SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Principal Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

Item 1 - Ceremonies: Recognition of Youth Creating Change

Maxecine Mitchell explained that Youth Creating Change (YCC) was created in 1999 in Orange County and incorporated as a non-profit organization in 2002. YCC's mission is to inspire today's youth to create positive change in their community as well as in their lives, she said. Ms. Mitchell stated that YCC strives to achieve that goal through leadership training, economic development, education, and career planning.

YCC has its own clothing store on Graham Street in Chapel Hill, Ms. Mitchell pointed out. She noted that the store had remained open for two years even though many of the businesses around them had closed. Ms. Mitchell and one other person had managed 41 young people in 2002-2003, she said. She explained that she had cut back to 24 in 2003-2004 because the other employee's one-year position was ending.

Ms. Mitchell said that YCC also has five volunteers. They try to keep the children as busy as possible, she remarked, adding that the children had devoted 814 hours to the business last year. Ms. Mitchell told Council members that YCC had been struggling to maintain foundation and other financial support.

Latasha Curry, a YCC member, explained that she had joined YCC a year ago and had learned many new skills during that time. These skills include public speaking, leadership, lobbying, money management, and the financial aspects of running a small business, she said. Ms. Curry asked the Town Council to help YCC continue teaching others some of the things that she had learned.

Item 2 - Public Hearings: None.

Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members

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

3a(1) Ava Nackman, regarding a request for an Amendment to the Beechridge Housing Development Special Use Permit.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(2) Rev. Robert Campbell, regarding a request for Transit Service to the Rogers Road Community.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(3) Doug Schworer, regarding a citizens petition to update the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan on Business Development.

Mr. Schworer read a citizens’ petition requesting that Council include a chapter entitled "Business Development" in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He described this idea as "a win-win for the city, its residents, the businesses, and even other economic development initiatives." Mr. Schworer noted that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Commission, several past Council members, and several business owners had supported the petition. Council Member Ward suggested referring the petition to the Downtown Commission as well.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY, AND THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(4) Al Burke, regarding a petition on behalf of Northhaven Residents, requesting that the Council support the Horace Williams Airport.

Mr. Burke read a petition on behalf of Northhaven residents that asked the Council not to close the Horace Williams Airport. He described the Airport as a good neighbor and a valuable resource to Chapel Hill. Mr. Burke said that the Airport would provide a much-needed protective buffer between Northhaven and UNC's proposed new development on the Horace Williams property. He submitted information that he said suggested that the loss of the Area Health Education Center (AHEC) service alone would cost Chapel Hill $5 - $15 million dollars of economic activity.

Mayor Foy pointed out that the petition was asking the Council to reconsider its position. Council Member Hill, noting that he had not been on the Council when the decision to close the Airport had been reached, requested background information on how the Council had arrived at that decision.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins replied that the Council had been concerned about safety. The Airport was close to several schools and subdivisions that had developed around it, she said. Council Member Wiggins explained that several planes had crashed near those schools and subdivisions.

Mayor Foy suggested reformulating the petition to ask the staff for background on when the position had been developed and what the basis for it had been. The petition asks the Manager to provide information that he might not be able to provide, Mayor Foy pointed out. He suggested that the staff find out what kind of activity was currently taking place at the Airport and what was being planned.

Council Member Hill asked how quickly the staff could learn such things, and Town Manager Cal Horton pointed out that this was a very busy time of year. It would be a while, said Mr. Horton. Council Member Kleinschmidt verified that Mayor Foy's suggestion would include asking about changes that might have occurred at the Airport. Council Member Wiggins pointed out that there was less traffic at the Airport now because the Flying Club was no longer based there. Mayor Foy commented that much information could be provided that would help the Town better understand the situation.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins expressed support for the staff bringing back information based on what already was in Town files. But she did not support the request to assess the impact, at least not at this time, she said. Mayor Foy agreed, explaining that he was trying to reformulate the petition to answer questions but not to formulate anything new at this point. Council Member Strom noted that the staff might get basic information about AHEC from UNC Hospitals. They might get information from UNC about changes in how the Airport was operating, he said. Mr. Horton commented that the Council was asking for historical background and would like the staff to assemble the best data they could about any changes in Airport operations over the last couple of years.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Regarding #3a(3) above, Terry Tyson spoke in support of Doug Schworer's petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan. She commented that the more successful businesses in Town could offset the tax burden. Council support for the petition would send a message that Chapel Hill is a great town that supports sustainable businesses, Ms. Tyson said.

Item 4 - Consent Agenda

Mayor pro tem Wiggins removed 4c, Modification to Resolution Adopted January 25 Awarding Bids for Comprehensive Rehabilitation Work at the Airport Gardens Public Housing Neighborhood.

Council Member Harrison removed 4d. Receipt of Paving Petition for Jay Street.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH 4C AND 4D REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2004-02-23/R-1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:

a.	Minutes of January 12, 15, 21, and 28 (Work Session and Business Meeting), 2004.
b.	Nominations to various advisory boards and commissions (R-2).
e.	Acceptance of a US Department of Energy Million Solar Roofs Grant (R-5, O-1).
f.	Response to Greenways Commission’s Petition related to Bond Sale (R-6).

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2004-02-23/R-2)

WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:

Horace Williams Citizens Committee

Laurin Easthom

Ed Neely

Gene Pease

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GRANT (2004-02-23/R-5)

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Energy has made funds available for implementing projects that raise the public’s awareness of the benefits of solar energy; and

WHEREAS, the Town’s grant application, submitted on behalf of the Chapel Hill Solar Roofs Committee, was approved by the N.C. Solar Center in the amount of $10,800; and

WHEREAS, the grant funds would be used for developing an inventory of solar energy systems in the Chapel Hill area and a variety of public outreach efforts aimed at increasing the use of solar energy in Chapel Hill;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to accept the U.S. Department of Energy grant administered by N.C. State University and to make all necessary assurances.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2003 (2004-02-23/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2003” as duly adopted on June 9, 2003, be and the same is hereby amended as follows:

