time that new floodplain maps are issued. The staff believes that the need for the extra measure of protection diminishes when accurate floodplain maps are available. Mr. Waldon pointed out on a map what the impact on some properties would be.
· The staff recommends that the threshold for the proposed stormwater requirement be set at 5,000 square feet of disturbed area. The staff believes that this threshold strikes a reasonable balance between the difficulties and costs involved in regulating stormwater volume and rates on small lots and projects and the benefits from managing runoff on small projects.
· We recommend that the threshold level of activity to trigger tree protection regulations on a single-family or two-family lot be set at 5,000 square feet (same threshold as for stormwater management regulations). The staff believes that there is merit in having these thresholds, both of which trigger requirements for professional services and special studies and improvements related to construction of a single-family dwelling to be identical. Mr. Waldon suggested that the Council make the threshold the same for both stormwater management regulations and tree protection regulations in order to reduce confusion.
Mr. Waldon noted that the staff's preliminary recommendation was that the Council adopt the ordinance with some of the recommended changes. He suggested that Council members refer public comments to the staff for a report back on October 21st.
Mayor Foy clarified that the staff's recommendation was that whatever the Council adopted be made effective immediately. But, Mayor Foy added, the staff also recommended waiving the regulatory timeframe deadlines for 60 days to allow everyone transition time.
Council Member Strom asked how the new regulations would apply to someone who was in the process of selling lots and building out a subdivision. Mr. Waldon replied that subdivisions and Special Use Permits (SUP) differ in that an SUP proposes buildings while a subdivision approves the creation of lots. An application for development on a lot that comes before the Town after the effective date would have to meet the new regulations, he said.
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos added that an SUP is designated as a site specific development plan in both the current ordinance and the third draft of the proposed ordinance. By statute, Mr. Karpinos said, such an SUP establishes vested rights whereas a subdivision does not.
Council Member Wiggins asked for clarification on how the new ordinance would affect a subdivision in process that the Town had approved a couple of years ago. Mr. Waldon explained that the .3 floor area ratio suggested in the third draft would apply only to a building permit that was sought after the new ordinance had been adopted. Council Member Wiggins noted that these were the kinds of issues the Council could discuss.
Comments from Advisory Boards.
Planning Board Member Sally Greene reported that the Board had not yet gotten past section three of the draft ordinance. They will complete their review on October 8th, she said, and forward more comments to the Council after that. Ms. Greene explained that the Board had voted five-four to support establishing the RCD with a dimension of 150 feet from the banks of all streams. Regarding land disturbance within the RCD, she said that the Board voted five-four that the emphasis should be on conserving these corridors with as little disturbance as possible. The vote also recommended that there not be divisions within the RCD and that all areas be treated the same with the standard being no land disturbance without a variance.
Ms. Greene stated that the Planning Board had voted unanimously to recommend that the following not require a variance but be permitted only with Council approval of an SUP: trails, greenways, open space, parks and other similar uses, outdoor horticulture, forestry, wildlife sanctuary and other similar uses, pasture, nurseries that do not require significant land disturbance or pesticides, public facility and storm drainage facilities where it is a practical necessity, and stream and repair area restoration and maintenance.
Regarding duplexes, Ms. Greene reported that the Planning Board had voted six-three to recommend that duplexes continue to be listed as permitted uses in R-2 and R-3, but not in R-1. They voted eight-one to support the language in the third draft that establishes the minimum lot size for duplexes and multi-family dwellings as twice the standard minimum lot size for a particular zoning district, she said. Ms. Greene stated that the Board had voted nine-zero to recommend that the Council establish the minimum street setback in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone at zero with accompanying changes. Regarding primary height limitations in residential districts, she said that the Board had voted nine-zero to recommend that the primary height limit in all residential zoning districts be 23 feet. Ms. Greene noted that the third draft had proposed changing it from the current 29 feet to 20 feet.
Comments from Citizens.
Mayor Foy noted that the public hearing would be held open for written comments through October 21st. He explained that all comments would be referred to the staff and consultant, who would then try to incorporate what the community thinks best into the Land Use Management Ordinance. Mayor Foy added that the Council had a strong desire to pass the new ordinance this fall.
Allen Spalt commented on issues relating to his work with herbicides, pesticides and water quality. He expressed support for the proposal to enlarge and strengthen the RCD, adding that increasing its width to 150 feet was a good step toward water quality protection and stormwater control. Mr. Spalt suggested that the Council support the suggestion to add protection for intermittent streams. He said that he generally supported the section regarding pesticide use, but noted that there seemed to be inconsistency in the categories that allow for the use of fertilizers. He recommended that the Council specify that there be no fertilizers in the streamside zone.
