SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 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, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward and Ed Harrison.

Council Member Edith Wiggins was absent, excused.

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, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Acting Town Clerk Vickie Hackler.

Item 1 - Continued Review of Proposed

Land Use Management Ordinance (Third Draft)

Planning Director Roger Waldon gave a brief introduction.  The public hearing on this third draft of the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) had been opened on September 18th, he said, and had been closed and reopened several times.  Mr. Waldon explained that Council members already had taken action on two proposals.  One dealt with the status of duplexes, the other dealt with the status of nonconforming uses.  The staff had received much communication from grateful citizens regarding the Council's action on nonconforming status, he said. 

Mr. Waldon noted that there were seventeen remaining points of conflict within the community and that the staff had recently added another having to do with volume requirements.  He pointed out that the Council had much additional information before them, including communications from citizens and a staff report on the workshop held the prior weekend.   Mr. Waldon explained that the Manager had recommended adopting some parts of the third draft and making changes in other parts.

Mayor Foy pointed out that the third draft was still before the Council.  Even though it had been published in August, he said, Council members were continuing to hear from the public and had not yet made any changes.   Mayor Foy explained that the Council would hold a work session and make some preliminary decisions.  They would then send the whole package of public comment and Council considerations and deliberations back to the consultant with instructions to bring a final draft by late November or early December, he said.

· Comments from advisory boards.

. 

Scott Radway highlighted the Planning Board's recommendations.  Regarding the concept plan review process, he said, the Board had recommended changing the language slightly.  The Board supports changing the minor subdivision procedures to bring items to the Planning Board, he said, as well as the change in steep slope regulations.  The Board does not, however, recommend a percentage, Mr. Radway explained.  He reported that the Board had recommended that recreation areas within subdivisions or developments be located on land outside the Resource Conservation District (RCD). 

Regarding section 5.7, Mr. Radway said that the Board supports the 2,000 square-foot threshold for application of the tree ordinance provisions to single-family and two-family structures, as in the third draft.  Regarding the parking provision, he explained that the Board agreed that there should be some spread between minimum and maximum. 

Mayor Foy noted that Council Member Wiggins was not able to attend tonight's meeting but would review the videotape. 

· Comments from citizens.

Jewel Blackwood explained that her land had once been her grandfather's and that her mother had bought half of that and left 40 or more acres to her and her brother.  She and her brother had recently divided the land, she said, leaving her with more than ten acres that included two branches and one creek.  Ms. Blackwood stated that having a 150-foot buffer on either side would take approximately two to three acres of her heritage.  She stated that if the Town does take this land that she was born on 74 years ago, then she should be exempted from paying taxes on it.  Ms. Blackwood said she believes in justice and in treating people right, adding that she would stand up and say so for as long as the Council has meetings.   She then read from and passed out an article on "the price of sprawl."

Tim Dempsey warned that all the characteristics (unique character, charm, sense of community, beautiful natural setting) that drew him to Chapel Hill 14 years ago were at risk.  He explained that he was an organizational development professional with an expertise in process and that he had recently been appointed to the Town’s Planning Board.

Mr. Dempsey noted that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to conserve and protect existing neighborhoods and the natural setting of Chapel Hill.  The Comprehensive Plan encourages a fast start and sustained effort, Mr. Dempsey said, and the first thing it recommends is initiating and completing a comprehensive revision of the Development Ordinance.  Pointing out that the process had already taken almost two years, Mr. Dempsey questioned the assertion by some that it was going too fast.  The Town's precious natural setting was at risk, he said, and some of Chapel Hill's neighborhoods were fighting to retain their essence.  Mr. Dempsey urged Council members to pass the ordinance forthwith. "Chapel Hill needs you to act," he said.  

Former Council Member Julie McClintock noted that some developers attending a recent workshop had asked why the Town needs larger stream buffers and protection for steep slopes.  She noted that the previous speaker, Tim Dempsey, had answered those questions.  It is essential that the environmental protection goals of the Comprehensive Plan be included in the new Land Use Management Ordinance, she said.  Ms. McClintock read from an article that said that reparian buffers were the single most effective protection for water resources.  Wide buffers, she read, will give more effective flood control by slowing the velocity of water and controlling flooding.  These buffers will also catch and filter sediments and pollutants, reduce watershed imperviousness by 5%, and reduce small drainage problems, she said.  Reparian buffers will allow for a multitude of plant and animal life, Ms. McClintock stated, and they will protect stream banks from erosion, increase property values, and mitigate stream warming.  She pointed out that the width of the buffer depends on the goal.

Judy Weseman, an engineer with an expertise in stormwater, said that the proposed changes to the stormwater portions of the ordinance represent a necessary updating of Town standards to improve both water quality and reduction of water quantity from stormwater run-off.  She said that stormwater discharges can lead to continuing degradation of stream and lake quality and increase localized flooding.   These conditions were being exacerbated, Ms. Weseman said, by continued construction and build-out in Chapel Hill. Citing a recent study by the Triangle J Council of Governments, she noted that water entering Jordan Lake from the Chapel Hill drainage basin has so increased in nitrogen and phosphorous that the NC Environmental Management Commission had labeled a section of the lake as "nutrient sensitive." 