This the 23^rd of February, 2004.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNCIL’S REPRESENTATIVES ON THE CHAPEL HILL/ORANGE COUNTY PARKS PROJECT PLANNING COMMITTEE TO REQUEST THAT THE FULL COMMITTEE BEGIN DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO USE OF THE $1,000,000 IN ORANGE COUNTY BOND FUNDS DESIGNATED FOR GREENWAY PROJECTS IN CHAPEL HILL (2004-02-23/R-6)

WHEREAS, in 2001 Orange County voters approved a Parks bond that included $1,000,000 in funds designated by the Board of Orange County Commissioners for greenways in Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, in 2003 Chapel Hill voters approved issuance of $5,000,000 in Parks bonds designated for Greenways purposes; and

WHEREAS, the Council and the Board of Orange County Commissioners have established a process for development of Town-owned park projects funded with County bond funds; and

WHEREAS, the Council and the Board of Orange County Commissioners have established a Park Project Planning Committee for the purpose of expediting these projects;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council’s representatives of the Project Planning Committee are hereby authorized to open discussion with the Committee concerning use and schedule of the County greenway funds.

This the 23rd day of February, 2004.

With regard to 4c, Modification to Resolution Adopted January 25 Awarding Bids for Comprehensive Rehabilitation Work at the Airport Gardens Public Housing Neighborhood. Durham resident Vincent Brown expressed frustration over an injustice that he believed had been done to his contracting firm, Hairston Enterprises. His firm had been the lowest bidder on one portion of the Airport Gardens public housing rehabilitation project, he said, but the contract had been given to another bidder. Hairston Enterprises had not had any response from the staff or any information about when the item would come before the Council, said Mr. Brown. He stressed that his was a local company that employs local people and pays local taxes. Mr. Brown stated that Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had told him that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds should go to local companies. He protested that in spite of this, the Council had before it a recommendation to award the Airport Gardens contract to a company from South Carolina.

Mr. Brown's attorney, Walter Ricks, stated that the Town had not awarded the entire contract to the lowest bidder. Instead the decision had been made to choose the base bid and Alternate Two, he said, and to authorize the Town Manager to negotiate the remainder of the contract. Mr. Ricks said that he had spoken to the Town Manager and the Town Attorney, who were recommending that the Council withdraw the part of the resolution that authorized the Manager to negotiate. But the problem that being able to pick and choose alternates leaves, he argued, is that it gives rise to favoring a certain bidder. Mr. Ricks explained that his client, Vincent Brown, had the impression that his firm had been arbitrarily overlooked in this case.

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos expressed his belief that, with the recommended change, the procedure was in accordance with North Carolina bid law. Mr. Ricks had sent the matter to HUD for review, he pointed out. If HUD were to call some problem to the Town's attention then the staff would report that to the Council and recommend taking it into consideration, Mr. Karpinos explained. But, at this point, the Town has no basis for believing there was anything wrong with the procedure as being modified this evening, he said.

Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the contract was being finalized. It would be submitted to the contractor and then come back to the Town for signatures, he said. Mr. Karpinos noted, however, that the contract had not been signed yet and that there still was an opportunity to file a protest. The staff would check with HUD before executing the contract to make sure that HUD had no concerns regarding the letter from Mr. Ricks and the issues raised this evening, he said. Mr. Karpinos stated that Alternate Two had been added to the base bid after a determination of how much the bids were and how much funding was available. It was within the budgeted amount, he said.

Mayor Foy clarified that the resolution before the Council would rescind some authority that had previously been granted to the Town Manager. Mr. Karpinos responded yes, and added that the resolution would clarify that the Council was not authorizing the Manager to negotiate a change order and add one of the alternate add-ons without going back through the bidding process. The Council was clarifying that it was not authorizing this by deleting that provision, Mr. Karpinos said.

Mayor Foy asked what the process would be if a bidder wanted to challenge the award of the bid. Mr. Karpinos replied that the bidder would have to take formal legal action. Unless the Town learns from HUD that there is some problem with what it has done, it would proceed unless there was some legal action taken to direct them not to, he said. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the Town was obligated, otherwise, to go forward with the award of the bid.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the Council would have received the resolution before tonight if questions had not been raised about the original decision. Mr. Horton replied that he did not think so because the Town would not have undertaken to do any of the things authorized. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the Town always goes with the lowest bidder. Mr. Horton replied that the Town always goes "with the lowest bid from a responsible bidder." Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that during her time on the Council the Town had not gone with the lowest bidder when there had been some question about the ability of the lowest bidder to perform at the level Town would like. Mr. Horton replied that he did not recall any cases such as that. When the Town has not gone with the low bidder it has been because of some defect in the bid process, the bid itself, or because the lowest bid was not submitted by a responsible bidder, he said.

Council Member Kleinschmidt clarified that the Town had sufficient funds and had been authorized to proceed with Alternate Two, the base bid plus ten apartments. When the Town receives additional funding, Mr. Horton said, we will come back and ask the Council to authorize the completion of the remaining renovation along with site and parking lot work. Once these 18 units have been completed, there will be eight more to do plus the site work and parking lot, Mr. Horton said.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if this was how bidding usually was done, with a base budget and negotiating alternates. Mr. Horton replied that the Town tries to do the most work it can within the available budget. So they try to divide it up into base bid and alternates, and they add as many alternates as the budget will allow, he said, Mr. Horton explained that the Town does this in a way that makes the most sense for Chapel Hill. And what makes the most sense is to do the most units possible, he said. Mayor pro tem Wiggins verified that other projects have also been done in this manner.

Mr. Brown disagreed with the Town Manager's statement that the Town's budget was the issue. He read from a memorandum that stated the Town expected the total amount available for Airport Garden to be $1,015,101, plus other allocations. Mr. Brown noted that the Town Manager had already been authorized to award the entire contract to Carl Garris and Son, Inc., whose bid was higher than his. HUD had not yet responded because they had not received a response from the Town, said Mr. Brown, reasserting his belief that contracts should be awarded to local contractors.

