SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1999
Mayor pro tem Joe Capowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present were Mayor Rosemary Waldorf and Council Members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Lee Pavão was absent excused. Also present were Council Members-Elect Bill Strom and Jim Ward.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Staff members present were Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Current Development Planner Rob Wilson, Senior Engineering Coordinator Mike Neal, and Acting Town Clerk Toni Pendergraph.
Jay Parker, 206 Ridgecrest Drive, Chapel Hill, owner of Weaver Street Realty Company, presented a petition from the Lake Forest Homeowners’ Association concerning the maintenance of Eastwood Lake with regard to the silt, caused by recent developments upstream, which had filtered into the lake from the streams feeding into it. He said in 1986 the Association came before the Council to alert it to the need for help in restoring the health of the lake and for support for their efforts. Mr. Parker said the Town agreed that some support was appropriate. He said the Association had the task of removing more than 70,000 cubic yards of silt from the lake bottom, which would cost about $2 million. He said the Association had met with Town planners and engineers, who felt they might be able to assist them in identifying disposal site options. Mr. Parker said the petition would direct the Town Manager to allocate more staff resources to assist in the removal of the silt. He alerted the Council of two more petitions, which would be forthcoming from the Association during the first quarter of 2000.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 1. Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Modification Application
For Airport Road BP Gas Station
Development Coordinator J.B.
Culpepper described an application, which had been filed by M.M. Fowler, Inc.,
seeking approval of a Special Use Permit Modification
to demolish the existing service station at the corner of Critz Drive and
Airport Road and construct a convenience mart and four fuel pumps. She said the
staff had reviewed the application and had taken it to a number of advisory
boards for review. Ms. Culpepper said the existing gas station was approved in
1969, and that several features of the property did not meet the Town’s current
regulations in the 1981 Development Ordinance. She said the first
non-compliance was the spacing of the driveways from the intersection, and the
second involved the spacing of one service station from another service
station, which, in this case, were two stations both under the 750
foot-requirement distance of the Ordinance.
Ms.
Culpepper said in order to modify these regulations, the Council could make a
finding that the modification of the regulations would satisfy public purposes
to an equivalent or greater degree, or alternatively, that the modifications
would not satisfy public purposes. She said if the Special Use Permit was
denied the owner would have several options:
·
Continue the present
use on the site under the current Special Use Permit.
·
Apply for a Special
Use Permit Modification for a non-service station use.
·
Vacate the site for a
year’s time and allow the current Special Use Permit to expire.
·
Subsequently apply for
site plan approval of a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning
district, by the Planning Board.
Ms.
Culpepper said the staff had included in the resolution special conditions to
be met. She said some of the special conditions related to federal and State
standards for underground fuel tanks, relocation of the bus stop, bike racks
closer to the building, and new curb and gutter and sidewalk. She said the
Manager’s preliminary recommendation was for approval with those specific
standards in Resolution A.
Council
Member Evans asked Ms. Culpepper to identify the new bus station site. Ms.
Culpepper pointed it out in the diagram displayed.
Council
Member Bateman asked if one of the options the owner would have would be to
close off some of the bays and use the interior for a grocery store or a
mini-mart. Ms. Culpepper said she would like to look at the regulations
specifically and would report back to the Council.
Council
Member Brown asked if the uses granted in the Special Use Permit were specified
in the Permit. Ms. Culpepper said typically it would be specified in the
current regulations, but not in the regulations in 1969.
Council
Member Bateman asked if mini marts and convenience stores were considered
service stations in the Ordinance. Ms. Culpepper said that was correct under
the definition
Philip
Post presented the project on behalf of the applicant. He thanked the staff,
the advisory boards and the neighbors of the project for their help and
comments. He said M.M. Fowler Company had been in business in Chapel Hill for
70 years in both grocery stores and gasoline stations. He mentioned the reasons
why the current owner of the gas station had left: one was lack of personnel,
and, that the current lot did not meet the specification for a garage because
there was not enough room at this location. Mr. Post displayed and described
the proposal from the applicant—moving of the driveway, the buffer zone, moving
the dumpster, and separating the property from the property next door. He said
the fuel tanks would be brought up to current standards required by the Town,
and go beyond these requirements. Mr. Post said the proposal lived up to both
the 1989 and 1999 Comprehensive Plans. He said the applicant agreed with the
staff that contiguous property should be considered the adjoining properties.