Ms. Weseman praised the requirements in the LUMO to install systems that would remove total suspended solids.  She called it a first step in improving the quality of our water entering Jordan Lake.  She noted that localized flooding was getting worse each year.  Detention ponds would be a first step in reversing this, she said.  Ms. Weseman described these regulations as "just a start" in implementing effective measures.  She praised the Mayor, Town Council and the Town's Engineering and Planning Departments for standing firm in their commitment to prevent further environmental impact from stormwater.

Clarence Jova explained that a very nice duplex development had been built on land next to his.  He had seen that as something that he might one day do with his own land, he said, adding that his land was zoned R-2 and R-4.   Mr. Jova stated that a 150-foot buffer would take away 90% of the R-4 portion of his land.  He wanted Council members to hear a practical example of how the proposed LUMO would affect an individual situation, he said. 

Robert Dowling, Director of Orange County Community Housing, praised the Town Council and staff for taking on this huge task.  He proposed that there be some kind of "escape hatch" for affordable housing built by Habitat for Humanity, the Land Trust, and some private developers. Mr. Dowling noted that section 4.5.6 in the current ordinance allows the Town Council to modify provisions of the ordinance for a public purpose, such as affordable housing.   He told Council members that he had been watching the proceedings and had wanted to ask citizens not to be so closed-minded.  And even though we do not want to degrade our streams, he said, we also must figure out where the thousands of people who come here in the next 25 years are going to live. 

Cara Crisler, Executive Director of the NC Smart Growth Alliance and a member of the Village Project, the NC Committee for the Environment, and the NC Committee for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, commented on the need for coordinated planning that includes working with Orange County.  Ms. Crisler strongly advocated containing the majority of growth in municipal areas.  She recommended building upward and allowing for as much infill as possible.  Ms. Crisler endorsed all of the recommendations that James Carnahan had previously given the Council.  She said that raising the floor area ratio would be critical to accommodate the 8,000 homes that will be built in the next 20 years.  She recommended devising design guidelines for neighborhoods.

UNC graduate student Josh Steinhurst argued that occupancy restrictions do not directly or adequately address the community's real problems with students.  These restrictions do not take lot or structure size into account, he said, noting that some lots can handle far more occupants.   Mr. Steinhurst said that he had once lived in a house in Vermont that had been cheaply turned into a duplex so that four unrelated people could live there.  He predicted that occupancy requirements will encourage duplexes, specifically in small houses, and will go against the desires of the community.  Mr. Steinhurst suggested following the staff's recommendation to address specific issues of parking and ratios rather than instituting occupancy limitations. 

Village Project Member Sarah Bruce, a graduate student in UNC's Department of City and Regional Planning, recommended a 100-foot reparian buffer for the RCD.  She also expressed support for pedestrian and bikeways in the RCD, but not bridges and streets.  Ms. Bruce suggested specifying building heights in stories rather than feet, and said that primary height limits should allow buildings of more than three stories if design criteria are met.  She stated that floor area ratios should be increased everywhere.  The Town Center and areas that could be developed to resemble Franklin Street (such as parts of Airport Road) should have higher floor area ratios than are currently specified, she said.   Ms. Bruce praised the parking maximums described in the third draft and suggested a parking validation system for downtown shoppers.

Town resident and developer Bruce Ballentine pointed out that Silver Creek, a neighborhood that he designed and in which he lives, could not have been built under the third draft, primarily because of the RCD and steep slope regulations.  To grandfather affected developments would be a step in the right direction, he said, but the standards under which the development occurred should be grandfathered as well.   Mr. Ballentine predicted that the proposed LUMO would raise attorney, lender and title insurance questions.  A large percentage of transactions will not take place because of the clouded title, he said.  He described the proposed steep slopes regulation as "quite severe."

Sally Greene praised Town officials for taking "brave new steps to channel higher density growth to areas where it fits, to encourage affordable housing, to protect the environment, and to preserve the character of the neighborhoods that for so long have made this Town such a desirable place to live."   It had long been written that all property in this county is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious to the community, she said.  Ms. Greene stated that concerns about what might not be permitted had virtually drowned out the discussions of what is progressive and good about the third draft. 

Attorney Michael Brough, representing the Mill Race subdivision, encouraged the Town to go further in weighing the environmental effects against some of the hardships that the new ordinance would create.   He asked that the increase in floor area ratio from .3 to .4 not be applied across the board if it is intended only to limit some large houses.  He asked that the same be done with the proposed steep slope regulation.  Mr. Brough argued that the impervious surface limitations would be a major problem for undeveloped lots, and that building height regulations would limit flexibility in ways that would create aesthetically and financially undesirable situations.   Mr. Brough said that the best way to address these imbalances would be to grandfather existing lots and not apply these regulations to single-family homes and lots.