Mayor Foy suggested that the Council adopt R-3 and then ask the Manager to bring back a full report at the next meeting that addresses the issues Mr. Brown had raised. In the interim, the Town should not enter into the contract with Carl Garris and Son, Inc., Mayor Foy said. Council Member Greene expressed support for Mayor Foy's recommendation, adding that she did not feel she understood this issue at all. Mr. Karpinos clarified that the Council was instructing the staff not to enter into a contract until a report had come back before them. This might not occur as early as the next Council meeting, he said.

Council Member Ward asked that the report include a response to Mr. Brown's comment that his was the lowest bid and that the Town seemed to have adequate funding to complete all of the alternates. He verified that the contract had already been awarded but the Town had not signed it and would not do so until the Council had that information. Council Member Ward asked if he should expect the contract to be signed unless the Council hears something from HUD indicating that something was done inappropriately. Mr. Karpinos replied that when the Town brings its report to the Council it will have information about HUD's position. And that will happen before the contract is signed, he said.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-3 AS AMENDED TO NOTE THAT THE MANAGER WILL NOT ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH CARL HARRIS & SONS, INC. AT THIS TIME AND WILL REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL IN A TIMELY MANNER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION OF JANUARY 28, 2004, WHICH ACCEPTED AND AWARDED THE BID FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION OF AIRPORT GARDENS APARTMENTS TO RESCIND THE AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE ADDITIONAL WORK FROM ALTERNATES 1, 3, AND/OR 4 (2004-02-23/R-3)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, based on the explanation and for the reasons contained in the report of the Manager and Attorney on February 23, 2004, hereby rescinds the authorization contained in the Council’s Resolution 2004-01-28/R-5 “to negotiate additional work from Alternates 1, 3 and/or 4 under the current bid prices, and present such change order to the Council at a future meeting.”

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is intended to clarify that any future parts of the Airport Gardens Rehabilitation Project which would themselves be required to be advertised for bid under North Carolina law shall be so advertised and the bids awarded in accordance with said law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is not intended to preclude the possibility of consideration of normal change orders to the contract awarded on January 28, 2004, which would otherwise be permissible under State law and Council policy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is to provide a report to the Council regarding the issues considered on February 23^rd regarding this matter with the understanding that the contract with Carl Garris and Son, Inc., approved by the Council on January 28, 2004 will not be executed by the Town until after the Council has had an opportunity to consider that report at a Council meeting.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

With regard to 4d, Receipt of Paving Petition for Jay Street, Jeremy Raw, representing the Village West Homeowners Association, requested that the Town extend the pavement on Jay Street farther than was indicated on a map attached to the resolution. The map showed the pavement ending about 3/4 down the street, even though a sign posted farther down indicates that Town maintenance ends there, he said. Mr. Raw explained that the Association did not want to do anything that would stop the paving. But they would like it to go a little farther than is indicated on the map, he said.

Mr. Horton recommended delaying action on this issue since the Town Engineer was not present to address it. The Council agreed by consensus to reschedule consideration of this item.

Item 5 - Information Reports

a. Follow-up to Panhandling Quarterly Report.

b. HAPLR Index 2003 Rating of the Chapel Hill Public Library as First in the State.

c. Response to Petition Asking for Interpretation of the Special Use Permit for 1152 Airport Road (formerly Growin’ Green).

d. Response to Petition for Funding for Honors Choir Event.

All information reports were received as presented by consensus of the Council.

Item 6 - Continuation of Public Hearing on Adjustments

to the Land Use Management Ordinance

Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that the staff had, at its January 21, 2004 meeting, organized its ideas for adjustment into three categories: correction of error, clarification of intent, and suggestions for substantive changes. Mr. Waldon presented images of duplexes, showing several features that had generated complaints from the public. He also displayed examples of those that blend in well with their surroundings. Mr. Waldon summarized the prevailing view that the Town needed to allow duplexes to be built with additional controls placed on them. He discussed design and size issues related to duplexes and recommended the following standards:

· Maximum size of Structure: 3,000 SQUARE FEET

· Maximum Floor Area ratio: .40

· Maximum # bedrooms per structure: 6

· Minimum Lot Size: Density Cap or 2x the Single Family lot size

· Designs to be Approved by CDC

Mr. Waldon said that these standards would apply to duplexes on an existing single lot as well as duplexes in new subdivisions. Standards would not apply to a planned development with multi-family units, which would require a Special Use Permit (SUP), he said. With respect to guidelines, Mr. Waldon explained that the staff was recommending the following from the existing document:

· Provide Visual Interest

· Human Scale

· Blend with Natural Terrain

· Compatible, in form and proportion, with the neighboring area.

Mr. Waldon reported that the staff had also suggested the following additional guidelines:

· Single Front Door, if practical.

· Resemble Single-Family Dwelling.

· Height Comparable to Nearby Buildings.

· Garage Doors Not Facing Street, if practical.

· Limit Front Yard Parking.

Mr. Waldon suggested the following, as examples of the kinds of adjustments the Council might want to make:

· Maximum Size of Structure

· Maximum # of Bedrooms

· CDC Review

· Additional Design Guidelines

Mr. Waldon recommended that the Council enact the ordinance tonight, with revisions to pages 79 and 229. He recommended also adopting Resolution A and an amended Resolution C, but not adopting Resolution B.

Virginia Knapp, Associate Director with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, commented that raising the maximum cap to 3,000 square feet would be a step in the right direction. It would encourage well-designed duplexes that are functional for families and which fit appropriately into existing neighborhoods, she said. Ms. Knapp encouraged the Town to support a cap of 4,000 square feet per structure, however. This would give designers the flexibility to meet and exceed new design guidelines, she said. Ms. Knapp noted that it would also promote a creative and diverse housing type and be another option for the community.

Builder Scott Kovens distributed information about twin townhomes. He read a statement in which he expressed fear that over-regulating would affect the affordability of housing in Chapel Hill. This will deny the middle class scenario that all have been striving so hard for, Mr. Kovens said.

Consultant Phil Post noted that choosing a duplex meant choosing a particular lifestyle that should be maintained as a viable choice. He agreed that there were duplex problems related to neighborhood character, front yard parking, and other issues. But, he reasoned, the new limitations and series of reviews will establish a whole new level of regulatory oversight, and added a cautionary note about the tendency to over-regulate. Mr. Post noted that the Chamber of Commerce had asked the Council to change the 3,000 square foot maximum to 4,000 square feet. That would allow a lot of flexibility for building good structures and would help maintain this very efficient lifestyle choice for housing, he said.

