Business Meeting

DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, February 26, 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, Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Engineer Services Manager Kumar Neppalli, Planning Director JB Culpepper, Police Cheif Gregg Jarvies, Transportation Director Steve Spade, Planner Dana Stidham, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Long Range & Transportation Coordinator David Bonk, Long Range Planner Frost Rollins, Parks and Recreation Interim Director Bill Webster, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

a.	Presentation of Funding from the Foundation for a Sustainable Community to Establish the Cal Horton Service Award for Town Employees.

Executive Director of the Chapel Hill Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Aaron Nelson stated that, after Cal Horton�s retirement as Chapel Hill Town Manager, a planning committee was created to decide how to honor his service. He said that the committee had raised $100,000 to create the Cal Horton Award for Service, that, at Mr. Horton�s suggestion, would be used as a permanent award to recognize Town employees for exceptional service to the Town of Chapel Hill. Cal Horton also gave a word of thanks for the award.

2.	Public Forums and Hearings: None

a.	Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.

Mayor Foy stated that Ashaki Benta had requested that consideration of Agenda Item 8, the petition from representatives of the Transportation Department Employee and Local UE-150, be deferred to a later date, in order to give Town employees more time to consider the item.

Council Member Hill asked that the Council defer consideration of Agenda Item 12, the Land Use Management Text Amendment regarding parking regulations, until the outcome of the Downtown Parking Committee Report.

Barry Freeman, representing Elders for Peace, stated that on December 15, 2006, in Chapel Hill, he and his wife were arrested, jailed, and fingerprinted for standing in front of the Army recruiting office holding signs that said "Keep your hands off our grandchildren, no recruiting". Mr. Freeman stated that they were not blocking access, nor creating a disturbance. He submitted a petition requesting that the Town Council consider clear guidelines for the use of the power of arrest in keeping with the Bill of Rights and the freedom of speech. Bob Gwen and Wes Hare presented similar petitions on the issue, stating that the arrest was capricious, unnecessary, and inappropriate for the activity. Mr. Freeman explained that the charge was thrown out, so they did not go to court.

David Oscard-May, on behalf of the Greenwood residents and homeowners, submitted a petition requesting that the Town of Chapel Hill and NC Department of Transportation address the situation of loud noise and automobile pollution created by the heavy traffic on the US 15-501 by-pass (North Fordham Boulevard). He requested that the Town establish appropriate landscape planning to provide a noise and pollution buffer along Christopher Road, from the south of Estes Road to the exit at Raleigh Road and UNC campus.

Margaret Misch, representing the Orange County Bill of Rights Defense Committee, presented a petition to the Council regarding protection of residents from infringement of their civil liberties. She stated that this was the second time that the Committee had presented a petition; the first time resulted in a resolution passed on October 8, 2003, which concluded that unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested or authorized, infringed upon those rights granted by federal law enforcement.

Ms. Misch stated that the committee had held discussions with the Town and Police Department about its policies for what occurred when an immigrant encountered the Chapel Hill Police. She said that the first resolution, modeled after a similar one passed in Carrboro on April 18, 2006, referred to immigrants that had not violated any local criminal laws. She added that if the warrant was confirmed as Civil Liberties in nature, when the database was checked for contact between an immigrant and the police, then the individual would not be detained. Ms. Misch said, however, that the federal database had sometimes brought up the record of an individual with an outstanding deportation order, without any "criminal" reason. She explained that this resolution states that, if the order did not stipulate the reason for final deportation or detention, then the individual would not be held.

Council Member Greene requested to remove item #4c, the resolution modifying the Guidelines of the Revolving Acquisitions Fund. She said that she thought it was a good idea, but that some Council conversation would be useful, as it had implications for affordable housing. Ms. Culpepper explained that the modifications would achieve four things: change the name of the fund to "The Affordable Housing Fund"; include housing renovation as an eligible activity for the fund; include permanent subsidies to reduce the sale price as an eligible activity; allow options for achieving long-term affordability opportunities with the land trust and other agencies/individuals that can ensure permanent affordability.

Ms. Culpepper stated that the revolving fund is currently limited to serving as a loan to buy a house, but there is a constant need for public funds to maintain the existing housing stock. She explained that these modifications would promote a broader use for the fund; the staff would have discretion to use the funds without further Council approval. Mayor pro tem Strom agreed that the proposed modifications would be beneficial, and that some funds should be flexible for staff to use as needed. He suggested, however, that the Council agree on a threshold of expenditure, for which Council approval was needed. Ms. Culpepper suggested that the Council forward their comments to staff, who would respond with their own suggestions.

