DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, January 8, 2007, AT 7:00 p.m.
Present were Mayor Kevin Foy, Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, Council Member Laurin Easthom, Council Member Sally Greene, Council Member Cam Hill, Council Member Ed Harrison, Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, Council Member Bill Thorpe, and Council Member Jim Ward.
Staff members present were Town Manager Roger Stancil, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Planner Dana Stidham, Engineer Services Manager Kumar Neppalli, Stormwater Management Engineer Sue Burke, Interim Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Kline.
Mayor pro tem Strom opened the meeting and announced that Mayor Foy had been attending a Mayors’ Conference. His plane was delayed and he hoped to be at the meeting within the hour, Mayor pro tem Strom explained.
1. Ceremonies: None.
2. Public Hearing: None.
3. Petitions by citizens and announcements by Council members.
a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Orange County Human Relations regarding Duties and Responsibilities.
Joe Nanny, a member of the Orange County Human Relations Commission, invited the Council to participate in the agency’s Human Relations Month events. The kick-off event will be on Sunday, February 4th from 2:30 - 5:00 p.m. at the Carrboro Century Center, he said. Mr. Nanny explained that the theme would be "Wealth, Color, Class."
2. Orange County Commission for Women regarding Summary of Women’s Agenda Assembly.
Megan Morris, a Commission member, gave a summary of an event held on October 12, 2006 to share opinions and prioritize issues for the upcoming state legislative session. She said that access to health care, education, and economic self-sufficiency were separated into smaller issues and then voted on.
3. Historic District Commission regarding Certificate of Appropriateness Application Fee.
Sara David, a member of the Historic District Commission, asked the Council to consider a petition to reduce the Certificate of Appropriateness application fee.
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Receive and Refer the petition to the Town Manager. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
4. Kidzu Children’s Museum regarding a Proposal to Lease 179 E. Franklin Street.
Jonathan Mills, board president of the Kidzu Children’s Museum, presented a petition for a proposal to lease 179 E. Franklin Street, beginning in January 2009. He stated that the idea is to create a mixed use facility that would include the post office operations, and would also serve as the new home for the Children’s Museum. Mr. Mills announced that the Museum will reopen on January 23rd with an exhibit of Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. He invited everyone to visit the Museum.
Mr. Jonathan Mills, with the Kidzu Children’s Museum, asked to be allowed to thank people in the audience, and to ask them to stand in support of their petition.
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Receive and Refer the petition to the Town Manager. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
6. Endurance Magazine regarding a proposal to conduct a March to Madness Half-Marathon event.
Steve Lackey, publisher of Endurance Magazine, explained a
proposal to conduct a Half-Marathon event in Chapel Hill in March. He
stated that he hoped this would become a landmark event for future
races. The event will benefit Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA Stronger Kids
campaign.
Council Member Easthom stated that she felt this event was for a good cause,
and that she will fully support it.
Mayor pro tem Strom stated that he would hope the Council could respond by
January 22nd, if possible.
Mr. Lackey said that the Carrboro Alderman will be voting on this event in
February.
Council Member Ed Harrison MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Receive and Refer the petition to the Town Manager. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
5. Planning Board regarding Tree Protection.
Tom Jenson, speaking on behalf of the Tree Protection
Subcommittee of the Planning Board, said that the Subcommittee
had decided that Chapel Hill needs to make major
revisions to its tree protection ordinance. He said that
the recommended changes would be so extensive, that they
advise hiring a consultant with expertise in this area, and give time
to go over the suggested revisions, with significant community
input. Mr. Jenson said that the overall vision of the process in Chapel Hill
is no net loss of trees and canopy cover, and that the Town should increase
its trees in proportion to population growth. He said that the
subcommittee’s short-term recommendation is for tree protection to be
decoupled from the building permit process, so that it applies to all land
disturbance on single-family and two-family lots. Mr. Jenson said that
the Subcommittee would also like to reduce the minimum diameter of
the trees that need to be surveyed, perhaps from 18 inches to 12 inches,
for example.
Mr. Jenson said, in the long term, that the Subcommittee would
like to see the creation of a permitting process for tree removal in Chapel Hill,
and impose fines on individuals who do not abide by the
ordinance. The money from the fines would go into a Town Tree Fund that
would be used for landscaping public property and streetscape, he said.
Mr. Jenson told the Council that the Committee was also recommending forming a
Tree Protection Board to investigate appeals.