Council Member Strom asked Mr. Waldon to explain the difference between a density cap and the floor area ratio, as well as the underlying philosophy behind acquiring two lots for one duplex. Mr. Waldon replied that the reasons for the two controls were different. With regard to the 2X rule, he explained, putting a duplex on a single-family lot was fine as long as it did not increase the overall density of that development. But a duplex is two lots rather than one, he pointed out, so you ought to have two times the minimum land area that a single-family home would require. With regard to the density cap, Mr. Waldon explained that the maximum residential density in the R-2 zone is 4 units per acre, so two units ought to require a half an acre.

Council Member Strom remarked that the Town's thinking was skewed toward keeping density low. "Or keeping the density as it is specified for that zoning district in the ordinance," Mr. Waldon replied. Council Member Strom asked if there had been discussion of allowing the floor area ratio to rule and dropping the 2X rule. Mr. Waldon replied that it had been discussed and the staff was recommending meeting all of the various controls since circumstances differ across Town. Council Member Strom wondered if the floor area ratio could stand on its own in certain situations. The Town would then wind up with some incentive for lower priced housing, he said.

Council Member Ward asked where the staff anticipated trouble if the Town allowed a larger maximum. Mr. Waldon replied that there were many half-acre lots around Town. Using only floor area ratio would allow an 8,000 square foot duplex structure on such a lot, he said, and the staff saw that as too large for a duplex. Once structures get over 4,000-5,000 square feet, complaints about intensity of use, numbers of cars, and number of people begin, Mr. Waldon said. He explained that limiting size to 3,000 square feet should ensure that the housing form would remain what it had traditionally been in Chapel Hill. Mr. Waldon emphasized that this is two dwelling units - not a rooming house, and not a multi-family dwelling. There is nothing magic about 3,000 square feet, he pointed out, adding that 3,500 square feet or 4,000 square feet would not be unreasonable.

Council Member Greene asked what size duplex could be built on a 5,000 square foot lot. Mr. Waldon determined that it would be 2,000 square feet with the .40 floor area ratio. He pointed out that converting single-family homes to duplexes would increase the density of the neighborhood, noting that the Town had heard concerns about that.

Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked that with a 4,000 square foot cap, a .40 floor area ratio, a six-bedroom limit, and parking restrictions, a duplex would not create the same intensity as had been seen in Northside. But there might be problems with character changes in neighborhoods with too small duplexes as well as too large ones, Council Member Kleinschmidt said.

Mr. Waldon commented that the Town's approach had been that that just controlling duplexes with maximum size would work fine for some neighborhoods but not for others. The same situation would apply if controlling only by lot size, or by floor area ratio, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that the idea was that by putting these controls in place the Town would establishing the envelope of what was reasonable for construction of new duplexes. But what becomes the restricting factor might differ from one case to another, he said.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Waldon for an example of where having a 3,500 square foot limit and a .40 floor area ratio would be a problem. Mr. Waldon replied that the .40 ratio on a half-acre lot would allow an 8,000 square foot duplex. So, in that case, the 3,500 square foot cap would be the controlling factor, he said. Mayor Foy repeated his question about where that would create a problem. Acknowledging that you could not put the 3,500 square foot structure on that lot, he asked if a 2,200 square foot structure would be too big for a 5,500 square foot lot. Mr. Waldon pointed out that this assumes there is no 2X rule. It would be a pretty big structure on a small lot, he said, adding that one of the Town's working assumptions was that a duplex would create greater intensity of use than a 2,200 square foot house.

Mr. Horton commented that the key point was that the duplex would introduce twice as many residents into an area. He said that the staff had not thought through all the implications of not prohibiting that and probably could not advise the Council tonight about what the implications might be.

Mayor Foy pointed out that impervious surface and all of the other requirements would be the same as for a single-family unit. Only the number of people would be greater, he said.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why, if the Town required the 2X rule, would there ever be a duplex, unless it was purely an investment property. He would build two single-family homes as big as possible so that he could make his money, he said. So where was the incentive to build the desirable kind of duplex? Mr. Waldon replied that it could relate topography, neighborhood, characteristics of the lot, or lifestyle.

Mayor Foy inquired about a hypothetical case where one of two contiguous lots is in the Resource Conservation District (RCD) and the duplex goes on the other one that is not in the RCD. Mr. Waldon replied that this was another way that it might play itself out.

Council Member Hill verified that Mr. Waldon had mentioned requiring two parking spaces per duplex side. He asked if that could be restricted to one per side. Mr. Waldon explained that only 40% of the front yard would be used for parking. And the impervious surface restrictions tend to limit parking, he said, adding that neighbors were concerned about cars overflowing onto the street.

Council Member Hill commented that this discussion did not mesh with the reality of his old neighborhood where there were 5,000 square foot duplexes with much impervious surface and parking. Except for the 3,500 square foot cap, he did not see how these restrictions would stop such situations, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that the duplexes in that neighborhood, which had been built under previous regulations, had caused great alarm and consternation at the time they were built. Regulations changed as the concrete was being poured, he said.

Council Member Hill stated that he did not understand why a builder with two lots would build a duplex. It seems as though they would do better with two separate houses, he said. Council Member Hill noted that affordability goes hand in hand with density, and suggested exploring the idea of one lot/one duplex, especially on infill projects. Mr. Waldon mentioned that there had once been a duplex minimum lot size requirement of 1-1/2 times the single-family requirement. If that was of interest to the Council, he said, it was available for consideration.

Council Member Strom asked if there was anything other than eliminating the density cap that the Town would have to do to limit to one duplex/one lot. Mr. Karpinos replied that they would have to eliminate the 2X rule. Mr. Waldon pointed out that eliminating those two rules would allow builders to put a duplex anywhere they can put a single-family house. Council Member Strom remarked that the floor area would be capped at whatever ratio the Council decides.

