DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, May 21, 2007, AT 7:00 p.m.
Present were Mayor Kevin Foy, Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, Council Member Sally Greene, Council Member Laurin Easthom, Council Member Ed Harrison, Council Member Cam Hill, 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, Public Works Director Bill Letteri, Library Director Kathy Thompson, Engineer Services Manager Kumar Neppalli, Planning Director JB Culpepper, Long Range & Transportation Coordinator David Bonk, Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Intern Andrea Cain, Long Range Planner Anna Biton, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Planner Dana Stidham, and Acting Town Clerk Amy Harvey.
|
1. |
Ceremonies: |
|
a. |
Proclamation Declaring May 27, 2007 Rachel Carson Day in Chapel Hill. |
Mayor Foy said that a Chapel Hill resident, Priscilla Murphy,
had informed the Town that the one hundredth anniversary of Rachel Carson’s
birth would be on May 27, 2007. Carson gave impetus to the modern environmental
movement, he said, and the Town had prepared a proclamation stating that the
impact of human actions on the environment was an abiding concern of the people
of Chapel Hill. The proclamation states that this will continue to be of
concern as the Town confronts the consequences of growth and the need to plan
for its future while respecting and caring for the ecology of Chapel Hill, said
Mayor Foy.
Mayor Foy noted that Rachel Carson, an author, naturalist and scientist, was a
pioneer in bringing concerns about human impact on the earth’s environment to
the attention of the American public. Her first three bestselling books arose
from a love of the ocean that she developed on a North Carolina beach, he said.
Mayor Foy pointed out that Carson’s pivotal work, Silent Spring, published in
1962, had shed light on the hazards of abusing chemical pesticides and had
prompted reform in the study, production and use of such pesticides. Therefore,
I, Kevin Foy, the Mayor of Chapel Hill, honor the contribution of Rachel
Carson’s legacy to our community and to the world by declaring May 27, 2007 as
Rachel Carson Day," he said. Mayor Foy thanked Ms. Murphy for bringing
this to the Town’s attention.
|
b. |
Downtown Partnership Update. |
Liz Parham, executive director of the Chapel Hill Downtown Partners, gave a brief status report on plans to revitalize the downtown area.
Council Member Harrison mentioned that the Franklin 5K road race had occurred the previous weekend. Ms. Parham
said that race was the kind of event that she hoped would grow in Chapel Hill.
Council Member Greene inquired about the Facade Program. Ms. Parham
explained that it was a matching grant program through which the
Downtown Partnership would approve design and would supply half of the
money for small projects. She said they would offer free design
assistance as part of that program.
Council Member Thorpe determined that Ms. Parham had been in her position for
one year and 10 months. He praised her work, and asked if
she would be willing to work with a group that had inquired about Apple
Chill. Ms. Parham expressed enthusiasm for doing so, and Council
Member Thorpe said that someone would be in touch with her regarding that.
|
2. |
Public Hearings: None. |
|
3. |
Petitions by citizens and announcements by Council members. |
|
a. |
Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda. |
|
1. |
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Petition to Repeal Privilege License Tax. |
Jamie Dervin, representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber
of Commerce, asked the Council to repeal the privilege license tax. He
said the tax does not generate much money for the Town, in relation
to the amount of time it takes to administer. It is inequitable
and puts the burden on a small portion of businesses, Mr. Dervin
said. He described the tax as a poorly constructed tool that should
be repealed.
Steve Minta, a local printer, noted that there was much competitive
bidding in his industry. The more overhead they face the more
difficult it becomes to sustain a healthy business, he said. Mr.
Minta told Council members that most other print shop owners in the
Southeast pay a fixed fee rather than one based on gross revenue. He
asked that the privilege license tax be changed to a flat fee or no fee at
all.
Kevin Schwartz, chair of the Government Relations Committee for the Chamber of
Commerce, described the tax as "one of the most insidious
taxes" that the Town could place on a business in Chapel Hill. It is one more barrier, and one more thing that adds to the perception
that Chapel Hill is a more difficult place than others to do business, Mr.
Schwartz said.
Council Member Hill asked if the Chamber planned to talk
with State legislators regarding the tax. Mr. Dervin replied
that they could, but that the law was so entrenched it was unlikely
their efforts would succeed. Council Member Hill recommended
that the Chamber also talk with legislators about a transfer
tax, impact fee, and other taxes that might help local
governments meet their commitments. He had been paying a privilege tax for
35 years, he said, so he understood much of what Chamber members
were saying. The State would be the place to start, said
Council Member Hill, but he agreed that the Town should make an effort to
make the tax more uniform.