Mr. Post said the project came as close as physically possible to compliance
with the issues of the driveway location and the distance between service
stations. Mr. Post said the issue of public welfare (health and safety) would
be covered by the state-of-the art equipment that would be installed and by
moving the bus stop further north. He said the three gasoline stations located
at this major entranceway to the Town would not be over-serving the 26,000 cars
per day using Airport Road, and the applicant’s plan would meet the Town’s
desire for design and landscaping. He urged approval of Resolution A.
Marvin
Barnes, applicant and owner of M.M. Fowler Oil Co., said he and his wife had
worked for the Fowler’s food stores since they were young, as bag persons,
cashiers, and the like, and they had been in the food and service station
business in Chapel Hill for a long time. He said he and his wife had owned the
food and service station on Franklin Street, now closed, which had been
replaced by larger businesses. He said they had to change to survive when the
facility was no longer viable. Mr. Barnes felt that the proposal before the
Council was what the market place wanted. He felt this change was for the
better. He said he had twice as many service stations as any other owner had in
Chapel Hill, and these operators would continue to service cars. Mr. Barnes
said if this proposal were denied, he would continue to operate the business as
it was before, but the proposal, which offered to change the property to
state-of-the-art, would be a much better alternative. He said groceries would
be sold for better prices than the other grocery stores in the Town, and the
property would be an enhancement to the Town.
Cynthia
Barnes, applicant and co-owner of M.M. Fowler Oil Co., gave the history of
Fowler’s and her family’s ownership since its beginning. She pointed out that
her family had a long history in Chapel Hill and she hoped that the Council
would support the application.
James
Spurlin, operator of the Eastgate BP Station, spoke on behalf of M.M. Fowler
Oil Co., and the Barnes’ good citizenship in the Town. He urged the Council to
support the application.
Council
Member Bateman asked what the difference was in the size of the service station
under discussion and the service station at Eastgate. Mr. Spurlin said the
landlords allowed his customers to park in the shopping center, as long as he
kept the property where they parked neat and he obeyed the guidelines.
Gay
Eddy, Vice-Chair of the Planning Board, said the Board’s vote was 4 in favor of
granting the modifications, and 4 against. She said those in favor felt the
closing of one of the entranceways was desirable, liked the environmental
controls, new landscaping, removal of extra cars and trucks along the major
entranceway, and the use proposed was one that was allowed in the zoning area
with the Special Use Permit. Ms. Eddy said those opposed cited traffic and
access concerns, and that it should continue to be used as a mechanic garage, a
needed service for the neighborhood. She said the members of the Planning Board
agreed on two points: the moving of the bus stop, and the traffic concerns of
the neighbors in getting onto and off of Airport Road.
Dianne
Bachman, Chair of the Community Design Commission, reported that the Commission
approved the application with the condition that a “pork-chop” median be placed
at the site’s Airport Road entrance, in order to only allow right-in, right-out
ingress and egress for the site. She said there were concerns in the
neighborhood about the egress from the station onto Critz Drive. Ms. Barnes
said there were also concerns about the proposed convenience store being too
close to other convenience stores along this portion of Airport Road, although
this concern was not expressed in the Commission’s approval of the application.
Kathy
Baker, resident of the neighborhood, said the neighbors had hoped the property
would remain a service station, and opposed having another mini-mart in the
area. She said they were very concerned about the traffic being generated by
the proposed use of the property, especially onto Critz Drive.
Pitt
Tomlinson, resident of Chapel Hill and a friend of Lee Barnes, son of the
owners of Fowler’s, said he admired the business philosophy of M.M. Fowler, a
well-run company whose stores were always clean both inside and outside. He
said the proposed design was more residential in appearance than most of the
other convenience stores along Highway 86. He asked the Council to support the
proposal and M.M. Fowler for their contribution to the community over the
years.
Doug
Griffin said he and Amy Cook were with Griffin Architects and worked on the
project. He said they were there to answer any questions.
Roland
Intrator, resident of Chapel Hill, said he had received the proposal on Friday,
and he did not want to see another convenience store on the property. He did
not believe that it would be any less of an eyesore than the property already
there.
