AGENDA #1

 

MEMORANDUM

 

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Work Session on Developing Town Parking Lots Number 2 and 5

                                                         

DATE:             June 10, 2002

 

 

This report provides the Council a framework for discussing policy options and choices related to the potential future development of Parking Lot Number 2 and Parking Lot Number 5 in downtown Chapel Hill.

 

The attached resolution would refer Council comments to the Manager for preparation of a Request for Proposals for consideration by the Town Council on September 23, 2002.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Council goal of encouraging new residential, office and retail downtown development was established at the Council’s January 2000 retreat, and is stated in both the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 2000 Downtown Small Area Plan.  A summary of Comprehensive Plan and downtown plan policy statements is included as Attachment 1.

 

Actions taken over the past five years toward achieving the goal of new residential, office, and retail downtown development include a 1997 design workshop for Parking Lot 5, the Council’s discussions with the University on a downtown employer-employee housing project in recent years, and authorization by the Council in October and November, 2001 to pursue design workshops and computer visualization of “opportunity area” sites.

 

At the Council’s August 29, 2001 work session on the employer-employee housing issue, the Council requested a report providing options for developing a Downtown Design Workshop, followed by a Request for Proposals, including a schedule for the process and proposals for public involvement.

 

On October 10, 2001, the Council adopted a resolution establishing goals for the Design Workshop (please see Attachment 2). The Council also adopted a resolution authorizing the Town to implement a process for developing the workshop and Request for Proposals for Parking Lots 2 and 5, and authorizing the Town Manager to develop a proposal for the Council’s consideration regarding a visual modeling instrument, including potential vendors, cost, and locations.

 

On November 12, 2001, the Council authorized the Manager to contract for services for the Downtown Design Workshop, including computer visualization.  The Town subsequently hired Designvis, Inc. to undertake the computer visualization, and Peter Batchelor, FAIA, to coordinate the citizen workshops.

 

Design Workshop sessions were held on February 16 and March 23, 2002. The Workshop sessions, which were attended by approximately 150 people, generated five concepts for Parking Lot Number 5 and one scenario for Parking Lot Number 2. The Workshop enabled participants, meeting in groups of 5 to 10 people, to discuss issues such as building height and mass, materials, architectural styles, land use, and the configuration of public space. On May 13, 2002 the Council was presented with the Downtown Chapel Hill Design Workshop Summary Report, which contains illustrations and descriptions of the various development scenarios developed at the Design Workshops for Parking Lot Number 2, Parking Lot Number 5 and areas on West Rosemary Street.

 

COUNCIL GOALS

 

Excerpts from the Council’s goals for downtown as adopted on October 10, 2001 include:

 

·        Increase the supply of downtown housing, at a range of prices.

 

·        Identify appropriate sites for construction of an employer-employee housing development, office and retail space.

 

·        Promote a higher/better use of Town-owned parcels now used for Parking Lots 2, 3, and 5.

 

·        Enhance and expand public spaces, open spaces, and bicycle and pedestrian connections downtown.

 

Please see Attachment 2 for a complete list.

 

OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING

 

In this memorandum, we provide the Council a framework for discussing policy options and choices to help answer key questions.  For key decision points, we list a range of potential options, and provide staff comment.  We also note basic assumptions of the analysis, for discussion.

 

1.  “Does the Council wish to proceed now with considering a Request for Proposals for the development of Town parking lots?”

 

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Not at this time

 

Comment:   A Request for Proposals would involve a decision to make Town-owned land available for private development.   Key considerations:

 

·        Lease Land or Sell:  The Council will need to determine whether it wishes to lease or sell the sites. An appraisal of the sites at an early point in the process would help the Council decide the terms of a lease (length of time, value of lease, conditions, etc) or a sale as part of a development agreement. The Council could leave the question open to provide developers the option of proposing terms that include the Town leasing or selling the land.

 

The Town could sell or lease just the portion of the site to be used for private development, setting aside areas for public uses such as gathering space or public parking. The Council could require that a developer dedicate a percentage of the land area for public space to be deeded back to the Town with stipulations on location, design standards, access and other issues. Such an approach would allow for flexibility in the site design.