Council Member Easthom requested that staff bring back information
on priviledge license taxes from Carrboro, Hillsborough and Durham.
Mayor pro tem Strom moved that Council members refer the petition to
themselves to take up at their next budget work session on Wednesday.
Council Member Ward commented that it was not logical to apply the
tax based on gross receipts. He would like to find a way to
address the issue that does not put local businesses at a competitive
disadvantage, he said.
Mayor Foy told Mr. Stancil that the Council had
addressed and obtained data on this issue a couple of years
ago. He suggested that the staff provide that, and only
that, information on Wednesday.
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Receive and Refer the petition back to the Council to discuss at the Budget Work Session on May 23, 2007 . THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
|
2. |
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Petition for Council Endorsement of NC Senate Bill 670 - Energy Devices that Use Renewable Resources. |
Jamie Dervin, representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber
of Commerce, said the bill fits in with both the Chamber’s and Town’s
values and philosophies regarding sustainability. He asked the Council to
adopt a resolution, which he provided, noting that the measure would go
before Senate committee the next day. Mr. Dervin said that
many controversial measures had been taken out but it was still
a substantive bill.
Council Member Harrison noted that the content of this bill was in
the Town’s own ordinance. So, Chapel Hill might be the only part of
the State that would be unaffected by the bill, he said. Council Member
Harrison moved that the Council support Senate Bill 670, as
amended.
Mayor Foy explained that he would not support the motion because he
did not think it was good policy for the Council to adopt resolutions that they
are seeing for the first time. Also, he was tired of the State
legislature telling municipalities what they can and cannot do, even if it is a
good idea, said Mayor Foy.
Mayor Foy told Mr. Dervin that doing so meant the Council would make
a decision at a later date.
Council Member Ed Harrison MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO request that the Council support the NC Senate Bill 670 as amended. THE MOTION failed by a vote of 4-5, with Council member Ed Harrison, Council member Cam Hill, Council member Mark Kleinschmidt, and Council member Bill Thorpe voting aye and with Mayor Kevin Foy, Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, Council member Laurin Easthom, Council member Sally Greene, and Council member Jim Ward voting nay.
Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, TO Receive and Refer the petiiton to the staff. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
|
3. |
Youth and Residents of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park Neighborhoods Petition requesting Neighborhood Improvements. |
Stacy Craig, and others representing the Youth Circle
of Trinity Court and Pritchard Park, asked the Town to put street
lights and crosswalks in their neighborhoods for safety reasons. They
explained that it was difficult for people and cars to see each other,
especially at night and expressed concern about broken lights. These
residents also said they were afraid that people might be lurking in
dark areas.
Serena Bethea, vice president of the Resident Council of Public Housing,
requested a crosswalk that would extend from Pritchard Park to Trinity Court. She explained that there were blind spots in
that area where motorists must accelerate.
Mayor Foy thanked the speakers for bringing the issue to the Council’s
attention. He explained that the staff would bring information and
recommendations back to the Council, and he asked
that residents remain involved.
Council Member Ward asked if there was a need for sidewalks
in the area. Ms. Bethea replied that there was. She said that
sidewalks were a high priority; however, the other concerns that
they had expressed were more immediate.
Council Member Ward asked staff to include in their
report information on the value of sidewalks in and around that area
and how that might be linked to the crosswalk that residents had
petitioned for.
Council Member Cam Hill MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Receive and Refer the petition to the staff. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
|
4. |
Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Petition requesting Revision to Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines. |
Council Member Cam Hill MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Receive and Refer the petition to the staff. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
|
b. |
Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda. |
|
c. |
Announcements by Council members. |
Council Member Greene invited everyone to join her in
wishing luck to three local school teams who would
be participating in the world competition of "Odyssey of the
Mind" in East Lansing, Michigan.
Mayor pro tem Strom announced that he had recently stood for questions at the
State legislature regarding Chapel Hill’s campaign finance reform
bill. He said the bill had moved out to committee and should
soon be on the House floor.
|
4. |
Consent agenda: action items. |
Council Member Harrison asked to remove item 4h, the mobility report, from the Consent Agenda so that he could make a few comments. He characterized the report as a good study of Chapel Hill.
Council Member Easthom removed item 4e, an ordinance
approving changes to New Stateside Drive parking, for discussion later in
the meeting.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked, with regard to item 4f, why closed
circuit television equipment was part of this. Mr.