Mr. Spalt advised reducing or eliminating the use of herbicides to maintain utility rights-of-way and easements. But he noted the serious legal impediment in the General Assembly's action in 1994, which preempted local authority to regulate pesticides. He commented, though, that the language in Table 5.12.3 might be advisory enough to give the Town leverage without crossing the regulatory line. Mr. Spalt stated that the Town had the authority to negotiate voluntary restrictions as part of the SUP process. He also suggested adopting modification of GS 143465 as a legislative priority for the next session. Or, Mr. Spalt said, the Town could publicize Duke Power's program that allows individuals to be exempted from herbicide use on rights-of-way on their property.
Phil Post, Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations Committee, recommended holding design charettes to "test drive" the ordinance and see how the new regulations would apply in the real world. He pointed out that doing that with draft two had exposed flaws, and urged the Council to do so again rather than rushing to adopt an ordinance. Mr. Post said that business members in particular were concerned about doubling the size of the RCD. He recommended that notification go out to property owners regarding non-conforming property. Mr. Post said that the Government Relations Committee was concerned about the steep slopes regulation, noting that under the third draft virtually nothing could be built on land steeper than a 10% slope. He pointed out that property had successfully been built on slopes much steeper than 25% in Chapel Hill. Mr. Post argued that the Town would be hard pressed to make that 10% restriction given that its own Town Hall is on a steep slope.
Nick Tennyson, representing the Durham and Orange Counties Homebuilders Association, described much of the proposed ordinance as "overreaching." He said that builders would have a difficult time explaining to clients why much of this will have to be added to the cost of their homes.
Developer Carol Ann Zinn said that she had received the Council's assurances by phone that her newest development, Larkspur, would function under the existing ordinance. She asked Council members to make all Larkspur homes exempt from the proposed new ordinance in perpetuity. Ms. Zinn requested that all building permits for all homes for any additions desired in the future by homeowners, including resale homeowners, be regulated by the current ordinance under which Larkspur was approved. She also requested that the Council exempt from the application any subdivision, such as Larkspur, for which preliminary plat approval had been granted prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Ms. Zinn noted that Section 7.6, applying to Watershed Protection Districts, already carries this type of language.
Ms. Zinn advised Council members to notify Chapel Hill property owners in the RCD about the effect of the new ordinance on their properties. She remarked that various aspects of this ordinance would impinge on people's plans and dreams and the value of their property. Ms. Zinn expressed "shock" over the proposed 20-foot height restriction. Anything lower than 29 feet would change the visual character of the Town, she said.
Northside resident David B. Rankin praised the Council for its good conscience. He said that the ordinance would limit the ability of developers to turn his neighborhood into dormitories with duplexes and gravel parking lots. Mr. Rankin remarked that if the proposed ordinance had come ten years ago it would have preserved the Northside community. He said that the new ordinance will slow the damage down, but cannot reverse the damage that developers had done during the 1990s. Mr. Rankin claimed that developers were motivated by profit rather than by what is right for neighborhoods. He urged Council members to "stand your ground and pass the Land Use Management Ordinance as it is, and make it stick.”
Northside resident Jeff Caiola stated that the ordinance could benefit many communities, particularly those like Northside, which has been subjected to development that is out of character with the history of the neighborhood. Mr. Caiola noted that about 60% of Northside had become rental properties. He recommended that the ordinance draw the line at duplexes and allow no more than are already there. He also asked that the Neighborhood Conservation District, now at 51%, not be increased.
Booker Creek resident Margaret Rundell said that she runs a duplex, which is surrounded by duplexes, in a lovely neighborhood that has flowers and grass. If her duplex were not there, she said, an apartment building would be in its spot. Ms. Rundell complained that duplexes were being unfairly singled out. She agreed with previous speakers that notice should be given to everyone whose property would be affected, adding that those who would be losing their nest eggs for the betterment of everyone else should be compensated. Ms. Rundell explained that her house was her retirement income and said that it would be unfair to take that from her without compensation. She stressed that she pays more taxes than single-family homeowners do and that her tenants are not among the so-called undesirables.
Durham resident Ben Williams, who owns a duplex in Booker Creek, supported what Ms. Rundell said about the duplex section of their neighborhood being pretty and green, and having responsible tenants. He expressed concern about what would happen to current structures in Chapel Hill when they become non-conforming under the new ordinance. Mr. Williams asked how people would be compensated if there were to be a decrease in property value over time.
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos replied that the ordinance provides that nonconforming uses must be amortized forty years after a notice is provided. Mr. Williams repeated his question about what would happen to his duplex in forty years. Mayor Foy noted that the staff would come back with clarification of this apparent point of contention. Mr. Williams said that he would expect the Town to cease withholding property taxes from him immediately if his property were going to be declared nonconforming.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Karpinos to simplify what he had just said. Mr. Karpinos explained that a property owner would have forty years to bring a property into compliance with the current regulations. After that, it would be an unlawful use of the property, he said.