Regarding Item #4h, Expedited Processing for a Special Use Permit for Purefoy Road, Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that it may be in the best interests of the neighborhood if the process for approving the permit did not proceed ahead of the Small Area Planning process for that neighborhood. He suggested that the item be postponed to March 5, so that Habitat and other concerned parties had an opportunity to comment.

Agenda items #4c and #4h were deferred to the March 5 meeting.

Mayor Foy reported that the item on the Transportation Board regarding the standardization of bus stop designs was proceeding ahead.

All other information reports were accepted as provided.

Bruce Runberg gave a semi-annual update on the University of North Carolina Development Plan, and distributed a report for capital projects in construction or design. He stated that 16 projects were completed in the second half of 2006, totaling $320 million; and that the report provided a summary of the status of each project. UNC Director of Facilities Planning Anna Wu gave an update on some of the projects. She said that the Capital Program, since 2000, was 1.87 billion dollars, comprising about 150 projects; they were more than halfway through the program, although continuing to receive new projects. She also stated that the Campus Y renovations were completed; the Global Education Center hoped to get final State approval soon; the ITS Manning was completed; and the Love House would be completed in the next month.

Ms. Wu reported that they had completed the first segment of the work on the Electric Duct Bank Project, and the next segment would begin soon. She said that UNC was preparing a project to replace the Cogent Steam Tunnel connecting the plants to the main campus, with work to begin in two months. She announced that traffic would be restricted during the construction, but after completion, traffic patterns will be restored to their original status. She stated that the South Columbia Street improvements would narrow the street to create two one-way lanes and a dedicated bus-and-bicycle lane.

Ms. Wu stated that future projects included a planning process for the Law School addition; Boshamer Stadium Improvements; recommending a designer for the School of Information and Library Sciences; continuing design for the Genome Sciences and Dental Sciences Buildings; road improvements on Manning Drive, Raleigh Street, and Stadium Drive; development of the new Innovation Center on Estes Drive; and concept planning for Carolina North. Ms. Wu clarified that the "Hangar Replacement" project is to build a new facility for medical air operations at Raleigh-Durham Airport.

Mr. Neppalli gave an update on the annual Transportation Report. He said that the Town Engineering Department had reviewed the current report, and compared it with last year�s report. He said that they continued to see some fluctuations in the traffic counts, due to various construction projects in the campus area. Mr. Neppalli stated that he had no major concerns about the report, and that he had forwarded it to interested citizens around the campus. Mayor pro tem Strom, referring to a University policy that students who live under two miles from campus cannot qualify for a parking permit on campus, suggested this distance limit could be reconsidered and brought in line with the newly improved transit service. Ms. Wu agreed to suggest this to the University for consideration.

Mayor Foy referred to a few items that had been skipped earlier in the agenda. Mr. Martin Rody requested that, with respect to the Consent Agenda items, the Mayor read out each item, so that members of the public observing the meeting can know what they are. Mayor Foy asked the Town Manager to verify if the items could be posted on the viewing screens while the Council was voting on them. Mr. Rody also presented a petition regarding the parking and traffic problems associated with three new developments in Town. He suggested that the Town install traffic counters to measure the traffic entering and exiting these developments, in order to determine if the actual traffic patterns match the originally estimated traffic patterns.

Two citizens spoke on the Lincoln Arts Center lease. Will Raymond, representing the Friends of Lincoln Arts Center, urged the Town to take action on the issue, as the program was due to expire in October 2007. He stated that it was the only hands-on art program in Chapel Hill, and that arts were very important to the community. Carol Barrow supported Mr. Raymond�s comments. Mayor pro tem Strom stated that, in April, the Town Manager would present the costs associated with these various options, and stated that the Council was taking the program seriously. Mayor Foy stated that he hoped that the Town would be able to collaborate with Carrboro and Orange County on the issue.

Joyce Brown expressed appreciation for the University�s transportation report, and said it was helpful for residents living near the campus. She thanked the Town for the traffic-calming measures at Westside and Westwood neighborhoods. She suggested that the Town and University coordinate their efforts in compiling traffic counts. Mayor pro tem Strom and Mr. Neppalli stated that the mobility report was already a combination of the University and Town counts. Mr. Neppalli added that in his review of the traffic counts, he had questioned 17 different specific counts, and he was waiting for feedback on those questions, which he would also bring to the Council at a later date.