Council Member Hill verified that duplexes were not allowed in every zoning district. Mr. Waldon said the staff was recommending that duplexes be allowed in R-2 zones and higher.

Council Member Ward clarified that the space inside the structure could be divided any way the owner wanted. Mr. Horton expressed concern that allowing duplex development on a single lot could lead to duplex development in neighborhoods that do not expect it. The Council and the advisory boards had not discussed this possibility, he said. He advised Council members to move ahead with the more restrictive regulations. Then they could ask the staff to bring back something that would be less restrictive and put that through the normal process, Mr. Horton stated.

Council Member Greene proposed that the 2X rule might lead to lots that would be too big. But she was more interested in the size of the house and the way it would look in a neighborhood, she said. Council Member Greene called attention to a letter from Aaron Nelson, in which he stated that 2,800 square feet would be workable for developers. She was not sure how the Town went from that to 4,000 square feet, she said, adding that she was more comfortable with 2,500-2,800 square feet. That goes along with the notion that the Town can do these on smaller lots, she remarked.

Council Member Greene noted that a solution had not been presented for how to treat infill differently from new developments. She proposed writing the regulations to deal with infill. If they don’t work for a developer of an entire subdivision of duplexes then s/he can apply for a SUP, she said. Council Member Greene added that she would support retaining Resolution B because those criteria came out of the design charrette and they reflect what people there cared about.

Mayor Foy commented that the Manager had made a good point that the Council was moving in a direction that had not previously been articulated as clearly. It would be advisable to see if there are any problems before instituting that, he said. Mayor Foy added that competing interests had lead to arguments for and against the number of parking spaces. He recommended adopting the more restrictive limitations that the Manager had recommended and then remove them in the next couple of months.

Council Member Harrison commented, with regard to Resolution C, that the staff had not addressed an issue that landscape architect Dan Jewell had raised about a requirement that multi-family developments of more than seven units require at least five acres of land. Mr. Waldon replied that it could be added to Resolution C, adding that the staff had commented once before that this had been discussed last year. The Council had decided not to do as Mr. Jewell had suggested, Mr. Waldon said, but he offered to bring it back if the Council wanted to reopen it. Council Member Harrison asked that they do bring it back.

Mayor Foy suggested adding that request when the Council considers the resolution.

Council Member Hill wondered if the Council could extend the duplex ban, noting that a partial approval probably would not be appealing to someone who wanted a permit. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the ban had a sunset clause. Changing that would be another amendment to the ordinance, he said. Mr. Karpinos explained that doing so would require another advertisement, public hearing, and recommendation from the Planning Board.

Mayor Foy determined that extending the duplex band was not an option.

Council Member Strom commented that, if the Council was going to make it easier to build duplexes, duplex developers probably would be willing to wait a couple of months.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ENACT O-2 WITH REVISED PAGES 79 AND 229 FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING JURISDICTION, AND AREAS SUBJECT TO TOWN DEVELOPMENT REGULATION UNDER THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY (2004-02-23/O-2)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:

Section 1. Chapter 24 of the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows:

(Insert here Final Draft of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, dated January 27, 2003, Draft dated February 23, 2004).

Subject to the following changes:

Insert changes here

Section 2. The new Land Use Management Ordinance shall apply to all development approved after this Ordinance becomes effective; provided, however, that Zoning Compliance Permit applications, Site Plan Review applications, Subdivisions, Master Plans, Special Use Permits, Development Plans, and Site Development Permits which received final approval from the Town Manager, Planning Board or Town Council, prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be subject to January 27, 2003 Land Use Management.

Section 3. All Ordinances and portions of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective upon enactment.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-8A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING USER FEE POLICIES AND SCHEDULES FOR THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT (2004-02-23/R-8a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts, effective immediately, the following user fee policy and schedule:

TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES

TYPE OF APPLICATION/PERMIT FEE

Board of Adjustment (10045-45105) Variance............................................... $330

Appeal........................................................ $220

Special Use Permits (10046-46405)

Extraction of Earth Products, Landfill, Cemetery,

Park/Ride Terminal ................................................................................. $5,000 + $20/acre

Radio/TV Transmitting/Receiving Facility............................................................................. $5,000

All Other ..................................................................... $5,000 + $20/100 square feet of floor area

Special Use Modifications (10046-46405)

Extension or Renewal ........................................................................................................... $675

All Other........................................................................... Same as above Special Use Permit fees

All Master Land Use Plans (10046-46405)......................... $5,000 + $20/100 square feet of land area

Zoning Map and Text Amendments (10045-45107)................................................... $800 + $40/acre

Subdivisions (10045-45103)

Preliminary Plat ................................................................................................. $5,000 + $200/lot

Minor Subdivision................................................................................................... $630 + $40/lot

Final Plat ............................................................................................................... $270 + $40/lot

Re-approval.......................................................................................................................... $550

Office/Institutional-4 (OI-4) Development Plan (10045-45102).................................. $800 + $40/acre

Office-Institutional-4 (OI-4) Site Development Permit (10045-45102)................................. $2,600

Historic District Commission (with exception of signs, below)

Certificates of Appropriateness................................................................................................. $ 0

Community Design Commission (10045-45110)

Building Elevations................................................................................................................. $100

Lighting Plan............................................................................................................................ $50

Alternative Buffer..................................................................................................................... $50

Site Plan Review (Council/Planning Board) (10045-45100) $1,700 + $17/100

square feet of floor area

Zoning Compliance Permit (10045-45106)

Staff Review/Administrative Approval.................................................................................... $125

“Express” Staff Review/Administrative Approval.............................................................. $50

Home Occupation................................................................................................................... $50

Final Plans for Zoning Compliance Permit Issuance.................................. ½ of original approval fee

Sign Plan Review (including Historic District signs) (10045-45106)

Individual Sign (single business on one zoning lot)..................................................................... $50

Unified Sign Plan (multiple businesses on one zoning lot)......................................................... $125

Individual Sign in accordance with Approved Unified Sign Plan................................................. $25

Resubmission of Applicant's Request (see above account numbers) 50% of applicable fees after

staff report has been drafted

Notes:

Special Use Permits, Special Use Modifications and Subdivisions proposed to be assisted through HUD conventional Public Housing, Section 8, 101, 235, CDBG funding, as well as through the N.C. Housing Finance Agency, and other recognized forms of subsidy, are exempted. In projects where assisted units comprise only a portion of the total number of units, the fee is reduced by the percentage of the total number of units that are assisted.