Downtown Commission Board Chair Margaret Skinner reminded Council members that the Downtown District had hired their own consultant, University Retail Group. She asked them to make certain that the new development ordinance does not preclude the recommendations of that consultant. Ms. Skinner called particular attention to the recommended up-lighting of buildings, signage, decorative sidewalk lighting, and the potential redevelopment of existing buildings. She expressed confidence that everyone wanted the recommendations for Downtown improvements to tie in tightly with the development ordinance.
Planning Board member Sally Greene proposed that a minor subdivision that is in the RCD be considered on the Council’s consent agenda. She suggested taking advantage of a mechanism in the third draft for annual review of the tree ordinance language for five years after implementation. Ms. Greene asked Council members to stick to their progressive intent to increase the RCD to 150 feet of undisturbed land. There is a water emergency, she pointed out, and local streams are impaired. She commented that there had been a long period of publicized discussion on these issues and she wondered where people had been who were objecting tonight. Ms. Greene read the Sierra Club's endorsement of Mayor Foy as the "strongest environmental candidate that Chapel Hill has ever had for a mayor." She asked the Mayor and Town Council to continue with their campaign pledges and their strong leadership.
Northside resident Mark Patmore, a Property Owners Group member, asserted that anything sloping more that 25% will become virtually unbuildable and that adoption of this ordinance would bring construction in Chapel Hill to a standstill. Mr. Patmore argued that rendering the land unfit for building was not the way to control stormwater runoff. He urged the Town Council to table the third draft until they have more information about its consequences.
Developer Adam Zinn discussed the practical application of the proposed changes in impervious surface, floor area restrictions, and height restrictions. By using the proposed new definitions, he said, the Town would destroy the character and usability of homes in R-2 neighborhoods. Mr. Zinn said that screen porches and front porches probably would be deleted and that garages, attics and basements would never be built. These are features that homeowners want, said Mr. Zinn, adding that he wondered what the proposal to reduce height hoped to accomplish.
Steve Mills, representing Million Solar Roofs as well as the Property Owners Croup, noted that there was only encouragement for renewable energy in the third draft. He pointed out that the NC Solar Association had suggested that new developments be encouraged to not restrict solar or renewable energy additions. Mr. Mills noted that the Town Council had adopted a policy in April 2001 to maximize the potential for energy conservation by reducing the demand for artificial heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting, and by maximizing the use of solar and other renewable energy sources. Mr. Mills encouraged Council members to maximize their efforts to make sure that policy is carried out.
Speaking as a member of the Property Owners Group, Mr. Mills recommended that the Town increase the RCD to 100 feet, rather than 150, since there is no clear idea of how many homes will be affected. He suggested getting a proper survey of all intermittent streams. Mr. Mills asked that lots that had previously been approved be allowed to continue under old RCD rules, since there would be a financial loss otherwise.
Tom Biek, speaking on behalf of the Property Owners Group, recommended that the Council drop the five-year and forty-year sunset rules as applying to duplexes. This would cause the number of residences in Town to go down and prices to go up, he said. Mr. Biek predicted that it would also reduce the number of residences close to Downtown and require more people to drive into Town, thereby congesting streets. He added that eliminating duplexes in R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts would contribute to the pressure to create sprawl. Mr. Biek questioned whether it was legal to take the existing use of a property and make it nonconforming.
Chapel Hill Landowners Association member Matt Robbins expressed concerns about some of the proposed restrictions in the residential parking section of the draft ordinance. Two spaces per dwelling, he said, would create a worse parking situation than already exists and would not provide adequate off-street parking for tenants. Mr. Robbins argued that tenants, who indirectly pay property taxes through their rents, have a right to park where they live. He said that the no more than 40% front yard parking restriction would add to the on-street parking problem, since the front yard is the only viable location for parking at some properties. Mr. Robbins suggested that the Town issue a city-wide neighborhood specific parking permit that would restrict on-street parking to residents only.
Real estate broker Dianne Wheeler, a member of the Property Owners Group, asked that the wording "two unrelated persons" be changed to "four unrelated persons" per unit.
Joel Duvall, who manages five duplexes in an R-2 zone near the UNC Dental School, explained that his property would become nonconforming in the future. He said that converting those duplexes to single-family homes would not serve the community as well. Mr. Duvall also stated that the 10% repair/rebuild item was too small a margin.
Property Owners Group member Rick Perry repeated what others had said about sprawl, parking, and trying to keep people close to Downtown. He argued that duplexes fit the character of many neighborhoods. Mr. Perry displayed a map showing land that would be affected by the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning, and commented that it was a "significant amount of land."