 

·        Timing:  Judgments about the state of the economy and the receptivity of the private development community to undertaking a major project at this time would need to be made.  For example, the office market in Chapel Hill is currently experiencing high vacancy rates. In the fourth quarter of 2001 the vacancy rate for Chapel Hill-Carrboro was approaching 20 percent, compared with 2 percent for the fourth quarter of 2000.  At the same time, the parcels in question are highly desirable pieces of real estate in premier locations.  In part, the extent of responses to a Request for Proposals would answer this question.

 

·        Flexibility:  An assumption is that a Request for Proposals would be drawn to give the potential developers flexibility in responding to the Request.  It would set goals and parameters the Council wishes to achieve, and leave room for developers to address the goals creatively.  Therefore, the Council would not need to address all concerns and issues up-front, as long as it defined what it wants.

 

·        Budget Impacts.  The Town will need to plan to offset any loss in parking revenue currently used to pay existing debt service and operating costs of off-street lot operations. In the current fiscal year, Lot 2 is estimated to generate about $371,000 toward parking operations and existing debt service, and Lot 5 is estimated to produce about $163,000 for parking expenses.  These revenues are significant contributions to current annual debt service of about $548,000 on the James C. Wallace Parking Facility and a small portion of Lot 2. During any time in which these revenues are not available, they would need to be replaced by revenue from new development or from other Town sources, including General Fund revenues and property taxes.

 

The Town could gain property tax revenues and additional sales tax revenue from a mixed use proposal. Alternatively, a new private parking structure on either Lot 2 or Lot 5 would need to provide revenues to the Town for repaying existing debt service. All of these issues are contingent on the terms of the development agreement between the Town and a prospective developer.

 

·        Parking Impacts:  The project would need to incorporate features that provide parking in other locations during construction. Due to impacts on public parking, we recommend that the Council not consider the option of doing both sites at the same time.

 

·        Environmental/Geologic Issues:  The question of subsurface conditions received much attention during the Design Workshops.  An assumption of this analysis is that the respondents to a Request for Proposals would be required to address these issues and bear the costs of doing so. The Town has no specific information on subsurface conditions at either site. Projects in the vicinity of both lots suggest that underground conditions could be an issue.

 

During the construction of the James C. Wallace Parking Facility, which is less than 200 feet to the east of Lot 2, general mass excavation went down approximately 15 feet below existing grade encountering only random boulders. Bedrock was not encountered until doing the borings for the columns, according to the Engineering Department. According to architect Josh Gurlitz, during the 1988 renovation of the Interfaith Council Shelter, diagonally across from Lot 2 at the corner of Rosemary and Columbia Streets, the drilling of an elevator shaft went through rock from about 8 feet down to the bottom of the shaft 25 feet underground. Construction of the Fountains on West Rosemary Street, about 500 feet from the center of Lot 5, encountered no rock, only sandy Chapel Hill gravel to a depth of 22 feet.

 

·        Transit Transfer Center:   The Downtown Small Area Plan recommended considering a transit transfer center in the downtown, possibly on Lot 2.  An assumption of this analysis is that Lot 2 would not be considered for this purpose.  Some of the Workshop options for Lot 5 include a transfer center. A consideration is whether to build a structure for the facility or make improvements to public rights of way to develop on-street pull-off areas for centralized bus routes (as now exists on East Franklin and Columbia Streets).

 

2.  If answer is “Yes,” the Council wishes to proceed with considering a Request for Proposal now, a second central question is which location to pursue.

 

Various options include proceeding now with:

 

A.     Only Lot 2

B.     Only Lot 5

C.     Lot 2 and Lot 5 Sequentially

D.     Lot 5 and Lot 2 Sequentially

E.      Doing both at the same time

 

Comment:  An argument could be made for first proceeding with Lot 2, the site which generated a consensus option from the Workshops, rather than Lot 5, which has five options.  Lot 5 appears to be the site with the most heightened public interest, due to its pivotal location in the Town Center.  Waiting to proceed with Lot 5 would provide time to consider in greater detail the various options for this site.

 

3.  A third question is whether the Council wishes to hold a Design Contest.

                                     

The Design Workshop sessions in February and March generated five concepts for Parking Lot Number 5. These ideas are summarized in the May 13 Summary Report, along with an appendix containing notes from group discussions. At the Council’s May 13 meeting, citizens requested that the Council seek additional input on Parking Lot Number 5, such as through a Town-sponsored design contest. Parking Lot 2 also could be included in a design contest.