Mill Race homeowner Keith Symmers expressed concern that the LUMO was about to be approved without everyone understanding its implications. He said that a person's property could become nonconforming in a number of ways, including steep slopes, floor area ratio, impervious surface ratio, primary height restrictions, and "the sixteen pages of tree restrictions."  Mr. Symmers asserted that if the third draft were passed as it is today then hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens homes would become technically nonconforming.  He asked the Town to exempt existing homes and platted lots from the new provisions of the ordinance.

Mill Race homeowner David Lowry, a political scientist, said that the proposals before the Council threaten citizens’ homes and properties.  He wondered if Council members understood the implications of enacting the LUMO, adding that there had been talk of constructing a homeowners’ and small developers’ coalition to replace the Town Council and fundamentally reshape the political consensus in Chapel Hill.  Mr. Lowry cautioned Council members that they were being lead down a path with a precipice at the end, and suggested that they support Mr. Brough's grandfathering proposal.

Mill Race homeowner Jim Stimson described the meticulous way that he cares for his land.  He expressed resentment over being considered a "bad guy" in the "sometimes adolescent politics" of Chapel Hill simply because he might someday want to develop that land.  Mr. Stimson advocated for the any and all use exemption for lots and approved subdivisions created after the RCD, the alternative recommendation before the Council.  That would allow a lot that was approved for single-family housing to someday be sold for that purpose, he said.  Mr. Stimson said he was expressing concern because the Council's reassurance that everything is grandfathered was not consistent with the recommendations before them.

Mill Race homeowner David Schmidt applauded the Council's goal of limiting new growth and development and ensuring that any that is permitted is done in an ecologically sensible manner.  However, he advised striking the right balance between what is good for the general environment and the hardship that it imposes on property owners who must comply with the proposed restrictions.  Mr. Schmidt wondered what "as little as possible" impact means, as expressed by Mayor Foy.  He asked the Council to exempt existing properties and to add the language suggested by Attorney Brough to section 1.4 of the proposed ordinance.  On topics 13, 14, 15 and 17, Mr. Schmidt asked that Council members to give a complete grandfathering.

Mill Race homeowner Mark Scroggs added his support to comments made by previous Mill Race speakers.  He stated that Mill Race homeowners had spoken to other homeowners associations, such as Silver Creek and Parkside, and that their positions were aligned.  Mr. Scroggs asked the Town Council to exempt Mill Race properties from the provisions in the new ordinance and to avoid labeling these homes as nonconforming.

Robert Loomis, president of the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association, reminded the Council that he had implored them last week to limit the occupancy requirement to four unrelated people.  Regarding buffers, he said that while attempting to balance priorities the Association was proposing a two-pronged approach:

· Continue the current 100-foot buffer on perennial streams and add a 75-foot buffer requirement on intermittent streams.   

· Make environmental protection measures in the RCD site-specific and take into account the differences in factors such as lot size, type of development, topography, and extent of disturbance.

Regarding nonconforming status, Mr. Loomis propose that the Town Council establish that nonconforming uses and features may continue indefinitely and may be expanded, but that any expansion in the RCD is made according to property-specific design standards that are enforced at the time of the proposed expansion.

Ms. Weseman distributed a written statement from Al Rimer, who was not able to attend.

Dick Hill, Vice Chair of the Lake Forest Homeowners Association, expressed concern about the practical implications of the LUMO on Lake Forest homes, 45 of which are on a lake and many of which are partially in the RCD.  If the RCD is extended, he asked, will that mean they cannot build decks or garages?  Mr. Hill also asked if a lake would be considered a stream.  He said that the Association could not find language addressing lakes in the RCD.  He requested that the Town Council inform Lake Forest property owners individually as to whether their property would be affected by the ordinance.  He asked the Town Council to take the time to create specific examples in plain English of how they might be affected.  Mr. Hill remarked that the Association supports the Town's overall goals but wants the ordinance to be made clearer.

Colonial Heights resident Michael Collins spoke in favor of the Neighborhood Conservation District concept described in draft three.  He referred to it as a means of protecting neighborhoods from insensitive and incompatible development by those trying to capitalize on the rental market.  Mr. Collins gave an example of a project that had almost been built in his neighborhood but which was prevented by neighbors discovering an error in the measurements.  He agreed that property owners have a right to profit from their investment, but emphasized that this should not be at the expense of their neighbors' quality of life.   To draw up an individualized set of guidelines to maintain older neighborhoods' character would be appropriate, he said, adding that 51% was not too low a threshold.  Mr. Collins pointed out that a large percentage of those who own homes in older neighborhoods do not live there.  Those who do live there should have a right to shape it, he said.

Norman Miller, representing the Executive Committee of the Orange/Chatham Sierra Club, read a statement outlining the Club's consensus opinion.  The Sierra Club views stormwater as among the most critical of the issues being addressed by the new LUMO, he said. They support the Council's previously expressed inclination to increase the RCD to 150 feet, but this should be re-evaluated for intermittent streams when the new floodplain maps are available.  The Sierra Club supports minimum disturbance of the RCD, reported Mr. Miller, particularly on the stream side, and managed use zones.  There should be no parks in the RCD, other than natural areas and greenways, nor bridges or streets without a variance, he said. 