For Special Use Permit applications involving lots of ten (10) acres or greater, where the proposed use is to create five (5) or fewer individual residential lots, the development application fee shall be waived. (Adopted by Town Council November 13, 1997.)

All review fees are doubled if the activity or site change requested has already occurred or been started.

Fees are waived for Town of Chapel Hill development applications.

For applications involving residential development in which documentation is provided that 100% of the dwelling units will be affordable to low-moderate income families (80% of area median income for a family of four), the development application fee shall be waived.

For applications from religious organizations or private, tax-exempt, non-profit organizations, fees shall be 50% of standard fees.

The maximum application fee for any Special Use Permit, Zoning Map Amendment, Subdivision, or Zoning Compliance Permit application shall be $60,000.

Fees approved by Town Council June 25, 2001 to be effective July 1, 2001.

Amendments:

7/2/01 by adding OI-4 Development Plan, and 10/10/01 by adding Site Development Permit Fee

Format revised 06/03/03

2/23/04 by adding Express ZCP fee

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

Mayor Foy noted that the Manager was not recommending Resolution B, which would change the "guidelines" that the Community Design Commission (CDC) would review to "standards." The Council would revisit this issue, he said, and he assumed they would not adopt Resolution B.

Council Member Greene argued that the guidelines were very important and said that she did not see any harm in taking a vote on it. Mayor Foy asked the staff to explain their thoughts on this.

Mr. Waldon replied that adopting or not adopting Resolution B were both reasonable actions. He listed the current design guidelines and proposed that the last one (compatible, in form and proportion, with the neighboring area) was the most important. If the Council wanted to be more specific about what that last bullet meant for duplexes then they might want to adopt Resolution B, he said.

Mayor Foy pointed out that the staff was not recommending it, though. Mr. Waldon explained that they had followed what they believed to be the last prevailing opinion when the Council met with the CDC.

Council Member Greene stated that the guidelines had been taken almost exactly from the executive summary of the Chamber of Commerce's design charrette. Even though the CDC might have spoken last, she said, they were not, to her mind, the most persuasive.\

Council Member Harrison noted that the resolution uses the term "guidelines" in one place and "standards" in another. Mr. Horton explained that "standard," in this sense, did not mean required by law. They had changed the wording in response to the CDC's resistance to the word "guidelines," Mr. Horton said, adding that the design guidelines, in this case, were not part of the ordinance. Council Member Harrison stated that, in his years of experience dealing with “standards” put forth by federal and state governments, they always meant something which was required, unlike “guidelines.”

Mayor Foy determined that the Manager would not object to replacing the word "standards" with "guidelines" wherever it appears in the resolution.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO ADOPT R-8B, AMENDED TO CHANGE THE WORD "STANDARD" TO "GUIDELINES" IN THE RESOLUTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REGARDING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DUPLEX DWELLINGS, TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION (2004-02-23/R-8b)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends the Comprehensive Plan’s Design Guidelines document to incorporate the following design guidelines associated with construction of a duplex, as defined by the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, to be administered by the Community Design Commission:

Community Design Commission, Duplex Design Guidelines

1. A single front door to face street, if practicable;

2. Appearance to resemble single-family dwelling;

3. Height of structure comparable to nearby buildings;

4. Garage doors not facing street, if practicable; and

5. Limit front yard parking as much as possible.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-8C, AS AMENDED TO EXAMINE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF OVER SEVEN UNITS REQUIRES AT LEAST FIVE ACRES OF LAND. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REGARDING PRIORITIZATION OF EVALUATION OF RE-MAINING LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ITEMS IDENTIFIED AT THE JANUARY 21, 2004, PUBLIC HEARING (2004-02-23/R-8c)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following schedule of consideration of the remaining Land Use Management Ordinance text amendments:

Clarify the relationship between building code and Land Use Management Ordinance definitions of floor area.	Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004.
Clarify land disturbance triggers for soil and erosion control requirements; coordinate with similar requirements in other documents.	Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004.
Adjust parking requirements (Section 5.9).	Defer discussions, pending completion of study that is currently underway (report expected to Council in March).
Re-consider the time frames specified for action in the OI-4 zoning district (Sec 3.5.2).	Consider next steps following a March 1, 2004 Public Forum.
Clarify formula for payment in lieu of affordable housing (Sec. 3.8.5).	Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council by June 2004.
Reconsider using the “2-year frequency, 24-hour storm event” as the basis upon which calculations are made regarding how much stormwater (volume) needs to be retained on-site. (Section 5.4.6)	Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004.
Consider how to handle porous pavement as impervious surface (Table 3.8-1, footnote (k)).	Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004.
Clarify distinctions between water treatment requirements for runoff from public streets vs. private lots.	Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004.
Re-consider requiring stormwater management facilities on individual single-family lots (Section 5.9.2(a)).	We do not recommend re-consideration of this issue at this time. We continue to believe that the regulations in place are desirable; there may be value in reconsideration in the future, after there has been enough time to evaluate systems that have been installed; there is not yet enough experience with these regulations to perform such evaluation now. We recommend further consideration in fall 2004.
Increase flexibility in “alternate buffer” provisions (Section 5.6.8).	Defer discussions, pending further study, with recommendations to the Council in fall 2004.
Consideration of reducing the minimum lot size for a Planned Development-Housing (PD-H) for multi-family development with more than 7 units/acre, from 5 acres to 1 acre.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

Mayor Foy remarked that the Council's action probably seemed very confusing to the public. He explained that this change to the LUMO includes several items, but the Council was not going to take action on them and would defer them for further discussion. Mr. Horton stated that he would propose a process at the next regular business meeting and outline a tentative schedule.

Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed regret that others had witnessed this confusion. Even anyone having the materials in front of them would find it confusing, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt emphasized that there was no "hiding the ball" on the part of the Town Council. He hoped that there would be less confusion when the item comes back, he said.