This item was deferred by consensus of the Council.

Mr. Poveromo stated that the name of this project was changed from University Village to East 54, and that three items would be considered: a change to modify the land-use intensity regulations in the mixed-use zoning district; a re-zoning for the proposed project; and a special-use modification application for the East 54 mixed-use development.  He said that since the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing, several key issues had been identified. He said that the applicant had proposed to do 30 percent affordable housing, with a mix of one and two bedroom units. The applicant was now requesting, after the first phase, for those one-bedroom units that were not filled, to either convert them into two-bedroom units, or to provide payment in lieu for them, he added.

Mr. Poveromo stated that the Town�s initial recommendation was to construct a sidewalk segment on Finley Golf Course Road, but with new information on the expenses this would incur regarding storm water and subsoil issues, the Town no longer recommended this. He also recommended having greater flexibility for the Town to determine how the mass-transit payment in lieu would be spent; and to have a utility strip on the south side of Preswick Road and NC DOT site triangles for all driveway connections.

Mr. Poveromo stated that the Town�s initial recommendation had been to increase the building�s primary height from 60 feet to 85 feet, but this was later reduced to 70 feet.  He said that due to this change, there were portions that would break out of the building envelope, and therefore, the applicant was asking for modifications to the primary building height.   Mr. Poveromo stated that the Town staff recommended the enactment of the re-zoning ordinance, and approval of the Special Use Permit Modification. Mr. Roger Perry, the applicant, stated that he had agreed with all of the Town�s suggested modifications.

Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Aaron Nelson expressed support for the project. Robert Dowling expressed support for the affordable housing components.  Jane Hare raised a concern that she and others in the neighborhood had not been notified of this public hearing, and she expressed concerns about the building height and traffic impacts.

Mayor Foy asked if the 1 percent transfer fee from the permit could be allocated to other uses, such as the land trust and revolving acquisition.  Mr. Perry responded that the primary purpose of the funds was to help subsidize the cost of the condominium association fees in the affordable units, but that the money would be paid directly into the Land Trust, to be used otherwise as needed. Mayor Foy suggested that the language be changed to ensure that this flexibility was understood. Council Member Greene suggested that the Council have some control over the payment in lieu. Mayor Foy suggested adding language to clarify that the Town Manager would make the decision, but that he must obtain the Council�s permission when doing so.

Mayor pro tem Strom was concerned that the amount of $75,000 payment in lieu for the affordable units might be too low. Council Member Ward suggested indexing the cost to something such as the cost of living. Mr. Poveromo suggested that it could be $75,000 or the cost of an affordable one-bedroom unit at that time, whichever was more. Council Member Easthom stated that the needs of families should be considered with respect to the affordable units, thus indicating a possible need for more two-bedroom units. Mayor pro tem Strom clarified that the buildings would achieve LEED Silver Certification, but there was no specific language in the document referring to exceeding ASHRAE energy standards. Council Member Ward suggested that bicycle activated loops be added to the left turn lanes on NC 54.  Mr. Poveromo said that the design of the foot and bicycle path was meant to be low-impact, so a boardwalk would likely be used.

Mr. Poveromo explained that the Council would be considering three elements to the Greenbridge Project: a proposed Land-Use Text Amendment creating a new Town Center 3 Zoning District; a Zoning Atlas Amendment proposing to rezone a piece of property from Town Center 2 to Town Center 3 Conditional; and a Special-Use Permit for the project.

Mr. Poveromo highlighted a correction, that the applicant was proposing a building height of 117 feet (not 177 feet). He stated that the proposed Affordable Housing Transfer Fee was new to the resolution, and was similar to that proposed for the East 54 Project. He stated that the applicant was proposing to do 15 percent Affordable Housing Units on site, and that the plan had been endorsed by the Orange Community Land Trust and the organization Empowerment. He said that Town staff were recommending the enactment of an ordinance rezoning the site from Town Center 2 to Town Center 3 Conditional, and to approve the Greenbridge Special Use Permit.

Mr. Poveromo stated that the stipulation for the recreation requirements stated: "the applicant shall provide 1100 square feet of on-site recreation facilities, and provide a payment in lieu for the remaining 6,124 square feet of required recreation space."  He stated that the building height would be at 117 feet for heated floor area, but that other elements installed on the top of the building would increase the total height to 135 feet. He said that this was why the applicant was requesting a modification of regulations to the building height, as the Town�s proposed zoning district had a maximum height of 120 feet.