Neppalli replied that the cameras were strictly for monitoring
traffic flow. They were not being used for enforcement of
traffic regulations and do not invade privacy, he said.
Mayor Foy told citizens who might want to speak regarding item 4g that the Council was planning to pass that item. He asked if there was any objection to that or if anyone wanted it changed. Eric Teagarden pointed out that there was a Phase II, which would address calming devices, that might be placed east of Rashkis School on Meadowmont Lane.
Council Member Sally Greene MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Adopt R-1 without 4e. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO PURCHASE APPROXIMATELY 0.2 ACRE OF PROPERTY FROM DUKE ENERGY FOR THE MORGAN CREEK TRAIL PROJECT (2007-05-21/R-3)
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE PLANNING BOARD’S EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING JURISDICTION MEMBERSHIP TO REFLECT POPULATION PROPORTIONALITY (2007-05-21/R-4)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL AND THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR REHABILITATION AND EXPANSION OF THE TOWN’S TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM (2007-05-21/R-5)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ON SEVERAL TOWN STREETS (2007-05-21/R-6)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2007-05-21/O-2)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS UP TO A TOTAL OF $140,000 (PROJECT CONTINGENCY), BUT NOT TO EXCEED THE TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF $2,260,000, FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND REPAIRS PROJECT (2007-05-21/R-8)
RESOLUTION DECLARING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENSES FOR THE DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (2007-05-21/R-9)
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that item 5a was
for the Council’s information, and he offered to answer any
questions.
Mayor Foy thanked Council Member Kleinschmidt for being the
Council’s delegate to the committee and for the positive
outcome. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the Town’s congressman had
responded quickly and well to Town concerns.
Information reports were accepted as presented.
|
6. |
OWASA Presentation: |
Mac Clark, OWASA chair, discussed odor elimination at
the OWASA plant. He said that OWASA continues to work on the
definition of "odor elimination" and had included related, extra
plant improvements in their budget proposal. Mr. Clark said he would be
surprised if the board did not vote to approve those investments.
Gary Richmond, representing the Highland Woods Residents Association,
expressed optimism that OWASA would agree to standards. He
said he was anxiously anticipating the June 14 vote by the OWASA board.
Mayor Foy complimented Mr. Clark, Mr. Kerwin, the OWASA board and staff
for working with the neighbors on this issue and for
reaching this point. He said he knew it had been
difficult. Mr. Clark replied that the installation of the new covered
headworks in July would be the item that would make the greatest
improvement in the neighbors’ experience.
Mr. Clark gave a PowerPoint presentation
on proposed changes to water and sewer rates. He discussed
OWASA’s expenses and capital investments. In order to raise the revenue
they need OWASA must increase water and sewer rates by a combined 9.5
percent (water/6.25 percent, sewer/13.75 percent), he said. Mr.
Clark discussed conservation and reuse and explained that this is a
vital part of OWASA’s strategy.
Mayor Foy asked why a conservation line on the graph intersected with
a no conservation line. Mr. Clark replied that OWASA had
taken the conservative view that conservation measures might be
less observed by customers.
Mr. Clark explained that OWASA would introduce increasing block
rates for individually metered residential customers.
Council Member Ward verified that there would be no seasonal rate
for people on block rates, which would always remain the
same.
Council Member Ward commented that people would increasingly find
ways to use stormwater. He wondered if this might put OWASA in an
additional financial bond. Mr. Clark replied that the ordinary domestic
consumer in a single-family home who conserves rain water
would most likely use it for watering the lawn, since routing it back
for toilet flushing would be complicated and expensive. However, said
Mr. Clark, if that were to become widespread OWASA would then look at
sewer metering.
Mayor pro tem Strom expressed appreciation for OWASA’s presentation.
He said that OWASA had made very wise and calculated decisions
for protecting its resources. He expressed support
for inverted block rates and described that as an interesting
approach.
Mayor pro tem Strom, chair of the Library Building Committee, asked the Council to review the concept plan and make comments to the design team representatives who were present. He noted that there was a memo at Council members places and a model in front of them. He said the committee had looked at five options for expansion and that the model reflected the recommended option. Mayor pro tem Strom said the Council, in its role as regulator, would see the concept plan again at its June 18th meeting. The hope is that in February 2008 the SUP would be approved, and, if all goes well, the groundbreaking ceremony would be in September 2008, he said.