Mr. Miller reported that the Sierra Club supports the extension of impervious surface restrictions Town-wide, except for the Town Center.  Members do not view RCD rules and tree preservation as conflicting goals, he said, and they do not think that these should be traded off.  Mr. Miller stated that Club members support the proposed changes to the steep slope ordinance, as well as the application of stormwater management requirements to residential development and the short-term moratorium on duplexes.  He recommended implementing the moratorium with an eye toward including duplexes as part of a strategy for improving and maintaining the social diversity of neighborhoods and mixed-use development.

Bolinwood Drive resident Evelyne Huber stated her support for conservation and controlled growth, but described the proposed ordinance was too radical.  She told Council members that she owned the lot next to her home and that she would not be able to build a house comparable to others in the neighborhood on that lot under the proposed regulations, since 60% of it has a slope of 29% or more.  Ms. Huber pointed out that this would require a variance, which, she said, would greatly decrease the value of the lot.  She asked Council members to give special status to subdivisions approved since 1984 and to grandfather approved lots in subdivisions established since 1984.

Elizabeth Pringle expressed support for the Manager's recommendation to continue occupancy restrictions of no more than four unrelated people, noting the neighborhood and safety issues that come from overcrowding.  She remarked on the lack of detail in the proposed transit-oriented development (article 3.5.4), saying that the language was unclear and non- specific.  Ms. Pringle raised questions about guidelines for height limits, minimum sizes for a transit-oriented districts, and setbacks.

Former Council Member Joe Capowski, a Coolidge Street resident, thanked the Council "profusely and profoundly" for the temporary ban on duplexes.  He also thanked the Planning Department for returning five Coolidge Street duplex applications of 6,000 square feet each.  Mr. Capowski asked the Town Council to use the interim period to require that new developments in near-to-campus neighborhoods maintain their neighborhood's character.  He strongly supported front yard parking restrictions, as well as impervious surface restrictions, floor area ratios, occupancy limitations, and parking buffering.

Mr. Capowski asked Council members to include language in the LUMO that requires Duke Power to bury three phase electrical wires, unless Duke can show defensible technical reasons for not doing so.    He recommended that the LUMO address wires in the street rights-of-way, noting that since the Town owns the rights-of-way the Town Council should decide what goes in and on them.  Mr. Capowski recommended adding the following language to the LUMO:  "Above-ground wires in the street rights-of-ways are nonconforming; when they need replacement they must be put underground unless there are defensible technical reasons not to."  He volunteered to help the Town establish this.

David Cook, representing The Friends of Bolin Creek, applauded the Town's efforts, adding that most aspects of the ordinance would help ensure a preserved and intact creek system that has integrity.  Noting that Bolin Creek was in demise, he pointed out that much of the ordinance would help reverse that damage.  Friends of Bolin Creek support the 150-foot buffer, he said, and will come before the Council with a presentation regarding that.  Mr. Cook noted the tremendous pressure on the area's water systems, mentioning in particular the degradation of Jordan Lake.  Pointing out that these restrictions are for the good of future generations, he urged the Town Council to stay committed to the sound research and planning that went into the third draft.

Johnny Randall, in response to those who had expressed concern about losing their inherited land, stated that many conservation organizations would be glad to hold easements or accept gifts of land and that this could reduce tax value.  He explained that his home also would be classified as nonconforming under the new ordinance.  "So be it," he said, adding that 150 feet is not that great a distance and is necessary for maintaining water quality.   Noting the considerable amount of scientific literature on the benefits of vegetative stream buffers, Mr. Randall argued that "more is better," particularly with respect to steep slopes.   He cited a guidebook for developing local reparian buffer ordinances and offered to provide that to Council members if they were interested.

Tom Newby, a resident of the Lake Forest neighborhood, explained that he was one of the taxpayers and voters who live in a home that will be in violation of the ordinance.  Many Lake Forest homes had been built 30-40 years ago, he said, and they need to be improved from a livability standpoint.  Mr. Newby urged the Town Council to grandfather existing homes and properties from the proposed legislation.

James Carnahan, representing the Village Project, commented on the staff's reply regarding floor area ratios.  Stressing that aesthetics was important to him too, he expressed confidence in the changes he had suggested, noting that he had lived in places far more dense and intense than Chapel Hill would be in twenty years under the proposed changes.  Mr. Carnahan emphasized the importance of having design guidelines, adding that the Downtown area should retain the intimate and human scale character that it has.  He asked the Council to consider increasing floor area ratios and height limitations in commercial, institutional, and multi-family zones, particularly those slated as high intensity transportation corridors.

Eunice Brock predicted that the proposed LUMO would affect more than 30% of the existing in-Town properties, both developed and undeveloped.  Noting that the Town was considering grandfathering existing properties, she inquired about existing lots.  Ms. Brock noted that people, such as her family, had been paying taxes on land for years that had been bought or subdivided under all the rules and regulations of the Town at the time.  Many of these lots would be unbuildable under the new ordinance, she said, if they have an ephemeral stream or lie within 100 feet of a perennial stream or creek.  Ms. Brock asserted that a 50% buffer would take out 90% of pollutants.  She asked how much the Town should spend, "in money or in human cost," to get an additional 10%.  Grandfathering undeveloped lots would save the Town from future lawsuits, said Ms. Brock, and would save the Planning Department from a nightmare of variances.