Dan
Ireland, resident of Hillsborough, said his family lived in Chapel Hill, and he
traveled the Airport Road frequently. He said he was a frequent user of the BP
convenience store and would miss not having the BP stores because of their high
standards. He said the other convenience stores could not be compared to the BP
convenience stores. He said Orange County residents used the BP stores
frequently.
Sally
Council, resident of the area, said she traded with people she knew and
trusted. She felt that the loss of the garage was a major loss for the area,
and that the mechanic who worked there was a fine mechanic.
Zoë
Ireland, resident of Orange County and the mother of special needs children,
said she knew and trusted the Fowler BP stations. She said they were always
clean, with accessible public facilities, and they had pay-at-the-pump gas
pumps so she didn’t have to leave her children in the car while she went inside
to pay for her gas. She said the location of a BP service station on that side
of Airport Road would be very convenient. She asked the Council to support the
proposal.
Council
Member McClintock asked the staff to address the traffic-merging problem and to
create a graphic of the proposed “pork-chop” design. She said she would like to
have a stipulation in the Special Use Permit that would not allow rental
vehicles on the property. She said she was concerned about the lighting, and
wanted special attention paid to the direction of the lighting. Council Member
McClintock said she was concerned about the height of the canopy.
Council
Member Wiggins asked the staff to address stipulation #4, “Hazardous Waste Management”, in case there
was any contaminated spillage at the site.
Council
Member Evans asked the staff whether the closing of the existing business had
any effect on the approval of this proposal. She asked if there had been
borings done to determine whether there was soil contamination at the site.
Mayor
pro tem Capowski asked what the hours of operation were. Mr. Barnes said that
most of his stores operated from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. He said he would be
willing to operate the hours that his competitors operated.
Mayor
pro tem Capowski asked the staff to give him some information about how the new
operation would impact the light flow into the Glen Heights neighborhood. He
said he would like to know of a convenience store in the area that would look
like the one proposed. Mr. Post said it was a uniquely designed building that
had been worked out with the Community Design Commission, to fit into the
neighborhood. He said he would have better design pictures for the Council
before they made their decision.
Mayor
pro tem Capowski said he was concerned about the increase in the traffic on
Critz Drive and asked the staff to give some indication of what that increase
would be. He asked Attorney Karpinos how far the Council could go to make a
decision on what would be the use of the property from the standpoint of “beneficial
to the community from a service or economic standpoint.” Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the
Manager’s suggestion included the homes on the south side of Critz Drive as
being part of contiguous property. Ms. Culpepper said that the diagram in the packet
showed the 1,000 foot radius of contiguous property.
Council
Member Brown said the Council had never considered north or south, but just
contiguous property.
Council
Member Foy asked the staff if it had talked about bio-filtration processes such
as used by VilCom. Ms. Culpepper said the staff would have an opportunity to
discuss this with the applicant before the proposal came back to the Council.
COUNCIL
MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT 2000 FEET BE
CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council
Member McClintock encouraged the Council to allow comment from the neighbors,
if they desired, at the continuation of the Public Hearing.
Dianne
Bachman said the Appearance Commission had worked with the Public Works
Department and staff to originate design guidelines for these specific
projects, with canopy heights and lighting, which would be recessed within the
canopy. She said when the projects come back for final elevation review, the
Community Design Commission (CDC) also reviewed them for final lighting plans.
Mayor
pro tem Capowski said that the “shoe-box” lighting at St. Thomas More Church
was not working, that the lighting was very bright. Ms. Bachman said the
standards for the lighting industry now said that 90 degrees was the maximum
needed for lighting, and the best that she had seen were the cut-off lenses,
and that was what the Community Design Commission was requiring.
Council
Member Evans asked if the Ordinance differentiated between grocery stores and
convenience stores and if they were both permitted in Neighborhood/Commercial
zoning.
COUNCIL
MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC
HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 10, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (8-0).