Ken Redfoot, of Cordley Redfoot and Zack, gave a powerpoint presentation and discussed details of the expansion.
Council Member Ward clarified that parking along Library Drive would be angled. He suggested exploring the cost of perpendicular parking, since people might want to park there after making a circle through the parking lot and coming back down the hill.
Mayor pro tem Strom added that the project remained on schedule and that it had been a great process.
Ms. Culpepper explained that tonight the Council was holding a public hearing to consider enactment of a temporary development moratorium in the northern area of Town. She gave an overview of the proposed moratorium and said staff was recommending enactment of the ordinance with a few minor revisions.
Thomas Stark, representing CAI7, explained that his
firm owns property north of Weaver Dairy Road, which is slated to
be developed into a building for Triangle Orthopedic.
He said that both he and Triangle Orthopedic had sent emails to
the Town regarding the moratorium. Mr. Stark did not think the
ordinance, as proposed, complied with the statute, he said. He
added that it would create a backlog that would result in an
extension of the moratorium. Mr. Stark asked the Town to
consider expanding the exceptions, and he distributed copies of a letter outlining details
of his request.
Council Member Thorpe asked Mr. Stark to explain what a moratorium meant to
him. Mr. Stark replied that it meant the Town would
not approve any of the listed zoning-related applications during the
moratorium period. He said the ordinance, as proposed, stated
that the Town would not consider or accept those applications. That
would be more than will not approve, said Mr. Stark.
Council Member Thorpe repeated his question, stressing that he
wanted Mr. Stark to explain what the word "moratorium"
meant to him. Mr. Stark replied that it meant one would not do
something for a specified period. The statute authorizes the Town to
hold a moratorium on approvals, Mr. Stark said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked the staff if the date when someone
submits an application to the Planning Department sets the rules under which
that application is evaluated.
Mr. Karpinos replied that it depends on the type of
application. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the types of
applications that it would affect were encompassed in the moratorium. Mr.
Karpinos replied that all of them that were authorized to be included were
included. The Town does not have to include all of them, he pointed
out noting that Mr. Stark had noted that. Mr. Karpinos said that
the Town had an opportunity to exempt categories. As proposed, the
draft ordinance would not include single-family and two-family
applications, he said. Mr. Karpinos explained that Mr. Stark
was asking the Council to add site plan approvals by the Planning Board to
that list.
Mayor Foy noted that the letter from Mr. Stark contends that the ordinance
does not comply with the law. Mr. Karpinos replied that the point of
having a moratorium is that nothing gets approved during that period of
time. Accepting applications would put the Planning staff in the
position of evaluating them without knowing what the applicable rules are,
he said. In that instance, an application would just sit
there because there would be no zoning under which to evaluate it,
said Mr. Karpinos.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Karpinos if he was confident that the proposed
moratorium complies with the law. Mr. Karpinos replied that
it had not been tested in the courts. Mr. Stark might be able
to establish through a court of law that the Town would have to accept his
application, he said, even though the Town could not do anything
with that application.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Karpinos if his opinion was that if the Council were
to adopt the moratorium they would be complying with the
law. Mr. Karpinos replied that he believed the Town would be
compliant with the law. He repeated, however, that the statute had
been on the books for only a year and a half and had not been tested.
There had been no cases that had interpreted any of the language to which Mr.
Stark was referring, Mr. Karpinos said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt told Mr. Stark that he thought it would
be more efficient to not submit an application during the
moratorium. Instituting one would be a disservice to Mr.
Stark’s client, to the Town staff, and to the community, said Council
Member Kleinschmidt. It would have to be reconstituted later to
be in compliance with proposed rules that would come out of the
moratorium, he said.
Mr. Stark said that his client had submitted an application, and
he pointed out that doing so had entailed some
work. He said that the statute speaks to approval,
not to filing or to consideration. Mr. Stark added that he and his
client were asking the Council to consider looking at more expansive
exemptions, such as: 1) a site plan approval submitted; 2)
substantial expenditures made in good faith pursuant to the zoning ordinance
toward development of a site plan, and possibly;
3) consideration of applications which would not come to Council but would
go to the zoning board or be dealt with by staff.
Del Snow, chair of the Northern Area Task
Force, said the Task Force had voted 10-2 in favor of a
moratorium.