Northside resident Delores Bailey expressed gratitude and support for the Neighborhood Conservation District, noting that the Comprehensive Plan recommends Northside as the pilot project.  She pointed out that Northside desperately needs protection.  If Northside had already been a Conservation District then the temporary ban on duplexes would not have been necessary, she said.  Ms. Bailey stated that those who opposed the concept were relying on "baseless scare tactics."   The process for a Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay Zone is driven by consensus, she said, and it requires multiple steps (creating a small area plan, design guidelines, and a zoning atlas amendment) which are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Bailey stressed that this is a long process and that it must include everyone.  The 51% is only to start the process, she said.  The rest of the process is as difficult as any zoning change.  Ms. Bailey asked Council members to support "local democracy in action," which will be good for Northside and for other eligible neighborhoods.

Richard Goldberg, a Haw River Assembly Board member, noted that many members live in the watershed areas of Chapel Hill.  He commended the Town for the excellent provisions in the third draft that will help protect water quality.  Mr. Goldberg noted that the major creeks in Chapel Hill were nutrient sensitive and had been listed by the State, and in a NC 303D report to the EPA, as biologically impaired. The Morgan Creek arm of Jordan Lake, he said, was impaired by chlorophyll.

Mr. Goldberg reminded those who had complained about the LUMO's affect on their property that it is not just fish and plants that depend on clean water but humans as well.  He listed communities that take their water from Jordan Lake and pointed out that what Chapel Hill does to water quality affects those people.  He stated that all of the proposals in the third draft give maximum protection to water quality and that each of the alternatives weakens it to some extent.   Mr. Goldberg asked Council members to maintain the strictest conservation measures to protect water quality.

Del Snow remarked that the only reason for not protecting the environment would be the economic benefits of squeezing a bit more development onto unsuitable land.  Her home was on an intermittent stream, she said, noting that she probably will be affected by the new rules.  Ms. Snow remarked that there comes a time when you have to stop and assess your priorities and decide what is really important, even if you have to sacrifice for the greater good.  She expressed amazement at the shortsightedness of those who were more worried about what might happen to their properties than they were about what will happen if the Town does not protect its water.  We owe it to our children, she said, to nurture our piece of the land to the best of our ability.  Ms. Snow added that it was the Town Council's responsibility to stand up and do what is right for children, the environment, and the community.

Elkin Hills resident Fred Stang showed slides of his and his neighbors' flooded yards during the recent four inches of rain.  He congratulated the Council for coming up with more stringent stormwater requirements.  He stressed that it was critical that any new development not make a situation such as his worse and recommended that new developments decrease stormwater, if possible.  Mr. Stang expressed uncertainty over whether or not modern solutions could help his neighborhood.  "But not making it worse is appreciated," he said.

Bernadette Pelissier, an OWASA Board member, explained that OWASA asks for 300-foot buffers when it gets easements.  The State reimburses OWASA for those 300 feet, she said, because it is so important to water quality.  Ms. Pelissier expressed wholehearted support for expanding the RCD to 150 feet.  She said that the goals of creating a RCD, as stated in the introduction to the proposed ordinance, include research from many documents.  "And they don't need to be restated," she said.

James Barrett asked that he be permitted to build a house on a lot in the RCD on land in Morgan Creek that he had previously purchased.   His lot was platted in 1986 and his plan is based on the 75-foot RCD, he said.  Mr. Barrett stated that a 150-foot RCD would make his house unbuildable.  He urged the Town Council to enact the grandfather proposal for undeveloped lots.  Noting that almost all of his lot is on a 35% slope, he encouraged the Council to enact the staff's recommendation regarding steep slopes.  Mr. Barrett pointed out that section 3.6.3.J in the RCD ordinance puts the burden of proof in grading variances on the Town when the ordinance makes a lot unbuildable.  He asked the Council to take similar language and apply it to other features that will make his lot unbuildable, such as steep slopes.   Mr. Barrett questioned the tradeoff between "giving the appearance of doing something good for the environment and destroying the dreams of those who have invested in land."

Franklin Hills homeowner Joan Danaher expressed sympathy with those who would be directly affected by the LUMO.  She said that the potential impact on her was that smaller homes might be built in her neighborhood, which would devalue hers and neighbors' homes.  Ms. Danaher asked that the Council exempt existing lots as well as existing homes from the proposed ordinance.  She also requested that citizens have a reasonable period of time to review the final draft.

Burwell Ware, who lives in, owns, and rents a duplex on Kingston Drive, expressed support for the proposed LUMO, particularly the environmental and tree protections provisions.  He praised the effort to control growth and to limit the rapid increase in cars.  Mr. Ware spoke in favor of minimum and maximum parking requirements and said that he hoped the Chamber of Commerce would support that as well.