Chapel Hill Property Owners Group member Russell Shores expressed concern that the Town was entering into the "restrictive covenants business." He argued that neighborhoods already had the ability to get together and set up their own covenants and deed restrictions. Mr. Shores objected to 51% being able to set policies for an entire group and suggested making it two-thirds instead. He predicted that the regulations would increase the workload for the staff and Council, slow down the process, and cost more for everyone.
Chapel Hill Property Owners Group member Christian Francis objected to the 51% threshold for the petition to request a neighborhood RCD. He argued that two thirds would be better. If it stays at 51%, Mr. Francis said, then those who disagree should be able to file a protest petition.
Property Owners Group member Tom Schopler explained that members had decided to each speak on one topic. That does not mean, he said, that they each care only about that topic but only just that they had broken their group presentation up that way. Mr. Schopler stated that all members had substantial concerns about the new ordinance as it is currently written. He said that they believe as a group that additional public awareness of the ordinance must be achieved and request that the Council's vote be tabled until their questions have been addressed.
Don Willhoit expressed concern about the provision that would prohibit him from repairing his triplex on Roosevelt Drive if damage is beyond 10%. He was concerned about not being able to rebuild on a nonconforming property, he said. Mr. Willhoit encouraged the Town to do an inventory of existing nonconforming structures, and those that are about to become nonconforming, and list the value of those structures on each list. He asked the Town to work out a system of compensation for property lost by ordinance.
Anna Wu, speaking on behalf of UNC and UNC Healthcare, emphasized four concerns about the third draft. She said that this draft deviates from others and creates an unpredictable process with standards that are open to interpretation. Ms. Wu argued that it was potentially exclusionary and exceeds the Town's authority to regulate and control University projects. She recommended that the Council thoroughly investigate the consequences before adopting the new ordinance. She also objected to the increase in power that it would give the Council, adding that not having clear standards before a project is brought to the Council would waste time and money for all.
Ms. Wu expressed the University's concern that applying new standards to residential zones would increase the cost of new housing. She said that it oversteps the Town's authority to regulate and control University projects. The third draft should be amended to reflect the limited authority that the Town has over State-owned buildings, she said. Ms. Wu encouraged the Town Council to direct the staff to hold workshops similar to those held for the second draft to identify how these new regulations would affect development in the Town.
John Turner explained that the ordinance would make the "dream home" that he and his wife had built next to the RCD nonconforming. The square footage guidelines would make finishing their third floor impossible, he said. Mr. Turner stated that his neighbors would not be able to finish their basements for the same reason.
Duke Power District Manager Scott Gardner read from his written letter, dated September 18, 2002, which he distributed to Council members. In his letter, Mr. Gardner commented on tree protection and proposed wording in the section on lighting standards and mounting heights. He also submitted language for the lighting standards and other utilities sections. Mr. Gardner said that Duke Power agreed with the proposed language on signs.
Robert Loomis, president of the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association, explained that Lake Ellen had lost an estimated 20% of its surface area over the years primarily due to silt and sediment from residential development, road widening, and stream scouring. He strongly supported Sections 3.6.3 and 5.4.1 of the draft ordinance, specifically the 150-foot corridor zone along perennial and intermittent streams. Mr. Loomis stated that this buffer would provide a filtering device for streams.
Mr. Loomis also spoke about dwelling units in R-1 zoned areas. He noted that most people who rent are good neighbors, but pointed out that noise, trash, and traffic problems do result because of some. He strongly supported not allowing new duplexes in R-2 zoned areas. Mr. Loomis also suggested putting dwelling definitions into plain English so that they will be easier to understand.
Kyle Cattani expressed support for the revised wording in the section on utility lines, which makes it clear that all lines must be buried. He said he was disappointed, however, that the Manager was recommending the wording in the third draft, which he described as unproductive because it depends on Duke Power's agreement. Mr. Cattani said that he supported the following language: "utility rights-of-way and easements shall not be cleared or maintained through the use of spray herbicides without written approval from the underlying property owner."
North Street resident Milton Heath expressed delight that the title of the ordinance had been changed. He opposed reducing the proposed RCD buffer, citing a statement by Dr. Seth Reice that he distributed to Council members. Mr. Heath commented that there were areas in the document that seem to give the Manager discretionary power. He cautioned the Council about letting that language slip in again, and said that he would look more closely at it before the next meeting.