Mr. Poveromo stated that Town staff were recommending an additional four feet of pavement on Merritt Mill Road for a bicycle lane, as this was a collector street; but the applicant was proposing alternative options. He explained that on West Rosemary Street, Town staff were recommending installation of a bus stop and bus pull-off lane, 80 feet long by 10 feet wide, which would cut into the streetscape amenities. He said that the applicant was proposing to create the bus stop with street striping alone, which would preserve the streetscape and the tree line.  Mr. Poveromo suggested that this could pose a potential safety hazard when vehicles are required to go around the bus into the oncoming traffic lane. Mr. Neppalli suggested that, while the applicant�s alternative did not exactly meet the Town�s specification, they could accept it.  But he cautioned that traffic would likely increase in the future.

Tim Tobin, speaking for the applicant, stated that the project had been planned by six local families, with input from other residents, Town staff, and the advisory committees of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.  He said that the project would comprise 99 residences, 15 of which would be permanently affordable; 35,000 feet of retail and office space; a parking garage; and other amenities.  He said that the project would use cutting-edge green building technology; they would pursue LEED Gold Level Certification; and they were committed to achieving a 20 percent level of energy efficiency beyond ASHRAE�s 2004 Standard. Mr. Tobin highlighted such potential benefits as: increased activity in the downtown area; enhanced public safety; relieving pressure on the Town�s rural buffer; creating jobs and contributing tax revenue; no public financing required; and meeting the Town�s goal for Downtown revitalization.  He said that there would be eight two-bedroom units and seven one-bedroom units of affordable housing, each with reserved underground parking spaces; they would be made permanently affordable by placing them in the Orange Community Land Trust. He added that homeowners association fees would be capped at 1.5 percent of the sales price; and they would apply a 1 percent transfer fee to market-rate units, to fund an endowment managed by the Land Trust.

Eunice Brock and Ken Brooks raised concerns that the building height would have a negative impact on the skyline. Ms. Brock suggested reducing the height from 10 stories to four, and Mr. Brooks suggested giving the public more time to react to it. Will Raymond raised a concern about the building height and footage ratios, and wondered if the change in zoning would have an impact on future projects.  Mr. Nelson supported the project, stating that it would meet the Town�s goals of downtown revitalization and energy efficiency; it would increase the commercial and retail office space downtown; and it would improve public safety downtown.

David Brower and Lee Alexander stated that the project was consistent with the needs of the Town�s growing population, adding that it was important to have more residents living downtown to support businesses.  Chair of the Streetscape Master Plan Review Committee George Cianciolo said that he supported the use of wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and streetscapes, but he did not support the bus pull-out. Robert Dowling from the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust said that he supported the newly revised affordable housing plan. Steve Wright raised a concern about an empty building across the street, and he recommended considering the impact that the project would have on traffic. Dolores Baily questioned why the recreational payment in lieu would not be going to support the neighboring communities of Pine Knolls and Northside?

Adam Brown raised a concern about the potential increase in traffic and parking needs.  He suggested installing a traffic-calming system and a residential parking system at North Graham. Henry McCoy supported the project�s location downtown, stating that it would create positive opportunities, particularly for minority communities. Pete McDowell stated that the planning process was inclusive of the community, and Barry Katz stated that it had been considerate of the "human element" in its planning. Director of the North Carolina State Energy Office Larry Shirley stated that the project was "breaking new ground" in the areas of environmental sustainability and multi-family housing.  Director of the Downtown Chapel Hill Partnership Liz Parham noted that the project would facilitate growth in terms of both width and density of the downtown area.

Mayor pro tem Strom stated that the project supported ideas in the Town�s comprehensive plan regarding transportation, utility planning, and the rural buffer. He said that he was comfortable with the building height and felt that it would support healthy growth in the downtown community.  He supported the idea of using the Parks and Recreation Payment to support the local community, which was also supported by Council Member Ward.