Item 2. Public Hearing on Special Use Permit
Application for
Meadowmont Affordable Townhomes
Current Development Planner Rob Wilson noted that the applicant for the project was the Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC). He said a Special Use Permit was being requested to develop a 2.76 acre site located in the center of the Meadowmont community, at the southwest intersection of Meadowmont Lane and Sprunt Street. He said the site was north of the approved Village Center Special Use Permit and south of the Meadowmont Wellness Center Special Use Permit. Mr. Wilson pointed out, on a site-layout plan, where a total of 32 dwelling units would be located, in accordance with a Master Land Use Plan stipulation to provide 32 affordable housing units as part of the overall Meadowmont development.
He said the applicant was proposing 61 parking spaces. He pointed out the greenways trail on the western portion of the townhome site, and a transit corridor which ran through the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Wilson said the applicant was proposing to provide recreational space through a combination of a tot-lot and greenway. He said one issue that had followed the application was the mass transit easement, and the Triangle Transit Authority had recommended that no structure should be located closer than 40 feet from the 50-foot easement. He said the applicant had responded to this recommendation by locating the eastern-most dwelling unit to the western-most area of the site. Mr. Wilson said, with this change, the eastern-most dwelling was now 18 feet off the mass transit easement, which intruded into the 100-foot-wide greenways area. He said the staff believed that this intrusion was acceptable as long as an equal and adjacent offsetting triangle of land was reserved as open space behind the southwestern building on the site. Mr. Wilson said the staff’s preliminary recommendation was approval of the application with the adoption of Resolution A.
Council Member Brown asked why the staff felt the easement they recommended was adequate, since the Triangle Transit Authority had recommended a 40-foot easement. Mr. Wilson said he could not speak for the Triangle Transit Authority’s reasons, but the staff felt the applicant had a tight-spaced site, and if the applicant felt comfortable with it, the staff could go along with the recommendation. He said he would come back with an answer for the Triangle Transit Authority’s recommendation for 40-feet, as requested by Council Member Brown.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the condos would be surrounded by asphalt, given the parking lots for the grocery store on one side and the Wellness Center on the other. Mr. Wilson pointed out that the greenways open space would be on one side of the townhomes.
Mayor Waldorf asked where the Wellness Center building was located on the plan. Ms. Culpepper pointed out where the building and the parking lot were on the site map. She said the staff would bring back to the next public hearing meeting the Special Use Permit plan for the Wellness Center.
Council Member Foy asked if there was landscaping beside the pavement. Mr. Wilson said landscaping was proposed along the buffered edge.
Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing Corporation, described the site plan and explained that the Master Land Use Plan predetermined the use of the space and the number of units. He said the original proposal consisted of 25 two-bedroom units and 7 three-bedroom units, but after the experience with the Scarlette Drive townhomes, it was determined that the buyers preferred three-bedroom units. He said the plan was altered to 13 three-bedrooms, and 19 two-bedroom units. He said the eastern-most unit was moved to the western-most side, in response to comments from some of the advisory boards and commissions. Mr. Dowling said the dumpster would be accessed from the Village Center site and the buffer would be standard with the possibility of some help for additional buffering from the developers of the Village Center. He said the requirement for parking spaces was 55, but they could afford to lose 3 of the 61 proposed.
Mayor Waldorf asked why three parking spaces. Mr. Dowling said on an earlier proposal they had requested the minimum required, and had been requested to provide more. He said the transit easement would be a greenway for the time being and would be undisturbed.
Council Member Foy asked if there had been consideration given to moving the parking lot closer to the easement, and moving the houses further away. Mr. Dowling said the townhomes were planned to face the street. He said the transit system would not be in affect for another 10 to 15 years, and until then the last unit nearest the corridor would have woods beside it. He said there would be full disclosure when selling that last unit that transit would be running nearby, and possibly the unit would be less expensive for that reason. Mr. Dowling said he had lived near the El in Chicago and knew what the noise was like, but that people still lived near the El, in possibly less expensive homes.
Council Member Brown, stating she hoped this would not be like Chicago, wondered if there would be any way to redesign the plan to move the unit away from the corridor, in order to make living in that unit a more pleasant living experience.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy said the Planning Board had suggested moving one or two of the easternmost dwelling units to an alternative location on the site. She said the Planning Board had voted 8-1 to recommend that the Council approve the application for a Special Use Permit.