Northside resident Delores Bailey noted that she and her mother were not Property Owners Group members even though they own property in Northside. She thanked the Town Council for listening to the neighbors’ concerns and expressed support for the third draft. Ms. Bailey encouraged Council members to "stick to their guns" about the new duplex ordinance, which she said limits and slows down the deterioration of her neighborhood. She expressed support for the 51% agreement if the neighborhood decides to consider an overlay situation. Ms. Bailey commented that not adopting the ordinance soon would mean that Northside residents would not have 51% and asked the Council to pass it quickly.
Former Council Member Joe Capowski, a Coolidge Street resident, showed slides of student housing in his neighborhood where fourteen cars were parked in front of two houses at nine o'clock on a weekday morning. He asked what in the third draft would prevent that from reoccurring, would it require a public process at some level higher than a building permit, and would it require buffering of the automobile parking. Mr. Capowski recommended making sure that restrictions are not only for new housing but also apply to conversions of houses to dormitories. If landlords do not have the land for students to park on, he said, then they should rent to fewer students. Mr. Capowski strongly supported front yard parking restrictions Town-wide, adding that the Town should not destroy its older neighborhoods simply to allow landlords to pack in more students and cars.
Regarding three phase power lines, Mr. Capowski stated that the third draft does not really address Mr. Cattani's concerns. He asked that language be included saying that Duke Power must bury the lines unless it can show some defensible technical reasons for not doing so. He recommended that the language state that the final decision be made by the Town Council as part of the permit process. Mr. Capowski pointed out that street rights-of-way are filled with three phase power lines. Duke Power had been given blanket authority 1981 not to bury any of them, he said. Pointing out that the Town owns the street rights-of-way, Mr. Capowski argued that the Council should make decisions about what goes on them and in them. He recommended that wires above ground and street rights-of-way be made nonconforming. When they need replacement they should be put underground unless there are defensible technical reasons not to, he said.
Bill Gracy requested that the Council treat Downtown separately and impose no more restrictions than are absolutely necessary there. He argued that impervious surface limits, for example, would be extremely difficult to apply Downtown. Mr. Gracy stated that creating neighborhood conservation districts was a "terrible idea anyway," but if they are created then the 51% threshold is much too low.
Developer Eric Chupp said that he had more concerns about the third draft than he could address in his three minutes. He objected to the steep slopes provision and the increased RCD, adding that the remaining developable land in Chapel Hill has either steep slopes or RCD, or both. Mr. Chupp predicted that implementing this ordinance would bring development of single- and multi-family homes to a virtual standstill.
Independent consultant Anne Stoddard, a member of the Chamber of Commerce's Government Relations Committee, said that the parking ratio caps were well below demonstrated need and would make Town stores, restaurants and offices less competitive with neighboring communities. She added that the proposed limit of one space per staff member for schools contradicts the community's belief that the key to academic success is parental involvement.
Using an Eastowne lot as an example of one that would be unbuildable under the proposed slope regulations, Ms. Stoddard noted that the lost tax revenue from this building would be roughly $36,000. She questioned the priorities that this would reflect, given the Town's budgetary problems. Ms. Stoddard asked that the Town allows more time to notify affected property owners and that it hold an additional charette. Noting that many Council members had been elected on an environmental platform, she pointed out that recent budget problems also point out the need to expand the community's tax base.
Scott Kovens inquired about how the new regulations would affect existing SUPs, housing that is under construction, and the affordability of the housing that developers have promised clients.
Elizabeth Pringle praised the many fine ideas and new approaches in the document. She pointed out, however, that the Town must attempt to understand the ramifications and determine whether it is protecting existing neighborhoods with the proposed changes. Ms. Pringle commented on the issue of numbers of people living in a dwelling. She said that the Rental Licensing Task Force, on which she had served, had decided that requiring the landowner to certify compliance with the Zoning Ordinance was a means of enforcement that would help the Town.
Chapel Hill resident Johnny Randall expressed support for the third draft ordinance. He stated that the proposed ordinance would protect and improve water quality. Mr. Randall said that increasing buffers to 150 feet was a good idea and that the tree protection plan should be left intact.
Environmentalist James Carnahan, representing The Village Project, pointed out that most of the community must rely on cars to get around. He said that this results in resource exhaustion, pollution of air and water, lack of mobility for many citizens, loss of farmlands and critical habitats, public health impacts, and the atomization of community. Arguing that Towns must increase density, Mr. Carnahan submitted information stating that the floor area ratios in the Town's commercial districts are much too low if the Town wants to make public transit work.
Roger Bernholz, president of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors, expressed appreciation and gratitude to the Town Council for its work. He expressed concern about the third draft, however, noting that the average person does not know what is in it and how it differs from before. Mr. Bernholz predicted that the number of properties that will become nonconforming by this ordinance is "very, very shocking." He noted that every one of those property owners will have to reveal that when they sell their property. Mr. Bernholz said that this would cast a negative tone on the property, make it more difficult to sell, and interfere with the mortgage process. He added that his own house would become nonconforming under the proposed ordinance.