Former Council Member Joyce Brown recommended that the Council hire a professional writer to put the ordinance in plain English so that everyone can understand it.  She commended Council members for addressing environmental issues and urged them to keep the 150-foot RCD buffer, rules to control stormwater runoff, and steep slopes protection for new development.

Charlie Mead noted that the Council's task was to achieve balance between environmental objectives and fairness to citizens who have invested in good faith under existing regulations.  He urged the Council to grandfather existing lots and structures.  Mr. Mead asked that this be done not only with respect to RCD regulations but also with maximum floor area, impervious surface, building height limitations, and the steep slope restrictions.

Gordon Brown, representing SAS Development Company, said that eight of the seventeen lots at Cross Creek subdivision, which have been approved with a preliminary subdivision plan, would be eliminated by the proposed third draft.  Secondly, he said, three to four lots would be adversely affected by the steep slope provision.  Mr. Brown explained that he had been heartened to learn of the Manager's recommendation to grandfather existing lots within RCD boundaries and to limit the steep slope regulation to 15% or higher.  If the Council adopts this, he said, the problems for Cross Creek will be manageable.   Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Brough's recommendation that the Town grandfather the total package.  He noted that the bridge at Cross Creek had already been approved, and he proposed a resolution for grandfathering that as well.

Kari Palazzari, a strategic consultant and a member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, discussed how the ordinance might affect the long-term vision for Chapel Hill.  She expressed astonishment at the list of policy concerns (to support better public transportation, expand bicycle and pedestrian-friendly connectivity, focus redevelopment toward mixed-use projects, call for sustainable growth, and increase affordable housing) that the Chamber had recently put in its mission statement.  Ms. Palazzari pointed out that there were only a few communities in the country that would give a similar list of values.   Referring to the goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, she stated that the recommendations in the proposed ordinance fall short of those objectives.  Ms. Palazzari stressed that the ordinance should focus on redevelopment, should encourage infill, support smart growth, encourage density along transit corridors, and seek to increase the value of Chapel Hill.  She recommended amending draft three to give incentives to projects that further the Town's goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan.  The proposed draft, she said, "stifles change and halts progress."

Virginia Knapp, Director of External Affairs for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, outlined the Chamber's vision for the kind of town they want.  The Chamber shares the Council's commitment, she said, to creating a community and a future where residents live, work, play, shop and learn in a sustainable healthy environment.  Ms. Knapp stated that other Chamber members would be coming forward with recommendations for changes in the ordinance.  She urged the Council to keep in mind that they share the hope for a positive future for the community and are willing to work together with the Town to reach that goal.

Chamber member Phil Post focused on the stormwater management section of draft three.  He suggested changing a section in column three of the matrix to: "Don’t control for very small new development, which would be small businesses and small new homes."  Mr. Post pointed out that the Town would never have been able to build one of its successful park and ride lots under the new ordinance's regulations because of the lot's proximity to Morgan Creek.  He said that the owner of a typical small house on a 1/4-acre lot would have to provide 99 fifty-five gallon drums to control stormwater volume.  Mr. Post asked the Council to do three things: eliminate the volume section, but leave the quality sections in; raise the level of exemption to 100 x 100 feet from the current 70 x 70 feet; and do some minor tweaking about where detention facilities can be located.

Developer and Chamber member Mike Hoffer said that the maximum of 50% impervious surface was insufficient for commercial development, since most of that is currently between 65-85% impervious.  He said that 50% would give most commercial properties in Chapel Hill a nonconforming feature and would also restrict future infill, development, and redevelopment.  Mr. Hoffer recommended extending the existing watershed protection district Town-wide and grandfathering existing impervious regulations, as was done in 1993 with creation of the watershed protection district.

If caps are set, Mr. Hoffer said, the Chamber recommends a maximum surface, with engineered solutions of 80%, and a maximum impervious surface, without engineered solutions of 50%.   He requested that wet basins and other engineered water detention and retention basins not be included in the impervious totals. Regarding the Manager's "inventory of ideas," Mr. Hoffer opposed applying surface regulations to net, rather than gross, land area.  Adopting the impervious regulations proposed in the third draft, he said, would force new commercial development to nearby jurisdictions.

Chamber member Rosemary Hargrove expressed support for deleting parking maximums and including appropriate guidelines within the design manual for development projects.  Citing national standards of one space for every 200 square feet of retail and every 250 square feet of office, Ms. Hargrove urged Council members to use successful examples as models when setting up parking guidelines.  She recommended that parking maximums be increased to the national standard if maximums are not deleted from the ordinance and placed in the design manual.  She also suggested that flexibility in approval of parking maximums be given to the Council or to another approving body.

Ms. Hargrove said that the Chamber recommends that parking regulations be sensitive to multiple uses of single properties and, in some cases, based on seating capacity rather than square footage.  She argued that it was unrealistic to think that limiting parking would cause people to take the bus, adding that she could not imagine anyone carrying a forty-pound sewing machine to her business on a bicycle.   Ms. Hargrove said that many customers had told her that they had gone elsewhere to shop because they could not find a parking space near her store.  To reduce parking is "mind boggling to me," she said.