 

Comment:  A Request for Proposals for Parking Lot Number 5 would establish Council criteria for considering ideas submitted by developers interested in developing the site. An issue is whether the Design Workshop provided sufficient input for the Council to act on in issuing a Request for Proposals for the site. Key decision points (see the following section) for Parking Lot Number 5 include building scale, uses, parking, and the design and size of public space.

 

A design contest, such as the Gateway design contest in 2000, would provide additional options for the Council to consider including in a Request for Proposals. A drawback of a contest is that the winning entry may not be an option a developer would want to pursue.  One option is for the Town to sponsor a design contest that is focused on a particular issue, such as the configuration and design of public space on Lot 5 – a portion of the site which presumably would remain Town-owned property. The $13,000 contract for the Gateway competition included a $5,000 prize and consultant time to prepare guidelines and evaluate submittals. Other costs included staff/Council Committee review time.

 

4.  A fourth question is whether the Council wishes to hire professional help to write a Request for Proposals, evaluate development proposals and negotiate a deal.

 

Comment: Hiring a consultant would provide the Town expertise to evaluate proposals and developers’ qualifications. The Town lacks staff experience; the last similar project was a Request for Proposals for development of a downtown parking lot in the late 1980s. Some of the factors a consultant could be asked to evaluate in reviewing proposals include the developer’s financial capacity and commitment, the value of the offer in terms of lease and/or sales terms, the financial feasibility of the proposal, the financial feasibility of the parking component of the project, the strength of the developer’s tenants, leasing/marketing strategies, the developer’s previous experience, responsiveness to the Council’s objectives, design creativity, and qualifications of the design team.


DECISION POINTS: PARKING LOT NUMBER 2

 

The May 13, 2002 Downtown Chapel Hill Design Workshop Summary Report serves as the basis for this section, which lists issues the Council could specify in a Request for Proposals for developing Parking Lot Number 2. We provide page references to the Summary Report where appropriate. Choices labeled “Workshop concept” indicate an alternative from the Summary Report.

 

For Parking Lot Number 2, the Workshop produced one development scenario (See Pages 10 to 13 in the Summary Report). The concept includes mixed-use buildings with street-level retail, office space and residential units; a pedestrian mall connecting an existing pedestrian alley on Franklin Street with Rosemary Street; an elevated walkway along East Rosemary Street that could tie in with the Bank of America plaza; underground parking with access off Rosemary Street, underneath the raised walkway.

 

1a.   Scale:  What is the appropriate height of buildings on Rosemary and Columbia Streets?

 

A.     2-Story (Workshop concept)

B.     3-Story

C.     Development Ordinance maximum (44’ primary height restriction)

 

1b.   Scale:  What is the appropriate building height in the interior of the site?

 

A.     3-Story

B.     4-Story (Workshop Concept)

C.     Development Ordinance maximum (90’ secondary height restriction)

 

Comment:  The Downtown Small Area Plan Design Guidelines calls for two stories at the street, which also was proposed at the Design Workshop. The height of buildings the Council wishes will interplay with other factors such as the amount of public space on site, and how parking is treated, to determine the square footage of buildings on-site (see #2 below).

 

2.      Mix of Uses:  What is the appropriate mix of uses for Lot 2, and how much of each should there be?

 

A.  First-Story Uses. Possible options could include retail, and restaurant/entertainment uses.

B.  Second-Story Uses. Possible options could include offices, residential units, and restaurant/entertainment uses.

C. Third/Fourth-Story Uses. Possible options could include offices and residential units.

D.        Add institutional or civic uses to any of above options.

 

Comment:  The Town’s Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Small Area Plan call for a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses in the downtown area, especially the “opportunity areas” – sites the Downtown Small Area Plan considers appropriate for new initiatives such as new development, redevelopment, additional civic uses, conversion to (or retention as) open space, and parking. The Workshop concept suggests constructing two buildings with a north-south pedestrian mall in between. Each building would have first-floor retail space, second-floor offices and third- and fourth-story residential units; this concept would contain approximately 90,000 square feet. Parking would be underground.

 

3.      Pedestrian Connections with Bank of America:  What is preferred for the site?

 

A.     Provide a sidewalk connection along West Rosemary Street. (Workshop concept)

B.     Provide a connection from a new building or stairs on eastern edge of site.

C.     Do both A and B.

D.     Do not provide connections.

 

Comment:  Providing pedestrian connections at various levels (street level, building floor levels) would enhance pedestrian movement and connectivity of destinations in the downtown.  It would also encourage use of the building and be a market draw for potential tenants.  A potential exists to provide continuous pedestrian spaces on the same level from Lot 2 to the Town’s parking deck, through the Bank of America building’s exterior spaces (see Pages 12 and 13 in the Summary Report).