Council Member Harrison verified with Mr. Karpinos that any Council response to
comments by Mr. Stark it should be based on a category of applications rather
than a specific location. Council Member Harrison also verified
that the moratorium would mean, in effect, that there would
be no permitted uses, with exception of the single-family exception, but that the
Council could add to that. Mr. Karpinos said that the Council
would not consider SUPs, major subdivisions, and so forth, for
re-zoning.
Council Member Harrison verified that at the end of the
moratorium the Council would have a number of zoning changes to
consider. Mr. Karpinos said that, depending on the action Council
took at the end of the moratorium, there might be some rezoning of
properties and there might not be.
Council Member Ward said he hoped the staff would respond to recent input from
the public regarding additions to exemption categories that would
allow the Town to proceed with the full intent of the moratorium
without putting an end to some class of the approval process
that is not pertinent to the moratorium’s purpose.
Ms. Culpepper replied that staff had the ability to adjust the categories
that were referenced in the ordinance. Council Member Ward asked her
if any of Mr. Stark’s suggested additions appeared to
be categories that should be exempted but
were not.
Ms. Culpepper replied that Mr. Stark had suggested that site
plan approval applications by the Planning Board not be stopped during the
moratorium. She said the Town Planning staff was recommending
that site plan approval applications by the Planning Board be stopped
during the moratorium.
Council Member Thorpe remarked that a moratorium must be absolute or not
at all. It can’t go half way, he said.
Mr. Karpinos clarified that the motion included Ms. Culpepper’s
suggested changes on page 9 of the staff memorandum. He also noted
that the ordinance refers to exhibit one, which is the map on the
encircled page 32 at the end of the agenda item.
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Close the Public Hearing. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Enact O-3 as amended. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PROPOSALS AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION, MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE NORTHERN STUDY AREA OF CHAPEL HILL (2007-05-21/O-3)
Mayor Foy suggested skipping this item, since the
Council had taken action that covers it and the staff was not
recommending it.
Mr. Karpinos pointed out that to rezone this property would be inconsistent
with the moratorium that the Council had just adopted. The Council
could either leave it pending or vote to deny it, he said.
Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, TO Close the Public Hearing. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Laurin Easthom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Cam Hill, TO deny the zoning application. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mr. Bonk provided an overview of the materials presented in
the memorandum. He pointed out that Attachment 2 included several
revisions and new projects. Mr. Bonk said that staff had removed
information at the bottom of page 1 that no longer need to be reflected in
the TIP list.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the NC Department of Transportation (DOT)
had agreed to fund the upgrade to the Chapel Hill traffic signal system a
year earlier than expected. He said this means that Chapel
Hill will be laying fiber-optic connections throughout Town to gain
better control of signals and for other communication uses. Mayor
Foy added that DOT had agreed to move improvements to South
Columbia Street forward by one year. He thanked Mr. Bonk, Mr.
Neppalli and Mr. Small for working with DOT so effectively to get these
changes made.
Council Member Greene inquired about a pedestrian
bridge over Fordham Boulevard. Mr. Bonk pointed out that
this was #6 on the priority list.
Council Member Harrison noted that the resolution and list
would go to the Transportation Advisory Committee. He said the
Town should highlight these projects and three others that it wants
Durham to add to its list.
Mayor pro tem Strom said that Mayor Foy also deserved a credit from
the Council for being persistent and effective with NCDOT
in advocating for Town interests.
Council Member Bill Thorpe MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Adopt R-10. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mr. Webster gave an overview of the greenway plan
and staff recommendations. He presented a diagram tracing the
route from Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Boulevard to the
Horace Williams property at Carolina North. Mr. Webster
provided details of possible improvements and
purchases along the way.
Mayor Foy explained that R-11 would adopt the
concept plan for phase two of the greenway and authorize the
Manager to proceed with detailed, design drawings and purchases
of properties for the portion between MLK Blvd. and
Umstead Park. He said that a concern he
had had about a culvert under MLK Blvd. being
dark and creepy had been dispelled when he walked
through that area. Mayor
Foy told Council members that he thought the staff had
made good suggestions about how to address issues that
are difficult and not typical in many greenways.
Council Member Easthom asked Mr. Webster if
the homeowner along the trail felt good
about the possibility of selling his property to
the Town. Mr. Webster noted that the homeowner was
present and might want to comment. The homeowner was
interested in pursuing the idea and might be interested in selling
if doing so were in everyone’s best interest, Mr.
Webster said.
Mario Gonzalez, the property owner, told Council
members that having a bridge 50 feet from his
backyard would take away much of what he likes
about his property. If the plan
is implemented, then the view from his home would be of a large
metal bridge with people walking across, he said. Mr. Gonzalez
said that, even though he loves the house, he must think about
its future value with a trail as its backyard.