Estelle Mabry asked that the occupancy limits for duplexes be made only two per unit. She explained that she had been vandalized twice in the past twelve months, and attributed it to the fact that too many people were living like "herds" in her neighborhood. Ms. Mabry asked for enforcement of the limits for the sake of neighborhood safety.
Margaret Heath spoke about the value of native plants for landscaping, noting that many of them are drought tolerant. She said that native plants support ten to fifty times as many animal species as non-native plants do, adding that she would welcome a policy that cares for the land. Ms. Heath recommended that wetlands be designated a resource in the RCDs so that State regulations can be complimented. She asked for more deliberation in the placement of sidewalks and commended the 150-foot RCD. Ms. Heath suggested calling upon the University to provide more student housing to address the problems associated with duplexes in neighborhoods.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Director Aaron Nelson addressed the issues of parking and impervious surface. Mr. Nelson stated that a majority of space in Town will become nonconforming due to impervious surface. He recommended holding additional charettes to examine that provision and to analyze how provisions intersect with each other. With regard to parking, Mr. Nelson said that Chamber members continue to object to the proposed parking maximum and believe that it should be related to national industry standards rather than 110% of minimum. He said that the proposed ordinance would allow the Aurora Restaurant only 24 parking spaces for 225 people plus 30 staff and that the United Methodist Church and Sheraton Chapel Hill Hotel would be allowed far fewer parking spaces than they now have.
Franklin Hills resident and business owner Charlie Nelsen asked the Council to look at the economic impact that this ordinance would have if lots lose all of their value. The proposed ordinance does not address these viable, livable issues, he said, and it is very confusing.
Chapel Hill resident and real estate agent Neil Alderman explained that Chapel Hill Tire had invested $50,000 into engineering a site at the Timberlyne Shopping Center. He said that the application had not been able to get on the agenda until December. If the application is not approved, he said, the impervious surface rule will make that space unusable for parking. Mr. Alderman argued that it would be unfair to both the buyer and the seller if the ordinance goes through and destroys this deal.
Chuck Welsh warned that adoption of the proposed ordinance, with all its caveats, would eliminate the possible future development of any raw land in Chapel Hill for the construction of single-family homes, except for the highly privileged few. The law of supply and demand would ensure that no affordable housing would ever be available in Chapel Hill, he said. Mr. Welsh explained that his own house, which he built two years ago, would become nonconforming under the new restrictions. He described this as a tremendously serious issue and asked the Council to consider it very carefully.
Environmental consultant Kimberly Brewer, a Chapel Hill resident, spoke in support of the stormwater management standards in the proposed ordinance. These standards could hold the line on impairment and degradation of the streams and Jordan Lake, she said. Ms. Brewer described the ordinance as progressive, very effective, and one that would provide consistent stormwater management policy throughout the Town. Ms. Brewer said that the ordinance would not necessarily raise the cost of housing and new commercial development. In some cases, she said, it could actually save on infrastructure costs. She suggested working with UNC on monitoring and testing and then revising performance standards as needed. Ms. Brewer pointed put that the proposed ordinance supports the Town's Comprehensive Plan and achieves many of its goals. The Town needs to work more on the nonconformity issue, she said.
Developer and landlord Donald Whittier said that many of the pressures that neighborhoods are facing from encroaching students could be alleviated through specific, enforceable language in tenant-landlord leases that could be specifically tailored in each case. As a landlord, he said, it is in his best interest to protect his properties and the neighborhoods they are in. Mr. Whittier added that many of the Town's current laws, if enforced, would solve some of the problems. He gave an example of an individual whose property's value would be cut in half by the new ordinance. Mr. Whittier said that the individual could potentially lose the equivalent of more than $200,000 of his retirement account.
Chapel Hill resident and property owner Brian Johnson warned against the possibility of "driving population out of Downtown Chapel Hill," an outcome which he described as "environmentally unconscionable." Mr. Johnson predicted that the reduction to single-family housing would force people into the suburbs and turn Chapel Hill into a "manila envelope" where only the rich elite would be able to live. People would be forced to drive into Town, he said, and those renting apartments and those with rental apartments attached to their homes would be forced out.
Business owner and Chapel Hill native Warren Mitchell said that he had been actively involved in revising the second draft. Mr. Mitchell noted that there had been a lot of changes between the second and third drafts. He said that the proposed third draft would create thousands of non-conformities related to the RCD, to impervious surface, to building height, floor area ratio, and the elimination of duplexes. Mr. Mitchell pointed out that some intermittent streams currently have no buffer. A smaller buffer would be more appropriate and cause fewer non-conformities than the proposed 100-foot buffer, he said.