Mayor pro tem Strom said that he accepted not having a curb cut for the bus lane; but he was not clear on the issue of widening Merritt Mill Road for the bicycle lane. Mr. Poveromo explained that the staff were recommending four feet of additional pavement for a bicycle lane, with 12 feet of streetscape; but this would require the applicant to move the building three feet back from the street. The applicant explained that it would be very difficult to move the building back three feet because of the structures underneath, so they were proposing two alternative options: 1) to provide a right-of-way, with a 12-foot streetscape, but without the four-foot bike lane; or 2) to provide a right-of-way and a bike lane, but with a reduced streetscape. Council Member Harrison emphasized the importance of having a bicycle lane, stating that its absence could create a potential safety hazard.

Council Member Thorpe stated that the Council had agreed to approve Zone Three too quickly in his opinion. He said that he supported the project, but that he would vote against changing the zone, as this would impact future projects and therefore needed more discussion.  Mayor pro tem Strom stated that the Town would not be rezoning all of downtown at this higher density, but each new project would be considered separately, and the Town would decide whether or not to apply the zone to that particular project.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that it created a new tool for developers to use, but that it was limited to the downtown area, and it could only be used with the Council�s approval.

Council Member Ward asked for some clarifications on the proposed bus pull-off. Mr. Tobin said that the applicant was proposing two alternative options: 1) no curb cut, which would maintain the streetscape; or 2) a bus pull-out, with a 10-foot wide curb cut and variable streetscape.  Mayor Foy asked why it was not possible to implement a two-foot curb cut only, to which Mr. Tobin responded that a two-foot curb cut would be very complicated, as this would effect underground structures.

Council Member Ward suggested adding bike activated loops on all travel and turn lanes of both intersections.

Mayor Foy stated that the report was brought forward by Council Members Hill and Ward, explaining that the committee had been convened to discuss downtown parking, comprising individuals from business, the Town, the University of North Carolina, and residents. Mr. Nelson gave a brief summary of the report, stating that it proposed several guiding principles for parking. He said that the committee believed that the Town should re-evaluate what it envisioned as the purpose of downtown parking, which should be stated in its comprehensive plan. He added that there had been a debate within the committee on whether or not downtown had enough parking, or whether it was sufficient but needed to be more effectively utilized. He said that they had also discussed consideration for future needs.

Mr. Nelson highlighted some of the recommendations suggested by the committee, such as: include more information on parking rules, availability, and locations; implement courteous and equitable parking enforcement; ensure that parking regulations are consistent; improve the availability of parking through cooperation and collaboration with privately-owned lots; create parking alternatives for employees working in downtown areas; explore options for improving technology and equipment; use parking as an economic development tool for the Town, by setting the pricing to encourage use; continue the committee as an action group, to develop some of these ideas further, and to visit other comparable cities. Council Members Ward and Hill supported Mr. Nelson�s comments.

This item was deferred to a later date.

Mayor Foy reported that the North Carolina state delegation had requested to receive three priorities from the Town; so the Council needed to think about three priorities that they wished to put forward. Mr. Karpinos stated that, regarding revenue matters, there was a bill introduced that included many of these issues; he suggested that the Town express its support for these issues. Mayor pro tem Strom suggested including public art as one of the priorities, adding that the Town Public Arts Commission had requested to learn what other cities were doing. Mayor Foy stated that he would send this request to the state.

Mr. Nelson expressed reservations on the Public Art issue. Mayor Foy responded that the details had not yet been worked out. He proposed that the Council pass a resolution communicating to the State legislators that the following areas were three local priorities for Chapel Hill: taxes and revenues for local options; public art; and energy efficiency and conservation.

Mr. Karpinos stated that he would draft a resolution with these three priorities, and send the rest of the list as an attachment. He added that, for the other State-related issues, the Town could express its support on them as they arise.

Council Member Harrison suggested adding a minor amendment to the text, with respect to environmental matters.

Mayor Foy stated that Mr. Karpinos had requested that the Council consider this revision in light of what was happening in the courts, advising that this would be the Council�s best course of action. He said that Mr. Karpinos recommended that provisions be made for adjustments due to inflation, similar to a comparable case in Vermont, which he also supported. Council Member Greene supported this advice.

15.

Petitions:

a.	By the Mayor and Council Members.

Council Member Kleinschmidt referred to an individual speaking on the East 54 project, who had stated that she had never received notification of the meeting. He recalled that the Town had previously agreed to extend its notice requirements to the residents living within 1,000 feet of the area, not just the property owners; so he wondered what may have happened in this case.

Mayor pro tem Strom referred to another speaker who suggested the implementation of residential parking permits for the Greenbridge Project area, suggesting that this could be brought forward to the Council by petition in the future.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m.