Mayor Foy noted that the Council had waded through a couple of hundred pages.

Council Member Ward remarked that this reflected the tension between the impact and the desirability of density associated with duplexes.

Item 7 - Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Rezoning to Create

Neighborhood Conservation District for the Northside Neighborhood

Mr. Waldon stated that this item too had come back from the January public hearing. The recommended ordinance would amend the Town's Zoning Atlas to create a Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) as an overlay district for the Northside Neighborhood, he said. Mr. Waldon told Council members that no valid protest petition had been filed. He pointed out that an important part of this proposal was that new duplexes would not be permitted in this NCD.

Mr. Waldon mentioned a new issue relating to a small portion of the district zoned OI-1. According to the Manager's and the Planning Board's recommendation, this area would be subjected to the same regulation as the residential properties in Northside, he explained. But, said Mr. Waldon, the height limits for those institutional properties would be a little higher than those for the residential zones behind them. He pointed out that Ordinance A had not changed but that there was an alternate ordinance, Ordinance B, in case the Council was persuaded tonight that the height limits should be higher.

Northside Neighborhood Advisory Committee Chair Delores Bailey explained that the process thus far had accomplished three major goals: It had established an overlay district that would address some of the problems that continue to plague the neighborhood. It had brought the community, University, local business owners, and concerned individuals to the table. And, whether they agreed or not, the process had worked. Ms. Bailey noted that the Northside NCD would serve as a model for the surrounding neighborhoods when they too need preservation.

Daniel Olsen told Council members that since he bought property in the commercial area the Town had taken a series of measures that had changed the zoning and regulations. He predicted that his would be the only commercial property in North Carolina that was in a conservation district. This would be the third time his property values had decreased since he bought it, he said. Mr. Olsen expressed surprise and disappointment that the restrictions seemed destined for passage.

Charles House, Chair of the Downtown Commission, read a letter from the Commission addressed to the Mayor and Town Council. The letter said that including Town Center (TC) zoning in the Northside NCD had compelled the Commission to comment that reducing the proposed intensity of the TC-2 areas along West Rosemary Street would contradict the Council's stated goal of increasing density Downtown. In the letter, the Commission asked the Council to take the Northside Committee's recommendations for providing a buffer between TC-2 zones and residential areas. But the Commission encouraged Council members to leave the regulations in place where the TC-2 properties in the Northside NCD face other TC-2 or OI properties. A compromise proposal that allows density in the Town Center but also protects the Northside neighborhood would be the best solution for all, the letter said. Mr. House added that the Commission also supported the staff's recommendation to increase the OI properties on North Columbia Street to the TC-2 designation.

Northside property owner Eva Metzger expressed concern about the North Columbia Street properties designated OI. She argued that buildings there should not be restricted to one story, which is what the proposed height restrictions would do, she said. Ms. Metzger suggested that the Town apply the same height restrictions to OI properties as the TC properties adjacent to residential areas. Ms. Metzger urged the Council to vote for Ordinance B with these secondary height restrictions added as an amendment. The Council might want to postpone its vote on the NCD again until the impact of the Northside NCD on OI properties can be explored more fully, she said.

Northside resident Tinita Jones, who lives with her mother behind the property on 404 Lindsay Street, expressed support for the proposed restrictions. If they had been in place before now the neighborhood would not now have two single-family homes built on property that does not have a back yard, she said. Ms. Jones explained that she and her mother were Chapel Hill natives who live on property that had been owned by her great grandparents. They have to live with what developers have done to their neighborhood, she said, while those developers go back to their nice plush homes somewhere else. Ms. Jones expressed support for all that the Advisory Committee had done and recommended.

Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Director Aaron Nelson congratulated the Council for taking action on something that the Town had been discussing for a long time. He praised the Northside Advisory Committee for bringing everyone together, and Ms. Bailey, in particular, for her true leadership. Mr. Nelson said that the Chamber was in support of the Downtown Commission's recommendation that TC-2 regulations continue. The only real difference between that existing regulation and what the Overlay Zone proposes is four feet, he said, adding that it was easier to build three stories in 44 feet than in 40. Mr. Nelson mentioned the Chamber's concern about the implications of a NCD being able to regulate a commercial district. He asked the Town Council to consider the appropriateness of that. Mr. Nelson said that the Chamber supported changing the OI-1 height limits to those of TC-2 with the appropriate step-downs in the back to the neighborhood.

Northside resident and duplex owner Sherif Ghobrial inquired about the current cost of an SUP, which he said Mr. Waldon had estimated at about $20,000. He asked what had been said at the January 21^st meeting regarding "express" zoning changes. Mr. Ghobrial expressed support for the Northside NCD, but challenged the Council to discuss and possibly amend elements of the ordinances that he deemed too restrictive. Mr. Ghobrial applauded the Council on adopting Resolution B in Item #6 regarding LUMO. He expressed support for "standards" rather than "guidelines" because that would lead to responsible community development. Mr. Ghobrial suggested that the Council reduce taxes on senior citizens who live in Northside. Then they would not be forced to sell their properties to developers who will hang onto it for a number of years until the restrictions are lifted, he said.

Mayor Foy mentioned Ms. Metzger's comment that the primary height had been dealt with but the secondary height had not. He determined from Mr. Waldon that this had been intentional. Mr. Waldon remarked that the staff's recommendations were the same as they had been in the past. But that some of tonight's suggestions have merit, he said, adding that Ordinance B was "not bad." Mr. Waldon noted that a secondary height of 60 feet for OI-1 would be quite tall for property abutting residences. What happens on the edge of a neighborhood has an impact on that neighborhood, he said, adding that 60' was higher than what the Council had determined as an objective.

Council Member Greene asked Ms. Bailey to explain more about the Advisory Committee's recommendation for 24 feet. Ms. Bailey clarified that the Committee had not made a recommendation on OI-1 because it had come to them too late and there had not been a quorum at the last meeting. Twenty- four feet had been Tim Dempsey's personal recommendation, she said. Council Member Greene pointed out that the Town could decide on 24 feet as a compromise between 20 and 29 feet. She also remarked that restrictions on the commercial district adjacent to Northside would not lead to similar restrictions in other parts of Town unless those neighborhoods had qualifying characteristics. Council Member Greene noted that the Town must balance allowing density on the commercial side with not allowing it to be too imposing on existing residential structures.