Council Member Ward said he was happy with the report
as is, and that an at-grade crossing at
Umstead Road seemed like the best approach
to him. Mr. Webster replied
that since Umstead was not a NC DOT road, the
Town could provide as much traffic-calming
as necessary to make it work.
Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, TO Adopt R-11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE BOLIN CREEK GREENWAY (PHASE III) AND AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO BEGIN DETAILED DESIGN OF THE PROJECT (2007-05-21/R-11)
Mr. Poveromo noted that the resolution had been corrected in several places. He highlighted those changes and distributed a handout outlining specifics regarding the stipulations, including a recommended deletion of stipulation #27. Mr. Poveromo outlined the SUP application and showed its location on a map. He discussed key issues, including connections to Larkspur, affordable housing, and energy efficiency.
Phil Post, representing the applicant, said that Mr. Poveromo had outlined the proposal well. He discussed the location of a stub-out to the east in relation to a sewer easement and suggested having the sewer and the street corridor in the same place. Mr. Post also spoke about combining emergency access and greenway corridors.
Mayor Foy verified with Mr. Post that the staff
handout contained possible amendments with which he was
amenable.
Tom Jensen presented the Planning Board’s recommendation (5-4) that Chapel
Watch Village be approved with a limited access road. He
said the division had been over the road, and he presented the
reasons for that division. Mr. Jensen said there was strong
consensus for a 20 percent energy efficiency requirement.
Del Snow, a nearby resident, outlined
potential problems with the Larkspur connector road
and urged the Council to vote against it.
Devin Larson, representing the Larkspur neighborhood, read a prepared
statement requesting that Chapel Hill Village be established without full
vehicular connectivity, and with emergency, pedestrian and bicycle access
only. The Larkspur neighborhood is opposed to a plan that would
provide a direct cut-through between two major arterial roads, he said.
Mr.Larson provided data supporting that position.
Amy Chute, a former transportation planner and financial analyst, said she found the numbers difficult to analyze. She gave page 38 from the packet as an example, and said that paragraph one on page four was even more difficult to understand. Ms. Chute said it would be difficult to keep Larkspur’s traffic under 1,000 and that going higher than that would violate the standard for a local road. She asked the Council to not approve the road.
Rebecca Wells, a Northwood resident, expressed concern about headlights shining into her yard. She asked the Council not to approve the stub-out.
Council Member Ward asked Mr.
Neppalli what traffic volume Larkspur’s roads
were designed to safely handle. Mr. Neppalli replied that Old
Larkspur Way, a collector street, was designed for 1,000 to
7,500 vehicle trips per day. That design standard goes all the
way to Butterfield Court, he said. After that, the roads are
designed for local street volume of less than 1,000, Mr. Neppalli
explained.
Council Member Ward asked about a local street handling more than
that. Mr. Neppalli replied that most collector streets do not carry
as much volume as they were designed for. He said that even
though the standards for a local street are less than 1,000 vehicles
they are constructed the same as collector streets and are capable of
carrying more than 1,000 vehicles.
Council Member Hill verified that the difference between a collector
street and a local street is minor if any. Mr. Neppalli noted
that street standards had nothing to do with construction
of pavement to carry the volume of cars but with characteristics
of the road.
Council Member Hill verified that these roads were different
pavement widths. He said that this was little understood and that
some criteria were out of the Town’s control. This leads to
concern among neighbors because it appears that their neighborhood does not
meet the standards, said Council Member Hill, adding that he did not
see the reason for this being so obtuse.
Council Member Easthom remarked that this appeared to
be the creation of a new road, not just a connection. She
expressed concern about that in relation to the study that is being
done in the northern area. She said it was not in the Town’s, or the
neighbors’, or the surrounding area’s best interests to create a new
road.
Mayor pro tem Strom clarified that the road configuration
had been the same when the Council decided not to make a
connection for Northwood 1. He ascertained from Mr.
Neppalli that if staff had had the opportunity, given the
information and testimony they have now heard, they would not have continued
the collector road all the way to the end of either Old Larkspur Way or
Maywood Way.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Neppalli to explain why the street was a connector
only up to Butterfield Court and not to Hunter Hill
Road. Mr. Neppalli deferred to Mr. Poveromo, who said he
believed that when Larkspur was proposed, Mr. Post had shown the
classification as a collector street. Mr.