 

4.      Public spaces: What should be the configuration and size of public space?

 

A.     Public plaza on Columbia and Rosemary Streets. (Downtown Small Area Plan Concept)

B.     Plaza on Columbia Street at alley. (Workshop option)

C.     North-south pedestrian mall through site, accessible from existing alley off Franklin Street. (Workshop option)

D.     Any combination of the above.

 

Comment: The Workshop concept as depicted in the computer model proposes a small plaza on Columbia Street next to the service alley, an orientation that would capture sunlight. The size of the proposed plaza is approximately 35 feet by 50 feet, or 1,750 square feet. The pedestrian mall as illustrated is 25 feet by 120 feet, or 3,000 square feet. The two spaces total approximately 9 percent of the land area of Lot 2.

 

5.      Parking:  Where should on-site parking be located?

 

A.     Provide surface parking.

B.     Provide parking underground. (Workshop option)

C.     Provide parking above ground in building.

D.     Provide parking above ground in building and underground.

E.      Locate parking elsewhere.

 

Comment:  A key assumption is that the Town Council should leave investigation of subsurface environmental and geologic conditions to private developer respondents to the Request for Proposals.  Answers to these questions will partly depend upon subsurface conditions, as well as developer preferences and costs.

 

6.      Parking:  How much should be provided?

 

A.     Replace parking on site.

B.     Replace and build additional required parking for the development on-site.

C.     Provide additional parking beyond the amount in Choice B.

D.     Do not replace parking now on the site.

E.      Replace off-site some proportion of the parking spaces now on-site.

 

Comment:  Discussions at the Workshops seemed to favor, at a minimum, replacing the parking on site. 

 

7.      Housing: Should “affordable” units be included?

 

A.     No.

B.     Yes, at least 15 percent, per Comprehensive Plan policy.

C.     Negotiate with developer for a range of housing prices.

 

Comment:  The Comprehensive Plan states that the Town “should encourage developers of residential developments of five or more units to 1) provide 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households, 2) contribute in-lieu fees, or 3) propose alternative methods so that the equivalent of 15 percent of the units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households.” Council’s goals adopted October 10, 2001 for the project state, “Increase the supply of downtown housing, at a range of prices.”

 

8.      What other amenities or design features should be emphasized in the Request for Proposals?

 

A.     Areas for public art. (Workshop recommendation)

B.     Street trees and landscaping on Rosemary Street. (Workshop recommendation)

C.     Public space features: Fountain, benches, walls, landscaping.

D.     Green roofs.

E.      Arcade/shaded architectural features.

F.      Other features.

G.     Any combination of the above.

 

Comment: Development of Lot 2 could provide an opportunity to negotiate for additional public amenities associated with project proposals. Workshop participants recommended including areas for public art, possibly in an improved service/pedestrian alley off Columbia Street and in the open pedestrian mall in the Workshop concept. Another Workshop recommendation called for adding street trees and landscaping between the existing Rosemary Street sidewalk and the street.

 

 

DECISION POINTS: PARKING LOT NUMBER 5

 

The May 13, 2002 Downtown Chapel Hill Design Workshop Summary Report serves as the basis for this section, which lists issues the Council could specify in a Request for Proposals for developing Parking Lot Number 5. We provide page references to the Summary Report where appropriate. Choices labeled “Workshop concept” indicate an alternative from the Summary Report.

 

The five Workshop concepts (see Pages 14 to 23 in the Summary Report) are:

 

Central Courtyard Concepts

·        Concept 5A: Diagonal pedestrian access through the site with large public space in the center and smaller plazas on Church and Franklin Streets; two- to three-story buildings on the perimeter; underground parking.

·        Concept 5B:  Access to interior public space through opening in between buildings on Franklin Street; three- to four-story buildings on perimeter; underground parking

·        Concept 5C: Large interior public space and a smaller plaza on the corner of Church-Rosemary Streets; two- to three-story buildings; underground parking. Concept included a transit center on the eastern edge of the site.

Franklin Street Public Space Concepts

·        Concept 5D: Public space on Franklin Street; three-story buildings; above-ground parking structure screened by buildings. Concept includes residential units on the top of the deck.