Dianne Bachman, Chair of the Community Design Commission reported the Community Design Commission’s vote was 8-1 for approval of the Special Use Permit, with conditions:
· That the connector street through this site is an undesirable component of the site plan. The Commission requests that the applicant do anything and everything that can be done to mitigate or eliminate this feature of the site plan.
· If the connector street remains, minimize the width of the street through the site in order to reduce cut-through traffic, while also utilizing other speed reduction techniques or applications, as appropriate.
· Relocate the two easternmost units (which are next to the transit easement) to the western edge of the site, near the greenway easement, noting that the Triangle Transit Authority is recommending a minimum of a 40-foot setback from the edge of the transit easement, while the applicant is proposing that the first unit be located 10 feet off of the transit easement.
· That on the eastern portion of the site, the applicant shift parking spaces from the northern edge of the parking lot (close to the townhomes) to the southern edge of the parking lot close to the village center site, (along the parking lot entrance.)
Ms. Bachman said one other issue raised was that a median on the residential collector road located along the northern edge of this site might reduce cut-through traffic on the connector street proposed through this development. She said the dissenting voter believed that the site plan did not effectively discourage cut-through traffic.
Council Member Bateman asked Ms. Bachman to point out where she was talking about cut-through traffic. Ms. Bachman pointed out, on the site plan map, the street dividing the townhouses.
Mayor Waldorf asked if that street was necessary. Ms. Bachman said the Community Design Commission had that question for the applicant as well.
Council Member Foy asked if the Community Design Commission had a suggested alternative. Ms. Bachman said it had been suggested that the access road come by the transit corridor, and circle around the townhomes into the Village Center.
Mayor pro tem Capowski pointed out that the street being discussed was not a street but a driveway into a parking lot. Ms. Bachman agreed and said that was the reason the Community Design Commission suggested moving it, because it would divide the neighborhood. Ms. Loewenthal said the staff would include this discussion for the January hearing.
Council Member Evans suggested a larger area map would be helpful for the Council. She felt all of the townhouses should have sidewalks in front of their doorways, and safety islands for people to walk on in order to get to the anchor store. She said she couldn’t tell if there were back decks or porches, and storage facilities. Council Member Evans asked if there would be a sidewalk to the dumpster and if the recycling would be near the dumpster. She asked if there would be on-street parking on Shunt Street and on the street dividing the townhomes. She asked if there would be street tree plantings along both of these roads. She asked to have the square footage of the units available for the next discussion.
Council Member Wiggins asked what these suggested changes would do to the cost of these affordable housing units.
Council Member McClintock said she would be interested in some kind of a proposal from the staff to offer these townhomes to Town employees on a first-come basis. She said she felt the design was flawed, with the townhouses being built so close to the transit corridor. She said she wanted the project to be done well, and shared the concern of the Community Design Commission on the dividing asphalt between the units.
Mayor pro tem Capowski told Mr. Dowling he knew he was doing the best he could with a poor site. He agreed with Council Member McClintock that the units were condos surrounded by asphalt.
Council Member Bateman asked if the buffer proposed was going to be the only buffer between the condos and the grocery store, and could the more lucrative developer provide it.
Council Member Wiggins asked for information about the distance between the Village West Townhouses and the railroad tracks beside them.
Council Member Foy asked Council Member Evans if she was asking for a stub-out to the Village Center or a pedestrian access, and what kind of connections did she have in mind. He stated it would be good for people to have a way to navigate to the retail center. Council Member Evans replied that she was not redesigning, but there needed to be a designated place where pedestrians could walk safely.
Council Member Foy asked Ms. Loewenthal if the Council had approved the parking lot Special Use Permit. Ms. Loewenthal replied that she believed it had been approved. Council Member Foy noted that the Council would have no control over the access.
Council Member Evans stated there would be a dumpster in the parking lot. Ms. Loewenthal replied that the dumpster was part of the original Special Use Permit for the Shopping Center.
Council Member Brown asked if the road dividing the units was part of the applicant’s design.
Mr. Dowling showed on the site plan map where the Village Center had its Special Use Permit approved and where the stub-out would be for the affordable townhomes. Mr. Wilson said the Master Land Use Plan did not contain the stub-out, but the Special Use Permit for the Village Center had approved it, but, if the Council desired, the site could be designed without that connection.