Neppalli added that there had been interest in having
parking on both sides of the street. He said did not think it
was designed for functionality for traffic. The reason
for doing it as a collector street was to get parking on both sides
of the street, Mr. Neppalli said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt clarified that this area was not
within Town limits. He inquired about annexation,
and Ms. Culpepper replied that the Planning Department brings a
report on possible future annexations to the Council once a year.
Council Member Ward pointed out that citizens had said the traffic
analysis did not evaluate the cut-through traffic. He asked
Mr. Neppalli to respond to that, and also to the comment that staff had
told them that traffic speed could be lowered but not volume.
Mr. Neppalli replied that the analysis had only been of Chapel
Watch traffic and not of the surrounding roads. He said the report had
been done two times and the second time staff had included analysis of a
cut-through in the Larkspur subdivision. With regard to the ability
of roadway design to lower speed but not volume, he said that volume
can be reduced. Mr. Neppalli said that staff had
counted 600+ vehicles, between May 8 and May 11, coming out
from Old Larkspur Way onto Weaver Dairy Road Extension. When the
neighborhood is completely built, they expect more than 800 vehicles, he
said.
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Sally Greene, TO Close the Public Hearing. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor pro tem Strom moved R-12a as amended.
Council Member Greene said the decision about the road should
not have been difficult, and that she sympathized
with the neighbors. It was frustrating and
disappointing that Town staff had made it difficult, she
said. Council Member Greene told Council
members that she would not support the connection.
Mayor Foy said he agreed with what Council Member Greene had said.
He added that he does believe in connectivity, and that he had
supported the connection, but that it had not been done correctly and he
was persuaded that it would induce cut-through traffic. Mayor
Foy said that he did not support the connection now and
would not support the motion.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he could not support the project
unless there was a connection. He said the Council had made a
mistake when it did not connect Larkspur to Northwood, and that
previous planners had failed to impose a more interconnected
community. Council Member Kleinschmidt explained that one
reason he had voted against Larkspur was that he did not
believe in a community surrounding parts of itself with walls.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that failing to
make connections is like walling a community in, and he gave
examples of connections that he believed
had made the entire community less desirable. He said
that approving Larkspur and Chapel Watch without connecting them to
anything else would be a mistake for both neighborhoods as well as the
rest of the community. The terms "connector" and
"collector" street did not work in this instance, said
Council Member Kleinschmidt, and he suggested finding another way of
describing that clearly defines the problem.
Council Member Kleinschmidt proposed a substitute motion
for everything in the main motion, except to allow for full
access. There was no second.
Council Member Thorpe asked Council Member Kleinschmidt
if he did not think neighborhoods should be protected from
traffic. Council Member Kleinschmidt replied that he did not believe
this connection would destroy the neighborhood or create the kind of injury
that the Town ordinarily wants to avoid.
Council Member Thorpe said he was a staunch supporter of neighborhood
protection and he recanted the history of his efforts to do so.
Council Member Harrison commented that there would be a
bicycle connection and that this is what the Town is seeking in its
neighborhoods.
Council Member Ward said he shared Mayor Foy’s frustration because he
too had wanted the two neighborhoods to be safely and appropriately
connected. However, that would not happen given the way the designs
had evolved, he said, adding that this was the Council’s fault for
not having the foresight to make sure the staff knew what its priorities
were at the time that Larkspur was approved. Council Member
Ward described this as a loss for the Town and the neighborhood and said he
would vote for the main motion.
Council Member Easthom commented that she was happy that people can
connect, not cars.
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Laurin Easthom, TO Adopt R-12a as amended. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED by a vote of 8-1, with Mayor Kevin Foy, Mayor pro tem Bill Strom, Council member Laurin Easthom, Council member Sally Greene, Council member Ed Harrison, Council member Cam Hill, Council member Bill Thorpe, and Council member Jim Ward voting aye and with Council member Mark Kleinschmidt voting nay.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CHAPEL WATCH VILLAGE (2007-05-21/R-12a)
|
12. |
Homestead Twin Towns - Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit Planned Development-Housing Applications. |
Mr. Poveromo reviewed the Zoning Atlas Amendment and the SUP. He noted minor changes to the proposed ordinance with regard to affordable housing, energy efficiency, and several key issues regarding the SUP. Mr. Poveromo recommended enacting O-5, rezoning the site from R-2 to R-4, and adopting R-14a.