Council Member Greene asked Mr. Jensen to clarify having tree protection
decoupled from the building permit process, and to explain what it has to do
with clear cutting of lots.
Mr. Jenson explained that people are clear cutting their lots independent of
the building permit process. It is degrading neighborhoods, and the
Subcommittee would like to have it stopped, he said.
Council Member Greene added that it sometimes applies to lots that
are not built on. She said that the proposed revision would
make the 5,000 sq. ft. of land disturbance apply to the cutting of
the trees, rather than the building of a property. She stated that
this was a problem that the Council had heard about.
Council Member Thorpe asked to make sure that people living in existing
homes do not have to go through too much of a process to have a tree
removed.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Jenson how much staffing this would involve.
Mr. Jensen replied that Town staff would determine that.
Council Member Ward asked if other communities that have a tree
ordinance have some resources on staff.
Mr. Jensen said they would get that information from other communities
and forward it to the Council.
Council Member Sally Greene MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Ed Harrison, TO Receive and Refer the petition to the Town Manager. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
4. Consent agenda: action items (R-1).
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Adopt R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2007-01-08/R-1)
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2007-01-08/R-2)
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNCIL’S 2006-2007 MEETING CALENDAR (2007-01-08/R-3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OPEN SPACE BOND FUND FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (2007-01-08/O-1c)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ORDINANCE FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS (2007-01-08/O-2b)
5. Information items.
Council Member Greene, with regard to agenda item #5a, the Human Services Needs Report, asked that there be conversations between the staff liaison of the Human Services Advisory Board and Loryn Clark, of the Town Planning staff, who is working on the county homelessness initiative. She said there seemed to be some overlap in the mission, and that the Board might be able to contribute to the homelessness initiative.
All other information reports were accepted by consensus of the Council.
6. Presentation of Video Public Service Announcements (R-7).
Deputy Town Manager Flo Miller asked the Council to accept three
public service announcements that had been prepared by a UNC journalism
class, led by Professor Richard Simpson and Adjunct Professor Bruce Curran,
which will be available for viewing on Channel 18. She said that
Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko had worked very closely with the
class. Ms. Miller explained that the public service announcements
were produced for the Town at no charge. She gave the titles of
the the announcements: "Take your bike on a bus ride";
"What does it mean to be a good neighbor?;" and "Chapel Hill has
a robust system of paved trails for use by pedestrians, joggers,
rollerbladers and bicyclists." The Council then viewed the videos.
Professor Simpson stated that he has taught the Journalism class since
1994 and they have produced about 55 videos over the years. He said that
students do the work, professionals shoot the film, and then students do
all of the film editing.
Professor Curran said the program provides a tremendous opportunity for
students to learn. He said commercial public service announcements can cost up
to $15,000 to $20,000 to produce. It is a great opportunity for the
University to contribute to the community, and it is excellent hands-on
training for the students, Professor Curran said.
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Adopt R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
7. Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment Modifications to the Permitted Mix of Uses in the Mixed Use Office/Institutional-1 Zoning District.
8. The Residences at Chapel Hill North: Request for Partial Revocation of the Chapel Hill North Phase I Special Use Permit and Application for a Phase II Special Use Permit.
Mayor pro tem Strom explained that agenda items #7 and #8
were closely related and the Council would take public comment on both
agenda items simultaneously.
Principal Planner Phil Mason introduced the information on the Land Use
Management Ordinance Text Amendment, Partial Revocation on Phase I Special Use
Permit and the associated Special Use Permit application for the multifamily
development at Chapel Hill North projects. The Land Use
Management Text amendment would change the mix of uses and ratios and Mixed
Use-Office/Institutional MUO/I-1 zoning district that covers the Chapel Hill site.
Partial revocation of the phase 1 SUP would shrink the phase 1
boundary. The third Special Use Permit application is the
special use permit for 123 multi-family dwelling units on the site. The
primary change of this application is the east west public right-of-way
from Perkins Drive extending over to University Station Road where there may be
a connection in the future. We recommend the Council enact the
ordinance amending the text in LUMO for the MUO/I-1 and adopt R-8a to
partially revoke the Phase I special use permit, and we
recommend Resolution B for proposed Special Use Permit.
Mr. Mason stated there were a number of questions the Council had at the last
public hearing and he feels the memorandum answers those questions.
He asked if the Council has specific questions he can answer.