Council Member Brown suggested that the area could be used in some sort of redesign.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Dowling what his reaction would be to redesigning the road to connect to Shunt Street. Mr. Dowling said this current design made the most sense, and that moving the road it would take up more space. He pointed out where some sidewalks could be included.
Mayor Waldorf asked what the space was between the front of the building and the street edge. Mr. Dowling said the sidewalk would be less than five feet from the front of the building.
Council Member Brown asked the staff to bring information back to the Council on what impact a bus system would have, as well as a rail system. She pointed out that the decision had not been made yet by the Triangle Transit Authority as to route and what kind of transit they would be using.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, THAT 1000 FEET SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 10, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 3. Continuation of Pubic Hearing on Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Planning Director Roger Waldon said the staff was compiling the October 20th advisory board and citizen comments with responses for Council’s review at the November 23rd work session.
Dianne Bachman, Chair of the Community Design Commission, highlighted the recommendations of the Commission:
“Major Themes”
· Conserve and protect the natural setting of Chapel Hill. A key component of community character is the Town’s beautiful natural setting, including open spaces, meadows, forested areas, scenic vistas, natural wildlife habitat, creeks, lakes and wetlands. While some of these areas are identified and protected, others need to be inventoried and guidelines established for their conservation.
· Chapel Hill needs to be a major player in the regional planning process. Because of the growth of the region and its inevitable impact on Chapel Hill, the community cannot afford to try and maintain an isolated attitude. The community needs to be represented at the table of each entity influencing the planning and decision-making of the region.
· Chapel Hill needs to acknowledge that with the continued growth of the community and the university, parts of the Town are developing more urban character and form. The Town needs to provide and upgrade the type of services that the citizens of our community expect.
· Add the goal of attracting a spectrum of longer-term residents in the neighborhoods that encircle downtown, through the development of improved amenities, enhanced safety, and by utilizing other initiatives that encourage age and income diversity.
· Ensure that neighborhoods are actively involved in changes – i.e. when changes are proposed that would affect a neighborhood, emphasize that the proposed change(s) would be discussed and determined as part of a public process.
· Adopt the Downtown Small Area Plan Design Guidelines.
“Relations with the University/University Health Care System”
· Acknowledge that the University and UNC Hospitals bring an ever-increasing number of visitors and patients to the Town on a daily basis, and that more sidewalks and more transportation options are needed.
· Incorporate greater citizen involvement in the cooperative planning efforts between the Town and the University
“Regional Context”
· Call for regional cooperation with regard to transportation issues being generated by new residents located south and west of Chapel Hill.
· Continue investigating and pursuing state-enabling legislation to implement a Transfer of Development Rights program.
· Endorse the concept of a low-density research park rather than residential sprawl on large lots, on the land southeast of US 15-501 South with the objective of leaving as much undisturbed land as possible in this area, particularly environmentally sensitive areas.
· Pursue development of an area-wide map of wildlife corridors that could be enhanced and/or preserved.
“Economy and Employment”
· Investigate creative zoning opportunities that would promote small business development.
· Incorporate a strategy to ‘encourage creative development for not only high-tech development, but also for businesses that involve humanities and fine-art related endeavors.’
· Pursue mechanisms to promote and support the incubation and growth of entrepreneurial start-up businesses.
· Endorse and emphasize the need to ‘capture/generate tax revenues for the Town’ when the Horace Williams property develops.
· Support obtaining enabling legislation for a ‘Purchase of Development Rights’ (PDR) program. The Design Commission notes that strong Development Ordinance regulations will be needed to ensure effective and desirable use of a PDR program.
“Housing”
· Strong support was expressed for a rental-licensing program, with appropriate levels of enforcement.
· Support for density bonuses based on the provision of affordable housing.
· Continue incorporating Land Trust approaches as appropriate, in order to promote affordable housing.
· Provide zoning and development incentives that will ensure the construction of a range of housing types and sizes.
· Implement a more aggressive tree replacement policy along public rights-of-way.
· Revise the Development Ordinance to specify requirements for tree planting areas within the interior of parking lots for both new developments and redevelopment.
· Pursue development of a Town-wide inventory of natural areas and environmentally sensitive areas that need to be preserved. This inventory would then be incorporated into appropriate decision-making processes. Outside resources/organizations may be utilized to assist in the development of this inventory.