Mr. Mitchell expressed support for much of the stormwater management section, but noted that one section asks new development to hold additional volume but does not address what the Town should do with that volume. He could not see any reason why development should be capped beyond 10% slopes, he said, and he suggested modifying that.
Chapel Hill resident and landlord James Kelley wondered how the proposed ordinance would affect him when he tries to get a 30-year mortgage. He requested that this be answered before the Council votes on the ordinance. Mr. Kelly asked how many lots were left for development, and suggested looking at such matters carefully to avoid future lawsuits. Mr. Kelly recommended exercising the current laws for condemning properties that are not maintained rather than tearing them down or forcing people to do serious land devaluation. He recommended finding additional ways to notify people about the proposed new ordinance. He inquired about how many vacancies there were in Town and recommended taking a serious look at how the ordinance would affect students. Noting that there no longer were grocery stores Downtown, Mr. Kelley suggested that the Town examine such issues if it wants a more walkable community.
Planning consultant Jack Smyre recommended that Council members approach the third draft with their "eyes wide open" in order to avoid unintended consequences resulting from the significant changes connected with it. Mr. Smyre agreed with the suggestion to hold charettes. He said that he would submit written comments and address the application of a certain size buffer regardless of the stream variables and the nonconforming aspects. Mr. Smyre urged Council members to reserve to themselves the decision about variances and RCD crossings. He stated that a 10% slope was too little, noting that Chapel Hill would not even have the Town Hall that he was standing in if the 10% slope had been in effect.
Downtown resident Chris Belcher said that he would not be able to expand his house under the proposed ordinance because it will become non-conforming, as would six of the twelve other houses on his street. Mr. Belcher listed several neighborhoods that would be similarly affected. He asked the Town Council to reject the third draft, arguing that many of the items in the third draft would hurt the community more than it would help it. Mr. Belcher pointed out that because this had been called a development ordinance many had not paid attention to it. He recommended that the staff send a notice to everyone in Town whose lot would be declared nonconforming. Mr. Belcher also pointed out that burying wires in neighborhoods with trees would destroy root systems.
Planning Board member Coleman Day spoke in favor of a 100-foot buffer in the RCD, explaining that he had studied it and found that water and plant life was affected within 100 feet. He said that 150 feet would give very little benefit but would increase the burden on the community. Mr. Day advised the Council to think hard before changing to 150 feet. He distributed a map showing the relation of 100 and 150 feet buffers to property lines. Mr. Day added that he fully supported the increase of one foot in the floodplain but opposed using streets and bridges in the RCD. He said that he does, however, support park and greenway uses in the RCD.
Questions and Comments from Council Members.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that it would take a while for everyone to understand the dense third draft. She pointed out that the issue of non-conformity had been of great concern tonight. Reading from Article 7, Mayor pro tem Evans argued that the statement should not remain. She predicted that 80% of her neighborhood would become non-conforming because of the RCD buffer and steep slopes. She stated that perhaps more than half of Chapel Hill would be affected.
Mayor pro tem Evans advised the Council to take the time to re-examine what it would be doing to the community, and expressed hope that the press would alert the community about this. She proposed that the Town establish a Planning Board review process for duplexes rather than simply eliminating them and making them non-conforming. She also recommended that parking permits be issued for residents, adding that most of the cars in Joe Capowski's neighborhood probably did not belonged to the people who lived there.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that some of the changes would make the Botanical Gardens non-conforming and prevent the restoration of golf courses. She described the changes between the second and third drafts as "dramatic," and warned about the "bureaucratic regulatory nightmare" that could ensue from several blocks of homes in a neighborhood having different conservation districts.
Council Member Harrison commented that many of the ideas that he had proposed were not included in the third draft. He stated that he had sought a scientifically and legally defensible definition, adding that he was optimistic that the staff had been working towards that over the past few days. Council Member Harrison emphasized that intermittent streams should be protected in order to hold the line on runoff. He said that he had wanted to enhance the RCD regulations, but had not meant to propose turning the entire Town into greenspace.
Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed concerns about the duplex issue, stating that a total ban on duplexes was too strong a response to the concerns of neighborhoods where duplexes exist. He added that such a ban does not truly reflect the Council's opinion regarding issues such as diversity of housing stock. He noted that the ordinance identifies problems (too many cars in front of houses, trash, noise, parties, etc.) and tries to find a way of addressing them without addressing each one directly. Council Member Kleinschmidt argued that the connection between the problem and the proposed solution was too tenuous. He recommended giving consideration to projects that are well through the process and avoiding broad sweeping responses to issues in general.