Council Member Kleinschmidt referred to Agenda #8
memorandum concerning the affordable housing. He understands the
staff has concerns with the applicants affordable housing proposal, he
said. Council Member Kleinschmidt inquired about the
alternative the staff is proposing. Does it require Town Manager
approval, and to what measure, he asked.
Mr. Mason stated that in stipulation #4 is a generalized list of what
the Town would expect in an affordable housing plan, which would be
reviewed prior to a zoning compliance permit. The applicant proposed an
alternative and will present it to the Council tonight, he said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if stipulation #4 is what would be required
before a zoning compliance permit would be issued.
J. B. Culpepper explained stipulation #4, which gives a basic indication
provision of 15 percent and identifies a number of items. The applicant
was proposing to round down the 15 percent and the Town felt it should
be at least 15 percent for affordable housing. The staff has
concerns about the applicant’s proposal and asked for guidance from the
Council, Ms. Culpepper said. She said the Council could also give
general guidance to the staff and during the final zoning permit stage of
review staff would have the details of the affordable housing.
Council Member Kleinschmidt had a concern about the applicant’s
proposal. He questioned the provision about rental units and
the ability to rent them at a market rate after three weeks of initial
occupancy. He asked Ms. Culpepper if there was a concern about this.
Ms. Culpepper answered yes and the concern is linked to the income
eligibility threshold because if you have a lower percentage income eligibility
it casts a broader net as far as potential renters.
Mr. Mason announced there were two additional stipulations for
Resolution B Special Use Permit for street lights and stub-out signage for
the public right-of-way that will run from Perkins Drive over to University Station
Road. He said stipulation #29 pertains to recreation space
requirements, adding that the recreation space figure was not correct, the
correct figure is 31,100. He said this does not represent a reduction in
recreation space, it was how the Parks and Recreation Commission determined
what is viable recreation space, and 31,100 meets Town ordinance requirements.
Scott Radway distributed a copy of the revised site plan in color, along
with affordable housing information and technical changes the applicant
feels is appropriate in a few of the stipulations and outlined the
recreation program.
Mr. Radway explained affordable housing and how it has changed in the
design. He explained the site plan and referred to surrounding
neighborhoods and retail areas. He stated the proposal includes 123
dwelling units, 24 town homes and 99 flats. There will be free
standing garages and parking beneath flats. The clubhouse is
internal to the main building. He compared existing apartment units
in the area including Timberlyne Apartments, which has 144 units, and 83
Magnolia has 240 units that abuts to single neighborhoods.
Mr. Radway said key issues include: public street connections, area
transportation analysis, stormwater pond, Master Land Use Plan, revised
Transit impact analysis recommendation, pedestrian connections, bike and
pedestrian traffic signals, street and retail area lighting and access,
greenways path locations, and affordable housing.
Mr. Radway gave an overview of the revised site plan proposal
which included the public road connections, access to rear of existing retail,
proposed roundabout to slow traffic flow, the I-40 buffer, the easement owned
by Duke energy. There will be 24 town homes and three building flats
over 99 parking spaces, a central courtyard, and recreation facilities, he
said.
Mr. Radway said the residential would generate at peak hours about 25
percent of the amount of traffic that office development would on the same
piece of property. He stated that this would be a smaller amount of
traffic coming from the project.
Mr. Radway explained the proposed offsite pedestrian improvements. On
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., there will be a crosswalk to Chapel Hill North,
a pedestrian signal for the crosswalk, a sidewalk to the bus stop, and a
bus shelter payment up to $10,000. On Weaver Dairy Road, there will be a
crosswalk north to south side of Weaver Dairy Road and a crosswalk on Perkins Drive at
Weaver Dairy Road. Internal to the Chapel Hill North retail/office
spaces there will be a crosswalk on Perkins Drive with an entry to the retail
space and a crosswalk at a new public road location.
Mr. Radway explained the proposed offsite roadway improvements. On Perkins Drive
at Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., the Town and DOT have recommended that
the right Town lane be re-striped and remarked to allow right turns and left
turns and also re-time the traffic light at MLK Blvd. He said on the Weaver Dairy
Road at Perkins Drive improvements will be a traffic median in Weaver Dairy
Road to create right in and right out only for Perkins Drive.
Mr. Radway stated that the developer does not agree with the staff
recommendation for inclusionary affordable housing. He felt the staff
does not have experience in rental affordable housing. The developer
would like to to have price controlled rental dwelling units. The
rental units will be either one or two bedroom units distributed throughout the
development, he said.