·
Provide a landscaped
median (with appropriate turning lanes at key locations) along Airport Road
from North Columbia Street to Homestead Road, to improve the overall appearance
of the community and to complement the new landscaped median along Airport Road
from Homestead Road to Weaver Dairy Road.
·
Explore alternative
transit approaches appropriate for the community.
·
When new development
and redevelopment occurs, ensure that development include adequate pedestrian
access.
·
Determine and
implement an approach to accommodate both bicycles and motor vehicles.
·
Aggressively pursue
employer transportation programs based on other municipal examples i.e. San
Francisco.
·
Cooperatively plan
with the University and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System to reduce the
number of student vehicles.
·
Modify the Town
Arterial Street Plan to include a road connecting Weaver Dairy Road Extension
to the intersection of Rogers Road and Eubanks Road.
“Community Facilities”
·
Charge non-Chapel Hill
residents market-driven fees for using Town programs.”
Ms. Bachman added that the last sheet of the Community
Design Commission recommendations was a list of grammar/syntax to be
incorporated into the overall Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Foy asked if the Community Design Commission
had given consideration to a median on Franklin Street. Ms. Bachman said it had
not been discussed, but certainly the Community Design Commission was endorsing
landscaping throughout the Town.
Council Member Brown pointed out that a median on Franklin
Street had been discussed several years before and the Council had rejected the
idea.
Catherine Holland, long-time resident and property owner in
Chapel Hill and owner of The Herb Holland Company, a property-management firm,
said she was concerned with the rental-licensing portion of the Long Range
Plan. She cited the current ordinance, which stated that there could be no more
than four unrelated persons renting a property, and said if it was enforced
there should be no reason for creating more rules and regulations. She asked
how thorough a 30-minute inspection was, what was included, who would schedule
the appointments, would a person from the rental office be required to
accompany the inspector, would the Town be responsible for any liability, and
who would be charged for the inspections. She suggested that the Council use
the expertise of the rental companies in the Town to design any new plan for
the rental market.
Mayor pro tem Capowski mentioned that this specific item on
rental licensing would be discussed at the meeting on Monday night next.
Stephen Mills said he represented several rental property
owners who were opposed to the rental licensing proposal in the Comprehensive
Plan, and that he would return next Monday night, when the Council would be
specifically considering this matter, with the reasons for the opposition.
Martin Rody, member of the Community Design Commission, said that two themes ran through the Comprehensive Plan: one was fiscal responsibility and the other, environmental concerns. He said that 300+ acres in the southern part of the community in the Land Use Plan called for one dwelling unit per acre. He felt this was environmentally irresponsible because of the topography of the land, where roads would take up 20-25 percent of the land, and getting sites would take another 10-15 percent of the land. He said there would then be the need for another school, because of the additional school-age children living in the 300 houses. Mr. Rody recommended the area be considered as a research park. He said he supported the extension of the Weaver Dairy Road Extension into Carrboro.
Gordon Mitchell said he objected to the fact that the people who wanted to discuss the rental licensing were advised to wait until the Monday night meeting, when it would be discussed. He said they intended to discuss it in reference to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mitchell said he was representing two clients. He said he had many clients come to him looking for a place to operate or expand their small service business, but, because of the restrictive zoning in Chapel Hill, were unable to find any land. He cited the land in the Northeast Area Land Use Plan, which he said would be suitable for these services. Mr. Mitchell said his client, James Edwards, had such a piece of property on Eubanks Road and requested the Council to designate this land, in the Comprehensive Plan, as O-I, or Light Industrial, or Employment Zone, but not Residential.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Mitchell the identity of the owner and the use of the property south of the property owned by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Mitchell said the land immediately south of Mr. Edwards’s property belonged to his sister, whose name did not know.
Mr. Mitchell spoke on behalf of Tom Hogan, a client, owner of land west of Interstate 40, and both sides of Clyde Road, which is designated Mixed Use/Residential. Mr. Hogan asked Mr. Mitchell to request that this land be continued at a minimum of one-acre lots, and to continue as Mixed Use zoning with a preference to changing all the land to Mixed Use/O & I zoning.