Council Member Wiggins agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt's and Mayor pro tem Evans's comments. She also agreed that the owners of every property that would be affected by these changes should be notified about the impact on their property. Council Member Wiggins recommended holding a charette to focus on the relationship between how the Town plans to improve the environment by new regulations and the cost that doing so would add to housing in Chapel Hill. She pointed out that there were competing values and goals being addressed. She suggested that the Town look at the cost of the new regulations on the cost of housing, property taxes, and property values, and balance that against the improvement to the environment. Council Member Wiggins recommended that the Council stand up and go on record saying "this is more important than that," without trying to disguise it in any way.
Council Member Bateman wondered if notices could be sent to affected properties along with their OWASA bills. She then asked if it was true that applications for permits to convert homes at Northside to duplexes were coming into the Town at a rate of about one per week. Planning Director Roger Waldon verified that this was the case, and Council Member Bateman described that as "alarming." She expressed opposition to banning duplexes in general, arguing that the community needs a variety of people and dwelling units. But she said that Northside was unique and advised Council members to keep their commitment to address that in the new ordinance.
Council Member Bateman asked if the proposed rules could be applied to Northside alone. Mr. Waldon replied that the Comprehensive Plan states that Northside's circumstances need special attention. And changing rules about what does or does not occur in a neighborhood, he said, is a Development Ordinance change. Council Member Bateman recommended that the Council explore that. She also expressed support for occupancy restrictions, adding that this is one of the tools for reducing negative impacts. She opposed the staff's recommendation to count bedrooms, however, because a bedroom is difficult to define. Council Member Bateman asked for an inventory of the number of lots that would be rendered unbuildable if the Town were to enact the steep slope regulations and the RCD increase.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. White if he had worked in other communities where the nonconformity issue had been central. He also asked if there were other ways to deal with it while making policy reforms that are important to the community. Mr. White replied that the issue of nonconformity comes up every time you change an ordinance. He said that there were a number of other ways of dealing with the issue and that the solutions are limited only by imagination. Regarding the community's concern about projects in the pipeline, Mr. White explained that the Town can decide at which stage to apply the ordinance. He also pointed out that no one had notice the provision (Sec. 7.3. 1 on page 237, subsection B) that allows property already in the RCD and less than 10,000 square feet to expand to 75%.
Council Member Strom thanked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos for preparing the attachment on herbicides and power lines. He recommended working toward giving more aggressive notice, particularly in new developments. He also asked if there was a way to tie duplexes in R-2 more closely to some of the Town's affordability standards. And he recommended looking at ways to more aggressively place duplexes into the Land Trust. Council Member Strom asked the staff to discuss Mr. Carnahan's comments on transit density. Agreeing that 50% impervious surface for commercial sites might not be a high enough threshold, he requested alternatives for raising that for nonresidential sites. Council Member Strom noted that this was a situation where the environmental and economic interests can be examined more carefully.
Council Member Ward concurred with the suggestion to hold design charettes, adding that previous charettes had been useful. He advised Council members to support that idea even though it might delay the project. Council Member Ward said that he would support minimal parking as long as it does not create the problems that Aaron Nelson had cited. He pointed out that the effective date of the ordinance must be fair, stressing that the Town must do more to educate and publicize and not count on newspapers to do the job for them.
Council Member Ward suggested that the Council explore applying some element of the duplex discussion to the Northside neighborhood without waiting for approval of the entire document. Mr. Horton suggested that the staff bring back options at the first October meeting for changing the process.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the Council could also bring back specifics on how it could start protecting Northside, such as calling a halt to issuing permits. Mr. Horton agreed to do that.
Mayor Foy explained that the intent of the steep slope provision was not to stop people from using their property, stating that the goal was to use property in a way that reflects the community's environmental concerns, and noting that the Town needs to be clear about how the ordinance accomplishes that. He said that he had thought the Town was trying to devise a floor area ratio mechanism that would address the severe problems in Northside, but he questioned whether that was being addressed in the proposed ordinance. Mayor Foy agreed with other Council members' comments about finding a way to apply a duplex restriction to vulnerable communities rather than across the board. He noted that many houses in Town already are nonconforming but that people are selling them and getting mortgages on them.
Mayor Foy suggested that the staff help the community understand what the ordinance really means. He noted that, as Mr. White pointed out, any time you change the law some people will be out of compliance. Mayor Foy also remarked that Cary had recently expanded their RCD. He wondered if this might be instructive for Chapel Hill. He recommended that the Council stay on an aggressive timetable and make a decision about this ordinance this fall, adding that the bulk of the third draft was in good shape.
Mr. Horton recommended recessing the public hearing to October 21st and considering process options at the first meeting in October.
Council Member Wiggins asked that the staff go through the third draft and pull out and bring back all of the new proposals that impact the cost of housing.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2002. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m.