Mr. Radway stated there will be a bracketed income range target. He felt
the target maximum income of 60 percent of median was not acceptable, he said,
adding that he was more comfortable with a 65-80 percent of median
income. If the Council chose to keep it at 60 percent, the developer will
have to reduce the number of dwelling units. He also said the there will
be provision for conversion to home ownership if the residential development
changes to a condominium ownership development.
Mr. Radway requested that the plan be approved by the Town Manager prior
to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Mr. Radway pointed out the proposed stipulation changes. Stipulation #4
addresses affordable housing; #6 new public road connection; #8, traffic
calming measures; #11-25 design before zoning compliance permit approval - construction
before certificates of occupancy; #21 sidewalk connection at Weaver Dairy Road
and Perkins Drive; #22-23 greenway trail locations and amounts; 329 recreation
space square foot correction; and #33 southern landscape buffer.
Mr. Radway stated that language of stipulation #11-25 is confusing and
said he would like it clarified by staff.
Del Snow stated she felt that the LUMO text amendment is not necessary for the
project to proceed. Amending the LUMO would open the door for
University Station and two other projects on 15-501 and 54, and these projects
have not come to the Council for review as yet, she said. Ms. Snow
asked the Council to analyze all of the projects that are in
different development stages, making sure they would mesh with existing
neighborhoods. She requested a delay on approval of the projects.
Amy Chute said that she feels it is a big concession for citizens to give
up right and left turn at Perkins Drive at Weaver Dairy Road. She would
like this renegotiated with the Department of Transportation. She feels
they do not understand how important it is to keep a right turn option at that
intersection. Ms. Chute does not agree with the $10,000 payment
in lieu of a bus shelter, she said. She proposed that the developer
build a shelter and have the shelter ready for residents on the first day of
occupancy.
Mr. Hank Elkins said he is concerned about air quality
problems. He said residents living close to I-40 increased chances
of pollutants which can cause asthma, wheezing, and reduced lung capacity.
Mr. Seymour Freed said he had two letters from Thomas Allman and Betty
Grant asking that the vote on the text amendment be postponed until after the
University Station Station development is discussed in February. He
stated University Station project is too close to I-40. He said he feels
there will be no federal funding to subsidize affordable housing at The
Residences due to normally unacceptable status of the noise from I-40.
Mayor Kevin Foy arrived at 8:32 p.m.
Don Sweezey said he agrees with staff analysis of the needs
on Chapel Hill North. He is in favor of residential in the
area, he said, but has major concerns about the use of the text
amendment process as a solution to those needs. It will change the requirements
for properties outside of Chapel Hill North. The text amendment
will virtually eliminate existing requirements for commercial and office
use for the west half of the University Station property, Mr. Sweezey
said. He asked not to make a decision until finding out what the
impacts will be beyond the Chapel Hill North property.
Richard Wasiko referred to a letter he submitted to Council. He agrees
with Mr. Sweeney that if the Council amends the text amendment it will amend
for all subsequent developments in the future. He asked the Council to postpone
their decision tonight until they have heard the presentation on University
Station.
Phylis Pomeranz asked the Council to delay its
decision on changes in LUMO and approval of Residences at Chapel Hill
North until the Council has a wider discussion on all the developments being
planned for northern Chapel Hill.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he supported Ms. Snow’s petition when it
came to Council last year. He said the Council makes good decisions when
taking a step back and has gotten a full picture and taken the time to
understand the ramifications of proposals and how they will interplay with the
entire community. He suggested that both public hearings
(Agenda items #7 and #8) be recessed and continued to February
12th.
Mr. Radway asked the Council if there was any direction to give to the staff.
Mayor Foy said that the Council needs more comprehensive information for this
sector of Town.
Mr. Radway said the applicant had proposed a different manner of LUMO
changes that would not have brought up questions that were asked tonight.
Council Member Greene felt there is friction on affordable housing between the
applicant’s proposal and what the staff’s response. She stated the
applicant has a valid point regarding affordable housing. She said
what the applicant is proposing is fundamentally in line with what the
Inclusionary Task Force has been thinking of, which is, instead of rounding up
the number rounding down that fraction as a payment in lieu. Council
Member Greene said she would like the to staff work more closely with the
applicant.
Council Member Easthom said transit impacts are huge, and she asked staff
to look at what would happen if there is no left turn from Perkins to Weaver Dairy
Road. Council Member Easthom asked how the median across Weaver Dairy
Road would impact the left turn from Banks onto Weaver Dairy.