Louise Beck, real estate operator and property owner representative, said that licensing inspections would be costly and time-consuming. She said she would have to pass the cost on to the property owner, who would then have to pass the cost along to the tenant. She said there would have to be numerous inspectors to handle the volume during the peak rental times between May and September. She said the Town needed to address the specific problems, rather than licensing and fees, as the costs would ultimately be passed on to the tenants—students and lower-income workers.
Jack Smyre, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., followed-up on his comments at the October 20th hearing. He said they were seeking clarification for the Mixed Use Office Emphasis areas, requesting that all the properties be included in that designation, and acknowledgement that the pump station location on Old Field Creek was going to make the urban services area designation possible. He suggested the addition of three words to clarify exactly where hospitality uses fell, acknowledging that these were a complimentary use of the office use designation.
Phil Post, speaking for the Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber had some added suggestions. He said, in the Northwest Area Plan, the suggestion was to add an employment center and urged the fastest possible adoption of a revision of the Mixed Use Ordinance, in order to implement it on the smaller sites. Mr. Post said the Chamber suggested some selected affordable housing units in the southern portion of Town. He passed out a composite map showing transit stops, mixed-use centers, and potential development centers all on the one map.
Eric Plow said he would return to speak to the rental licensing issue on the following Monday, but he owned two units and the licensing did not make any sense. He said he kept his licensing units in good shape because of the competition of other rentals and the fear of liability.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE STAFF IN PREPARATION FOR THE COUNCIL’S WORK SESSION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON NOVEMBER 23, 1999.
Council Member Brown requested the staff to prepare map overlays, for the next hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, in order to compare old maps with new ones.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Hawkins if most of the work on the Comprehensive Plan had been done before the University announced its expansion plan. Mr. Hawkins said those plans were interfaced with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the Comprehensive Plan Group had advised the University to expand on its main campus to the south, or to build on the Horace Williams Tract. Mr. Hawkins said the Group did not presume to make that kind of judgment, as it was a matter for the University to decide.
Council Member McClintock asked the staff for some pros and cons on the sewer question on Eubanks Road.
THE MOTION WAS
ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Senior Engineering Coordinator Mike Neal summarized the background for this evening’s public hearing. He said in June of 1998, the Lake Ellen Homeowners Association brought to the attention of the Council the detrimental effects of soil erosion and sedimentation on Lake Ellen, after which the Council convened a panel of experts to discuss soil erosion and sedimentation issues at a work session in January 1999. Mr. Neal said in October the Council received a preliminary report discussing the following enforcement and penalty issues, and called this evening’s Public Hearing to receive comments from interested citizens:
1. Ways to hold individuals responsible for soil erosion and/or sedimentation related damages.
2. Soil erosion and sedimentation bonds, which could be applied to stream and pond restoration if damages occur.
3. The appeal process for violations.
4. The process for mitigating violations.
5. The process for assessing fines for violations.
Mr. Neal said, after receiving comments, the staff would respond back to the Council after the first of the year.
Dr. Philip Burke, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said he was pleased at many of the efforts in the Sediment Control Ordinance, but said there was still a way to go. He wondered at the zoning on the map, with the emphasis on the construction activity. Dr. Burke added that some of the built-out watersheds had toxins, sedimentation and erosion resulting from pavements, which had a long-term effect. He suggested more creative development, such as the City of Olympia had.
Council Member Bateman asked Dr. Burke if there was a contact person and a name for the study made by the City of Olympia. Dr. Burke said he would get that information back to the Council, along with some suggestions for creative development.
Council Member McClintock asked the staff what happened to the builder after the bond issue was implemented. She asked what the roles of the Erosion Control Officer from Orange County, the Town Manager, and the Board of Adjustment were, and how this was different from the way it was now being done. Mayor Waldorf responded that the Council had previously determined that if the County resources were too stretched the Town would give itself the authority to impose this, and the Town had created a position.
Council Member McClintock asked how much the assessment of a civil penalty would be. Attorney Karpinos said that information would be coming to the Council in the second phase report on Monday night along with the rest of the questions on sedimentation control.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 10, 1999 AND TO REFER THE CITIZEN COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE TO THE MANAGER AND STAFF. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY. (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.