·        Concept 5E: Public space on Franklin Street; three- to five-story building(s) with a rounded arcade fronting the public space; underground parking. Transit center included in design.

 

 

1a.   Scale:  What is the appropriate height of buildings on Franklin Street?

 

A.     2-Story (Workshop Concepts 5A and 5C)

B.     3-Story (Workshop Concepts 5D and 5E)

C.     3- and 4-Story (Workshop Concept 5B)

D.     Development Ordinance maximum (44’ primary)

 

1b.   Scale:  What is the appropriate height of buildings on Rosemary Street?

 

A.     2-Story (Workshop Concept 5A)

B.     3-Story (Workshop Concepts 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E)

C.     Development Ordinance maximum (44’ primary)

 

 

1c.   Scale:  What is the appropriate maximum interior height of buildings on Lot 5?

 

A.     3-Story (Workshop Concepts 5A and 5C)

B.     4-Story (Workshop Concepts 5B and 5D)

C.     5-Story (Workshop Concept 5E)

D.     Development Ordinance maximum (90’ secondary)

 

Comment:  The Downtown Small Area Plan Design Guidelines calls for two stories at the property line: “Buildings should be no more than 2 stories tall where the property line abuts the sidewalk (requiring additional stories to be set back from the street building line).”  Workshop concepts call for buildings as tall as three stories at the sidewalk, which is within the Devleopment Ordinance height restrictions. One workshop concept (Concept 5B) suggested a four-story building on Franklin Street, which would exceed the primary building height limit of 44 feet. In the interior of the site, the tallest workshop option (Concept 5E) called for a five-story building, shorter than the 90-foot secondary height limit in the Development Ordinance.

 

The height of buildings the Council wishes will interplay with other factors such as the amount of public space on site, and how parking is treated, to determine the square footage of buildings on-site (see #2 below).  In addition, for Lot 5, workshop participants felt that the scale of West Rosemary Street should be smaller due to the narrower street width, and the desirability of transitioning to the adjoining Northside neighborhood. The Downtown Small Area Plan also called for this location to act as a bridge between East and West Franklin Streets.

 

2.  Mix of Uses:  What is the appropriate mix of uses for Lot 5, and how much of each will there be?

 

A.  First-Story Uses. Possible options could include retail, a grocery store, and restaurant/entertainment uses.

B.  Second-Story Uses. Possible options could include offices, residential units, and restaurant/entertainment uses.

C. Third/Fourth/Fifth-Story Uses. Possible options could include offices and residential units.

D.   Add institutional or civic uses to any of above options.

 

Comment:  The Town’s Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Small Area Plan call for a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses in the downtown area, especially the “opportunity areas.”

 

3.      Pedestrian Connections/Open Space:  What is appropriate for the site?

 

A.     Provide significant open space on the interior of the site. (Workshop Concepts 5A, 5B, 5C)

B.     Provide significant open space on the exterior of the site. (Workshop Concepts 5D, 5E)

C.     Provide a combination on the interior and exterior. (Workshop Concept 5A)

 

Comment:  Interior spaces shown in the Design Workshop models tend to be less public in nature and more the preserve of the surrounding business/office/residential uses.  Exterior locations, those not surrounded by buildings, tend to be more public in nature.  The provision of significant public space on this site is related to the parking decisions on the site (see #’s 4 and 5 below), as well as to the mix of uses (#2 above).

 

Because of this site’s central location in downtown, and its frontage on Franklin Street, issues related to the provision of significant public space are key to proceeding with a Request for Proposals for this site.  This is likely to be an area in which the Council should set forth its guidelines for what it wants in the Request for Proposals.  Proposals should enhance pedestrian movement and connectivity of destinations in the downtown, and be a market draw for potential tenants.  Use of the space for active pedestrian uses should also be considered.

 

Architect Peter Batchelor, the Design Workshop facilitator, had these comments about public space (see Page 28 of the Summary Report):

 

Open plazas do not, by themselves, guarantee public usage, especially those fronting busy vehicular streets.  Urban spaces work best with some kind of enclosure, preferably on three sides, and even on four. Studies in large cities have shown that intimate spaces—those which people naturally gravitate toward – function best with dimensions no larger than 100 feet in any direction.  Larger spaces are possible as long as they are subdivided with, say, a change in level (up or down) as in the case of an amphitheater or sunken court.