She feels there could be some other options the staff could present to the
Council on traffic impact, she said.
Council Member Ward said he was uncomfortable about the rental
market. He said that inevitably units are turned into condos at some
point. He agrees with citizens about removal of the left turn on
Perkins to Weaver Dairy Road. He feels a traffic light is needed
there. He said that the health concerns addressed would like
guidance from the staff to understand this better as the Council looks at this
and other projects. He said he does not understand why there is not a bus
stop on Perkins Drive. Council Member Ward mentioned the concern
that Del Snow had brought up about the intensity of projects in the area,
adding that it was a concern for him as well. He said he
was interested in the staff’s response to how the Council can manage the
interests in developing this area in a coordinated, reasonable fashion.
Mr. Radway answered Council Member Ward’s question concerning the bus stop on
Perkins. He said there is a bus shelter on Perkins Drive and a
bus pull-off. There is not a bus route in use at this time, he said,
noting that other locations of bus stops are on the west side of Martin
Luther King Jr. Blvd. and another bus stop is at the corner of Weaver Dairy
Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. These stops have two
different routes, Mr. Radway pointed out.
Council Member Ward asked the staff to provide information on bus stops
and any future projects off Perkins Drive.
Council Member Harrison said there needs to be dual movement at Perkins,
and it needs to be kept as a right and left turn out. He said this delay
may give the Council a chance to modify the project enough to address that
concern of the intersection and engage in a discussion with the Department
of Transportation.
Council Member Ed Harrison MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Continue the Public Hearings on the Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment Modifications and the request for Partial Revocation of Chapel Hill North until February 12, 2007. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
9. Fairway Hill Subdivision - Application for Preliminary Plat Approval.
Mr. Poveromo introduced the proposal to subdivide five acres
into four residential lots. He explained that a citizen had proposed
that this did not comply with the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance
(LUMO). Mr. Poveromo said the staff had reviewed the
issue, and had concluded that it did comply with the LUMO.
He offered four options for Council
consideration, reviewing each and explaining that the staff was
recommending Resolution 9a, which would approve the subdivision with
Option 1b.
Megan Crumpleton, representing the applicant, Gene Rayfield, said the
staff’s recommendation supported the applicant’s proposal, with the
exception of the proposed recreation area. She said the proposal
meets the LUMO requirements for the recreation area, and that a
payment-in-lieu was not justifiable. Ms. Crumpleton asked the
Council to adopt revised Resolution A with Option 1a.
Tony Lindsay, whose property backs up to a piece of the development,
expressed concerns about the road and its deviation to the south
side. He said the applicant would remove enormous
numbers of trees. Mr. Lindsay said it would be much
simpler to just expand the current road. Also, he said, this road
would exacerbate the area’s drainage problems.
Mr. Lindsay said that the back of his property had become a playground for
the neighborhood. He expressed concern about neighborhood
children’s safety with a road so close to the area. Mr.
Lindsay asked the Council to support Resolution B, put forth by the
Transportation and Planning Boards.
Mark Emanual expressed concern about the driveway being too close to his
property. He said that cutting so many trees would
cause erosion to his side.
Art Chansky noted that the road would be heavily traveled,
because people would use the cul-de-sac to drop off their children at
the walking pass to the soccer fields between lots two and
three. He said the proposed road would invade privacy, be a safety
and security hazard for children, tear up the land, lower
property values, and create further stormwater problems. Mr.
Chansky told Council members that he and his wife had spent $30,000
because of the Town’s poor stormwater planning, and that they were
now at risk again by this neighbor’s plans. He asked the Council to
support Resolution B, which would require the applicant to build
the road in the middle of the property where buffers on both sides are
protected.
Council Member Hill asked if the applicant would agree
to Resolution B.
Ms. Crumpleton replied that the applicant was not interested in Resolution
B. She said they had proposed Resolution A, which is the one that
the staff had also recommended. Ms. Crumpleton added that the
applicant was not proposing anything that it was not allowed to do. She
said the design allowed the applicant to create a recreation area that
would add character and use to the subdivision.
Mayor pro tem Strom moved to close the public hearing. Council
Member Kleinschmidt seconded.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that property north of this
was currently being subdivided. He asked the applicant about
perhaps shifting the road the other way where there is no
one yet living. Then those people could buy the property
with full knowledge of the road’s proximity, Council Member Kleinschmidt
pointed out.