Chamber Member Woody Claris asked that existing lots, particularly those in already existing subdivisions, not be included under the sleep slopes provision.  If current lots are included, he said, then the steep slopes regulation should be on 40% or greater and the disturbed area should equal 50% of the sloped area.   Mr. Claris stated that the LUMO's regulations could stifle growth and unnecessarily limit creativity where generally accepted engineering and architectural design guidelines would be sufficient.  He noted that as many as 50 homes, and a resulting hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes, would not exist at Silver Creek today if these regulations had been in place.  Mr. Claris also pointed out that the regulations could prevent a nice consistent streetscape since houses would have to be positioned on lots according to slope.  Many of these issues and others had not been adequately addressed in workshops and other sessions, Mr. Claris said.

Chamber Member Patricia Nelson spoke in favor of increasing the RCD to 100 feet on either side of a perennial stream, but not along intermittent streams.  She recommended looking at Carrboro's and Durham's regulations and said that Council Member Harrison's recommendation of 50 feet was a step in the right direction.  Ms. Nelson asked that the Town Council exempt intermittent streams that drain less than 25 acres.  She said that once flood maps were updated then the RCD should return to federal flood map levels without additional feet above the flood plain.  If the Council decides to adopt the third draft, said Ms. Nelson, then the Chamber asks for clearer definitions, such whether an intermittent stream is anything other than a drainage ditch.

Chamber Member Chandler Burns said that the Chamber supports the staff's recommendation to treat commercial and residential property the same way and to permit either to expand as long as the expansion is consistent with other applicable regulations.  These regulations include stormwater management, watershed protection and impervious surface regulations, and floor area ratios, he said.  Mr. Burns argued that lawfully established residential and commercial property in the RCD should also be allowed to expand consistent with regulations.

Chamber Member Charlie Nelson said that the revised draft should not include parking maximums since that would hurt the very businesses that the Town has tried to help in the past.  He argued that parking changes were not needed because impervious surface concerns were addressed in the watershed protection section.  New impervious surface regulations would adequately address the problem, he said, as would the requirement for new development to generate transportation plans.  Mr. Nelson recommended placing parking regulations in the Design Manual rather than the ordinance.  The current use of transit is insufficient to adequately serve the needs of the commercial establishment, he said, adding that parking restrictions should be focused more on employment centers than the retail and service sector.

Environmentalist and Chamber Member Cynthia Fox stated that the Chamber supported the staff's recommendation to extend the current watershed protection district regulations, adopted in 1993 and applied to the southern part of Town, and applying them to the entire community.  This would grandfather existing impervious surface and focus on applying the regulations to and protecting the remaining pervious and green areas, she said.

Chamber Member Charlie Fisher pointed out what the impact of the proposed parking restrictions would have been if they had been applied to Breadmen’s Restaurant, Aurora Restaurant, or the Orange United Methodist Church.  He expressed agreement with other Chamber members that the Town does not need both impervious surface and parking restrictions.

Developer and Chamber Member Anne Stoddard stated that the current tree protection ordinance works well.  She said that the proposal in draft three would be difficult to comply with and to regulate, especially for residential and small commercial sites.  Ms. Stoddard added that the proposed tree ordinance might also conflict with other regulations, such as RCDs, steep slopes and impervious surface, to effectively render some properties useless.  She also recommended that the ordinance specify a number of stories rather than expressing height in feet, if the goal is greater density in transit corridors.

Chamber Member Al Bowers asked the Council to extend the discussion period to December 16, 2002, or beyond if additional time is needed.  After reviewing the history of the ordinance, he noted that there had been only two months of discussion on draft three.  Mr. Bowers recommended that the Council set the effective date at six months after adoption, or, if not, that all projects that have made a post-department head review submittal by the adoption date be allowed to proceed under existing regulations.   Mr. Bowers suggested that Council members not rush the adoption process.

Scott Radway, speaking as a Town resident, expressed support for Council Member Harrison's suggestion for a 100-foot RCD zone.  He suggested establishing a setback buffer of 25 feet from that zone in which building and parking would not be permitted.   Regarding impervious surface, Mr. Radway supported extending watershed regulations to the entire Town.  He expressed disappointment that there was no progress on inclusionary zoning, and urged the Council to actively pursue that and to amend the ordinance as soon as possible.

Real Estate professional Tom Heffner said that the Manager's recommendation offered a more equitable and workable solution than those proposed in the third draft.  But some areas continue to need modification and clarification, he said.  Mr. Heffner stated that it was imperative and only fair that existing vacant lots have the same grandfathering provision that improved lots have.  He suggested that RCD crossings for bridges should be handled by the Council as part of the subdivision process and not require an additional SUP.  He recommended that crossings issues be addressed during the subdivision approval process.