 

Attachment 3 provides perspective on the size of existing public and semi-public spaces in downtown Chapel Hill and Carrboro relative to the size of Lot 5.

 

4.  Parking:  Where should on-site parking be located?

 

A.     Provide surface parking.

B.     Provide parking underground. (Workshop Concepts 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E)

C.     Provide parking above ground in structure. (Workshop Concept 5D)

D.     Provide parking above ground in building and underground.

E.      Locate parking elsewhere.

 

Comment:  A key assumption is that the Town Council should leave investigation of subsurface environmental and geologic conditions to private developer respondents to the Request for Proposals.  Answers to these questions will partly depend upon subsurface conditions, as well as developer preferences and costs. Four of the five Workshop concepts suggest underground parking, which would enable larger public space to be provided. A consideration with choices “C” and “D” is whether structured above-ground parking should be required to be located in the interior of the site, screened by buildings, in order to avoid deadening the street with a garage façade.

 

5.  Parking:  How much should be provided?

 

A.     Replace parking on site.

B.     Replace and build additional required parking for the development on-site.

C.     Provide additional parking beyond that in B.

D.     Do not replace parking now on the site.

E.      Replace off-site some proportion of the parking spaces now on-site.

 

Comment:  Discussions at the Workshops seemed to favor, at a minimum, replacing the parking on site.

 

6.      Housing: Should “affordable” units be included?

 

A.     No.

B.     Yes, at least 15 percent, per Comprehensive Plan policy.

C.     Negotiate with developer for a range of housing prices.

 

Comment:  The Comprehensive Plan states that the Town “should encourage developers of residential developments of five or more units to 1) provide 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low and moderate income households, 2) contribute in-lieu fees, or 3) propose alternative methods so that the equivalent of 15 percent of the units will be available and affordable to low and moderate income households.” Council’s goals adopted October 10, 2001 for the project state, “Increase the supply of downtown housing, at a range of prices.”

 

7.   Should a transit transfer center be incorporated into Lot 5?

 

A.     Incorporate a transit transfer center from Franklin to Rosemary Streets. (Workshop Concepts 5C and 5E)

B.     Incorporate a transit transfer center from Church to Rosemary Streets.

C.     Do not incorporate a transit transfer center at this location.

 

Comment:  Some of the computer visualization options provide the Council with a sense of what a transit transfer center could look like on this site.  The design was based on site plan dimensions from an existing transfer center in Pennsylvania. 

 

8.      What other amenities or design features should be emphasized in the Request for Proposals?

 

A.     Areas for public art.

B.     Street trees and landscaping on Rosemary and Church Streets.

C.     Public space features: Fountain, benches, walls, landscaping.

D.     Green roofs.

E.      Design to reduce noise impacts from street.

F.      Other features.

G.     Any combination of the above.

 

Comment: Development of Lot 5 could provide an opportunity to negotiate for additional public amenities associated with project proposals.

 

RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT STEPS

 

With Council direction on the key decision points discussed in this memorandum, we believe we would be in a position to develop a draft Request for Proposals for Council consideration at the Council’s Monday, September 23, 2002 meeting.

 

The attached resolution would refer Council comments to the Manager for preparation of a Request for Proposals for consideration by the Town Council on September 23, 2002.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

  1. Summary of Downtown Small Area Plan Policy Statements (p. 15).
  2. Town Council Goals for Downtown, October 10, 2001 (p. 18).
  3. Downtown Public and Semi-Public Open Spaces (p. 19).

A RESOLUTION REFERRING COUNCIL COMMENTS TO MANAGER for preparation of a Request for Proposals FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN PARKING LOTS NUMBER 2 AND 5 (2002-6-10/R-1)

 

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has adopted a Downtown Small Area Plan as a component of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan identifying opportunity areas for downtown development;

 

WHEREAS, the Town has hosted a Design Workshop that provided about 150 people an opportunity to articulate design and use objectives for Parking Lots 2 and 5, and other potential locations identified as Opportunity Areas in the Downtown Small Area Plan;

 

WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed concepts developed at the Design Workshop as illustrated in the May 13, 2002 Downtown Chapel Hill Workshop Summary Report; and,

 

WHEREAS, the Council supports working with private developers to develop Town Parking Lot Number 2 and Town Parking Lot Number 5;

 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby refers Council comments from the June 10, 2002 work session to the Manager for preparation of a Request for Proposals for consideration by the Council on September 23, 2002.

 

This the 10th day of June, 2002