Ms. Crumpleton replied that having the road cut to the north would eliminate
the opportunity for one of the four lots in the
subdivision. With regard to photos that neighbors had
presented, Ms. Crumpleton commented that the driveway shown
was not an example of what the road would be like. No matter
where the road is placed, she said, trees will have to be cut
down.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Ms. Crumpleton if she agreed that
there were significantly fewer trees planted in the middle of that driveway,
than there were on the border of the applicant’s property and the
Meadowmont properties just to the south. She said there were no
trees planted on the existing driveway, and she did not
know the difference in number.
Council Member Greene pointed out that there was a difference between the
staff’s and the applicant’s proposal, and that difference had to do with the
payment-in-lieu. She said she almost always favors a payment-in lieu
because of the direct benefit of Town money going to public parks.
Council Member Greene asked, if the Council were to follow
the staff’s recommendation to not allow recreation on the site, then
what would be the benefit of having the road on the side, rather than down
the the middle?
Ms. Crumpleton replied that the applicant intends to build the
recreation space that they have proposed. They do not need to
enhance other recreation space, when they can provide it themselves, she said,
adding that such an option is available to them. In fact, it is
required in the LUMO, Ms. Crumpleton said.
Council Member Ward inquired about the width of the current driveway,
versus the proposed road. Ms. Crumpleton deferred to the applicant’s
engineer, Mike Neal, who said that the two-lane road would be more than twice
the width of the driveway.
Mr. Chansky returned to the podium and explained that there would also be
37 feet of buffer on each side, and a 45-foot
right-of-way.
Council Member Thorpe said he had gone to the site and walked
the land, which is in his neighborhood. He said
he felt bothered by the applicant fighting so hard to
resist moving the road over. Council Member Thorpe pointed
out that the Council had just indicated that they did not want trees cut,
if possible. He verified with Mr. Karpinos that payments-in-lieu
generally go into a pool that could be used for something nearby, or
something farther away, depending upon the Parks & Recreation
Department’s determination of need.
Council Member Bill Thorpe MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Cam Hill, TO Close the Public Hearing. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Hill moved Resolution B, stating that he did
not believe Resolution A met regulations. Mr. Poveromo verified
that the Council was interested in taking the recommendation of
the Planning Board. He explained that doing so would mean approving Option
2a. Mr. Poveromo proposed that the Council recommend
Option 2a and Option 2 on page six. The latter
included language that would align the street down the center of the
property, he said.
Council Member Hill replied that this is what he wanted. Mayor
Foy repeated that the motion was for Resolution A,
substituting Stipulation 5 with language on page 6 under
"new road location." Mr. Poveromo noted that the resolution
included the payment-in-lieu.
Council Member Cam Hill MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Adopt R-9b as amended. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
10. Revision of Town’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
Sue Burke gave an overview of the Flood Prevention Ordinance.
Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, TO Adjourn the Public Hearing. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, TO Enact O-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
11. Report on Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments: Changes to Vehicular and Bicycle Parking Regulations.
J.B. Culpepper outlined a text amendment proposal to
change the Town’s parking requirements based on local data and national
standards. She asked the Council for guidance on how to proceed.
Mayor Foy verified that the Council had last looked at this issue in May 2005,
and had sent it to the Transportation Board. He noted that the
Council could consider the item on February 12th, or might reopen the
public hearing. Mayor Foy commented that opening the public hearing might
lead to another two-year delay.
Mayor pro tem Strom and Council Member Kleinschmidt urged moving forward,
and Mayor Foy suggested putting it on the February 12th agenda for a
public hearing and possible Council action.
Mayor pro tem Strom asked Ms. Culpepper to take extra care at the public
hearing to spell out the implications of the different recommendations.
He noted that the Council was interested in eliminating parking in the Town
center, but said that he was not interested in increasing parking at
other locations.
Mayor Foy agreed that the Council wanted to eliminate parking in the Town
Center and set maximums everywhere else.
Ms. Culpepper said the proposal before the Council in May 2005 had
been to adjust the minimum parking requirements, based on local
data. However, the Planning Bard had recommended establishing
maximum parking requirements, she said. Ms. Culpepper explained
that the May 2005 proposal was to test the waters by having maximums
in the Town Center, while adjusting the minimums elsewhere in Town.
Mayor pro tem Strom spoke in favor of what Mayor Foy had
outlined.