Mr. Heffner asked the Council to delete the requirement to control stormwater volumes on single-family lots.    Regarding redevelopment of commercial sites, he encouraged Council members to grandfather the existing impervious surface area that existing developments have and to apply the new regulations only to additional development on the site.  He said that the proposed land to surface threshold was too small on single-family sites to invoke tree protection standards.  He encouraged the Council to drop the requirement for single-family sites or raise the threshold significantly.  Mr. Heffner asked that there be adequate provisions for exemptions from sections of the ordinance for affordable housing developments.  He also recommended that the Council allow adequate time in the approval process for everyone to understand the implications of the new ordinance.

Dan Herman, Vice President for Internal Affairs for the Graduate Professional Student Federation at UNC, said that students were looking forward to working with the Town on the duplex issue.  He told the Council that UNC student leaders did not hold “the sky is falling" opinion regarding the moratorium on duplexes that had been attributed to them in some publications.  Regarding Northside, Mr. Herman said that the Federation was working toward creating a better relationship between students and non-student residents.  The Federation supports the change from two to four unrelated persons, he said, and he requested that the Town allow maximum parking to be exceeded if extenuating circumstances are involved.

Developer Carol Ann Zinn said she had received most Council member's assurances that her newest development, Larkspur, would function under the existing ordinance, not under the draft ordinance being considered tonight.  She asked Council members to convey this to the staff so that all Larkspur homes, in perpetuity, would be exempted from the new ordinance.  Ms. Zinn noted that her attorney had emailed specific language to address those concerns.  Regarding height restrictions for single family homes, she described the Manager's proposal for 24 feet as "unworkable," noting that buyers want walk-up attics in most of the houses that she constructs.  She warned that Chapel Hill's appearance will be compromised if developers are required to go to 24 feet because that will limit their design options.

Margaret Heath displayed a News &Observer article about a landmark scientific study showing that wildlife corridors do work as conservationists have envisioned they would.  The RCD forms a template, she explained, for a corridor system to keep Chapel Hill linked ecologically with the rest of creation.  Ms. Heath stated that protecting from flooding and water pollution by restricting development in the RCD fosters biodiversity.    Regarding nonconforming properties, she noted that communities deal with this issue in various ways.  With its grandfathering gesture, she said, the Town Council had gone beyond the norm toward favoring development interests.  Ms. Heath asked the Council not to compromise "this excellent and properly ambitious third draft" any further.

Developer P. H. Craig, referring to steep slopes and setback requirements, cautioned the Town Council about the "severe consequences" that will result from a loss in the tax base and millions of dollars in decreased property values.  He suggested delaying the LUMO, if not stopping it.

Developer Adam Zinn stated that some of the changes in the third draft, such as floor area, height and impervious surface restrictions, would have a stunning effect on his company's ability to build family-oriented homes.  With regard to the 30% floor area ratio for single-family homes, he asked why the Town was suddenly limiting this to a percentage.  Families want walk-ups and basements, he said.  Mr. Zinn argued that the 24% impervious surface limitation was too low, and he wondered why the third draft emphasized building smaller homes for families.  Mr. Zinn said that the changes before the Council did not reflect what families wanted.

Developer Omar Zinn discussed how new stormwater management strategies relate to the cost of housing and private property rights.  He suggested creating a design standard for different size lots, with differing house sizes and differing impervious surfaces, if the Town decides to go this route.  This will help keep housing costs down in Chapel Hill, he said, by eliminating the additional expense of hiring an engineer.  Mr. Zinn described the maintenance easement agreement referred to in the third draft as an invasion of personal privacy and property.  It could be better handled with a simple phone call and a site visit to the landowner, he said.

Coolidge Street resident Martin Feinstein thanked the Town for the moratorium on duplexes, noting that this already had prevented the construction of four additional duplexes on Coolidge Street.  Mr. Feinstein pointed out that Northside was not the only place in Town where construction of duplexes had created significant problems.  He said that the moratorium would not create much hardship for renters, noting that there were three houses for rent right now on Coolidge Street.

Karen Morse, Conservation Chair of New Hope Audubon, said that the Society endorsed changing the buffer for perennial streams to 150 feet and including intermittent streams.  She acknowledged, though, that a single buffer width might not be required in all areas for sufficient environmental protection.  A more flexible approach, such as Johnny Randall had mentioned earlier, might be more appropriate, she said.  Ms. Morse stated that the Society was not ready to accept, without clear and convincing evidence, the assertion by some that expanding the buffer to 150 feet would provide little environmental benefit while extensively reducing land for development.  She added that Society members do not consider these buffers to be wide swaths of unusable land.  They filter pollutants, prevent erosion and provide wildlife corridors, she said. 

Ms. Morse explained that intermittent streams were important contributors to downstream flora and fauna and were nursery environments for amphibians and fish.  She noted that buffer zones often increase property values.  Advising the conservative approach of increasing the buffer zones at both intermittent and perennial streams, she recommend that these buffer zones contain native species and that removal of exotic shrubs and vines be encouraged.  The Society recommends a strong education and enforcement program as well as formation of a watershed planning committee, she said.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council discuss tonight's public comments at next week's work session.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 25, 2002.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m.