Developer Eric Chupp, the applicant, summarized the project
and said there was support from Town review boards and no
public opposition. He mentioned four items that were in contention: the
recreation area, the bus stop, the energy efficiency standard, and
curbside trash pick-up. Mr. Chupp proposed solutions to each of
these.
Mayor Foy said, in summary, that Mr. Chupp was offering to accept the
transit payment for the bus stop, to provide "Energy Star"
efficiency at 20 percent, to provide recreation space on site, and
to add a deed restriction so that two homes on Rogers Road
could have access to that recreation space.
Council Member Ward clarified that providing recreation
space on the site meant the applicant would increase that space by
1,075 feet on the main site. It would also mean including deed
restrictions that would offer membership buy-in and allow two
houses use of all the recreation facilities, he said. Council Member Ward
verified that there would be no up-front fee. The fee would
be homeowners dues less maintenance and garbage pickup, said Mr.
Chupp.
Mayor pro tem Strom verified with Mr. Poveromo that the payment in
lieu for recreation space was $13,000.
Council Member Easthom asked what, in addition to providing Energy Star
appliances, being an Energy Star project means. Mr. Chupp
replied that it means conditioning crawl spaces, using
energy-rated windows, adding insulation, and using a higher seer
HVAC system. He described it as a fairly comprehensive program
with $10-11,000 worth of upgrades in addition to appliances.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Chupp how he would demonstrate that
each building had achieved 20 percent efficiency through the Energy Star
program. Mr. Chupp replied that an independent engineer would
inspect and rate the house and certify the rating to the EPA.
Council Member Thorpe asked about letting potential homeowners
know they might be annexed by the Town. He recommended that the staff
think about that now in order to avoid having those homeowners
complain in the future.
Council Member Easthom asked Mr. Chupp to elaborate on a remark he
had made about curbside pick-up being a "deal breaker" for
him. She also asked the staff what the benefits and drawbacks to
curbside recycling were.
Ms. Culpepper replied that staff would like to bring back more
detailed information about the service implications. It would be
unusual for a multi-family development to be served by individual curbside
refuse collection, she said. Ms. Culpepper added that this could
have financial implications for the Town, and might set a
precedent. The Public Works Department would want to provide
information on that, she said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said it bothered him that this
development was considered multi-family. It would be as
easy to do curbside collection at those two little driveways, which are right
next to each other, as it would be to do so as Larkspur,
where driveways are 50 feet apart, he said.
Ms. Culpepper pointed out that the applicant had chosen
to propose this as a multi-family development rather than as
duplexes. This had been done in order to have floor area greater
than the Town’s duplex guidelines, she said, and she repeated that the Public
Works Department would need to address this.
Mr. Chupp said he had already spoken with Solid Waste and had
been told there were no impediments to picking up the trash in that
location. He said that the reason this was being treated
differently was because of the Town’s restrictions on duplexes, which had
forced this development to go into a special use multi-family
category. Mr. Chupp noted that within the Town
code the Council can make the determination that curbside pickup is
appropriate in such a circumstance.
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Close the Public Hearing on an Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment for Homestead Twin Towns Development from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C) and a Public Hearing on an Application for Special Use Permit Planned Development-Housing. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Enact O-5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor pro tem Bill Strom MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Adopt R-14a as amended. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE HOMESTEAD TWIN TOWNS DEVELOPMENT (Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9870-61-8194; a portion of 9870-61-8593; a portion of 9870-70-1770; and 9870-71-3197) (2007-05-21/O-5)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-HOUSING FOR THE HOMESTEAD TWIN TOWNS (2007-05-21/R-14a)
|
13. |
The Council appointed Ann Anderson and Stephanie Schmidt to the Board of Adjustment
The Council appointed Michael Cucchiara, Haig Khachatoorian, Pamela Pease, and Richard Robinson, Jr. to the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission.
The Council appointed Sarah Woodard David, Roland Giduz, Bill Green, and Stephen Rich to the Historic District Commission.
The Council appointed Brandon Atwater, Rachel Collman, and Brentton Harrison to the Youth Council Steering Committee.
The Council appointed Barbara Moran and Lynn Scattolini to the Library Board of Trustees.
The Council decided to defer item 4e to a later date.
|
16. |
Request for closed session to discuss property acquisition, personnel, and litigation matters. |
Council Member Cam Hill MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Laurin Easthom, TO go into closed session this evening, as authorized by North Carolina General Statue Section 143-318.11(a)(5) and (6), to discuss personnel matters. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjournd at 11:29 pm.