Ms. Culpepper and the Council agreed to address this on February
26th rather than February 12th.
12. Chapel Hill-Carrboro-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Long Range Transit Plan Contract (R-10)
Mr. Stancil recommended adopting the resolution authorizing the
Town Manager to enter into a contract and execute a Memo of
Agreement establishing the funding arrangement.
Council Member Thorpe verified with Mr. Stancil that the MPO, UNC, and Carrboro
were all sharing the cost with Chapel Hill.
Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Adopt R-10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
13. Revised Phasing Plan for the Southern Community Park Project (R-11).
Mr. Webster reviewed the proposal to revise the phasing plan
for the Southern Community Park. Staff believed the Town
could build the park for about $3.5 million, based on recent cost
estimates, with the funding that is in place, he said. Referring to
pages two and three of the memo, Mr. Webster noted a list of
items that would be on a revised phasing plan. He noted
that a primary change would be the elimination of all parking lots,
with total reliance on park and ride lots. Mr. Webster listed
other proposals in the report, such as building one rather than
three, athletic fields. He proposed postponing one of
the two basketball courts and the in-line hockey court.
Mayor Foy asked why the bid could not be broken up in such a way that
the add-ons would include everything in the current plan. That
way, the Town could pull in whatever it wants when it gets
the bid, he said.
Mr. Webster replied that there were complications due
to options for grading. However, he said, the staff certainly
could request such bids, especially south of Dogwood Acres Drive, since
that could be bid as a package.
Mayor Foy said this was what he wanted to see. He pointed
out that the Council needed to know how much things cost,
because they might be able to get the Town’s partners to help with
funding.
Mr. Webster replied that a phasing plan would be needed in
the event that the Town was not able to build all elements of the
Park. It would be helpful if the Council had a phasing plan to relocate
the two items that they were proposing be relocated to the northern
parking lot, he said. Mr. Webster explained that if this was not done as
part of a phasing plan, then it would be something different from what the SUP
allows.
Mayor Foy noted that the resolution did not need to be approved today, but
only when the Council addressed the bids. Ms. Culpepper agreed
that was the case.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he still had hope that the Town could
build the Park as envisioned. However, the
Council needed information that would give them the opportunity to
talk with the Town’s partners, and evaluate what resources the Town
itself wants to put into the project, he said. Mayor pro tem
Strom commented that the Park would be a great investment.
He did not want to be locked into these phasing plans alone, he said,
because he wanted to pursue other funds.
Mr. Webster replied that staff could expand the bidding process to include
everything they can, while keeping the base bid to the program that is
before the Council, unless the Council wished to see something
different in the base bid. He stressed that Council members
must let him know if they want to change the base bid, because that
must reflect the budget.
Mayor pro tem Strom said he would like to be able to tell the County
Commissioners, for example, exactly what the additional soccer
fields would cost.
Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed, noting that soccer field funds were being
spent elsewhere in the County. The Council needs to know how much
things cost in order to get the funds to where people actually live, he
said.
Council Member Easthom pointed out that a church on MLK Boulevard was no
longer allowing its land to be used for Rainbow Soccer.
Mayor Foy verified that staff would bring back the information the
Council was seeking. Council Member Ward clarified that the
information would include everything that the Town can afford, plus
the temporary relocation of the dog park and the meadow close to the
existing park & ride lot, plus the elements south of Dogwood Acres
Drive. Graded areas in Phase Two would be used for
alternate park elements, he said.
Mr. Webster replied that this was correct, and that staff were
suggesting that because the financial gap had previously been so
great, they could not negotiate a solution. Whatever they bid must be
close enough to reality that they could, if short, sit down and negotiate in
good faith with the low bidder, he said.
Mr. Karpinos explained that, according to the statute, when bids
come in over budget, the Town can negotiate with the low bidder
as long as the project is fundamentally similar. But, if the
change is so substantial that it is, in effect, a new project, then the
Town must rebid it, he said. In his judgment, there
had been a fundamental and substantial change that required
rebidding, Mr. Karpinos said.
Mayor pro tem Strom told Mr. Webster that he would like the Council to
be in a position to advocate for the original Park plan
when bids come back. He expressed concern that,
as currently configured, the Council would not have an
understanding of what any of the elements south of Dogwood Acres Drive would
cost. Mayor pro tem Strom asked if it was possible to rebid the
entire Park, do the phasing plans, and get different costs for
the elements.
Mr. Heflin explained that in order to construct a biddable package
that would stay within the existing budget, staff could do parts of
many elements within the basic package. Then the add-ons
would complete those various portions in some combination that would use
up the money, or additional available money, he said. Mr.
Heflin stated that staff could put something together that would
include the kinds of add-on options that Mayor pro tem Strom was
requesting.
Mayor Foy ascertained that the Department understood what the Council
wanted, and that the Council did not need to past R-11 tonight.
Mr. Webster said staff would push for a rebid at the end of
the month, if possible, with the goal of having a bid
opening near the end of February.
13.1. Status Report on Carolina North Activities (R-12).
Mr. Stancil outlined recent
developments regarding Carolina North, and reported that the
managers of Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel Hill would soon meet with Jack
Evans, of Carolina North, and David Owens, of UNC’s School of Government,
to discuss the scope of work for the fiscal equity study and possible
consultants. He said Town staff had attended planning workshops,
and that UNC was moving toward presenting a plan for Carolina North to its
Board of Trustees in July 2007.
Mr. Stancil proposed that the next step in the development process would
be to create a new zoning district for the Horace Williams
property. He noted that this could be done jointly with
UNC, related to the Town’s limited regulatory authority under current
law. Mr. Stancil said that R-12 would authorize Mayor Foy
to meet with UNC Chancellor Moser to begin discussing a process for
establishing a new zoning district.
Mr. Stancil asked the Council for guidance on the extent to which they
wanted to start from a blank slate, or build on current zoning
regulations. He asked how much staff time should be
devoted to the endeavor, and to what extent the Council wanted a
public process. Mr. Stancil estimated that the cost of a consultant would
be between $30,000 and $50,000. The process would take six to
nine months, he said.
Mayor Foy ascertained from Mr. Stancil that the cost estimate of
$50,000 would be for starting from a blank
slate, with heavy public input. The lower end would be
for building on the existing regulation, Mr. Stancil explained.
Mayor pro tem Strom expressed support for starting from a clean
slate. He was not sure OI-4 was appropriate, he said, adding
that the Town needed an ordinance that was flexible and forward-looking. Mayor
pro tem Strom noted that this would not be a "garden variety
consulting job." He cautioned against getting boxed into a
specific fee limit, and suggested getting proposals before
assigning a dollar amount.
Mayor Foy said the key issue to discuss tonight was whether they
would start a zone from scratch or build on OI-4. That was
the threshold question, he said, adding that the
Council could figure out staffing requirements, details, and
financing later.
Council Member Ward expressed support for starting from scratch. He
said OI-4 had its own baggage, which did not need to be brought to
this process. Council Member Ward said he shared the concern
about limiting the consultant’s fee, and then finding out later that the
process is more complicated than they had thought.
Council Member Easthom agreed with others that the Town should start from
scratch. She stated that community involvement was very
important and pointed out that the Horace Williams Committee had developed a
process by which the Town might approach a new zone for this tract,
including where the community might be involved. Council Member
Easthom said she supported all of the tenants of the NRG petition, with
regard to what the consultant should address.
Mayor Foy explained that his discussions with Chancellor Moser
would be preliminary and non-committal. He would tell the
Chancellor that the Town was starting this process and explain what
the Council’s thinking was. Mayor Foy said he hoped to get
feedback from Chancellor Moser and would report back to the Council
regarding the meeting.
Council Member Harrison suggested that the Manager involve staff members
who had been part of infrastructure workshops. They probably
have many interesting ideas on how to respond to the NRG petition, he
said.
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Adopt R-12. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
14. Appointments:
a. Continuing Concerns Committee.
The Council appointed Bernard Flatow to the Continuing Concerns Committee.
Continuing Concerns Master Ballot
b. Human Services Advisory Board.
The Council appointed Gina Rumbley to the Human Services Advisory Board.
Human Services Advisory Board Master Ballot
c. Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force.
The Council appointed Robert Campbell, Barbara Hopkins, Neloa Barbee Jones, Bonnie Norwood, Timothy Peppers, and Tom Tucker to the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force.
Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force Master Ballot
15. Petitions:
a. By the Mayor and Council Members.
Council Member Thorpe asked that the Council take a
look at the appointment process during the Council Planning Retreat. He
also announced that Council interns for the second semester would be
interviewed before too long.
Council Member Harrison announced that the staff will be talking with the
Department of Transportation regarding the Weaver Dairy Road and Perkins Drive median.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 pm.