Mayor Foy ascertained from Ms. Bailey that the present primary in TC-2 was 44 feet and the proposal was 40 feet. He inquired about the Committee's thinking on that. Ms. Bailey replied that the Committee had looked at The Fountain, which is 44 feet, and decided that it was too large so close to the neighborhood. Based on the recommendations of the developers on the Committee, they had arrived at a limit of 40 feet, she said.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Ward asked how that would be different from TC-2 in terms of how it relates to the neighborhood. Council Member Harrison said that reducing the height reduces the number of potential stories. Mayor Foy commented that the question was why not have the primary and secondary be the same for OI-1 and TC-2. That is, have 40 feet and 50 feet instead of 29 feet and 35 feet, Mayor Foy said.

Council Member Harrison noted that OI has fewer stories under this proposal.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked it was necessary to lower the secondary height below the proposed secondary limit for TC-2.

Mayor Foy asked if the staff had any comment on that, adding that the Council's problem seemed to be that the Committee had not considered OI-1. The effect would be a change that might not have been well thought out, he said. Mayor Foy inquired about setting the primary at 40 feet for OI-1 and 50 feet secondary, the same as with TC-2. Mr. Waldon explained that the OI-1 zoning district was intended to be a transitional district between commercial and residential properties. Its current primary was 29 feet and it is intentionally not 44 feet, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that raising it to 44 feet would be going in the opposite direction from what the Council had intended.

Council Member Kleinschmidt repeated his question about why it was necessary to lower the secondary height below the proposed secondary height for TC-2. Mr. Waldon replied that TC-2 was intended to be a fairly high intensity commercial zoning district, and OI-1 was intended to be a fairly low intensity transitional district. Mr. Waldon noted that the proposed secondary for TC-2 was 50 feet and the proposed secondary for OI-1 was 35 feet. This would be a 15-foot drop rather than the current 30-foot drop between 90 and 60 feet, he pointed out.

Council Member Ward asked for a comment on the difference between 44 and 40 feet in TC-2, given the reality of construction. Mr. Waldon said that the Committee had discussed that in great detail and had concluded that 44 feet was too tall, especially since there was no setback in TC-2 and buildings that high could be right at the property line. The consensus was that 40 feet was more reasonable, he said, except on the back where those properties abut residential. Then it needed to be lower, Mr. Waldon said.

Mayor Foy repeated that in O-4, it would be 40 feet for TC-2 as the primary and 50 feet for the secondary. For OI-1, 29 feet would be the primary and 35 feet as the secondary, he said, with 30 feet if adjacent to a residential zone in TC-2.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ENACT O-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS TO CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ESTABLISHING A CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SAID DISTRICT (2004-02-23/O-4)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the petition to amend the Zoning Atlas to create a Neighborhood Conservation District For the Northside neighborhood, and finds that the amendment is warranted to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

SECTION I

Properties identified on the attached map (Attachment 1) are hereby designated as part of the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District, designated on the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas as CD 1, with special standards as described in the attached Northside Neighborhood Conservation District Plan, dated December 11, 2003 (Attachment 3), with the following amendments to the District Plan:

Amend the statement under “Special Design Standards” to read as follows: “Maximum Building Height: Other than Town Center and OI-1 Districts (primary): 20 feet.”

Add the following statement under “Special Design Standards”: “Maximum Office/Institutional-1 Building Height (primary): 29 feet.”

This Plan (Attachment 3), as amended above, is incorporated as part of this ordinance, shall constitute a part of this Zoning Atlas Amendment, and shall be subject to modification in the same manner as any other amendment to the Zoning Atlas.

SECTION II

That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Waldon to display a slide showing a Caldwell Street duplex that represented the kinds of duplexes that would be prohibited. She stated she was glad that the Town had passed this tonight but was sad that it had taken so long to find a tool to help a neighborhood that had been screaming for help for so long. Council Member Wiggins said she felt really sad that so many properties had been lost.

Council Member Strom told about an experience he'd recently had on a clear, crisp morning at a coffee shop in Greenwich Village, NY. An elderly lady had sat down next to him, he said, and told him that she thanked former mayor, John Lindsay, for putting height restrictions on those buildings and preserving the character of that neighborhood. Council Member Strom said that he agreed with Council Member Wiggins that the Town had missed an opportunity to do something earlier in Northside. He expressed confidence, though, that they had done the right thing tonight.

Mayor Foy said that he agreed with both of his colleagues' comments. But, he pointed out, Northside residents were the ones who had taken control of the issue and had forced the changes. The credit goes to them, he said, and he thanked them for their hard work.

Item 8 - Discussion of Council Goals and Implementation Plan for 2004

Mr. Horton presented a set of goals and recommended priority categories based on goals the Council had developed at its January 15, 2004 session. These did not include Council Member Ward's question about transfer and purchase of development rights, Mr. Horton said, explaining that this had been an oversight. He told Council members that the staff would bring back an amendment for consideration very soon. These goals were being offered as a draft for Council feedback and direction, Mr. Horton said.

Mayor Foy commented that the goals were a blueprint for the Council's work for the coming year. They were divided into highest, second, and third priority, he pointed out. Mayor Foy recommended that Council members make sure they agree with the prioritization and that their understanding of the goals is the same as the staff's. He noted that Council members probably would like to move everything into the highest priority, but cautioned them to consider the staff's assessment of how much they can do in a year.

With regard to #21, under the second priority on page 13, Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked what master plan the Council had been referring to when they adopted that. Various Council members explained that it would be a new master plan. Mayor pro tem Wiggins ascertained that the same item was referring to Chapel Hill Transit, not Town transportation in general. Mr. Horton pointed out, however, that it could include future changes that might be operated by Chapel Hill Transit. Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that the Transit Committee had been calling for a master plan.

With regard to #36, Council Member Harrison stated that discussions of Chapel Hill Transit and Highway 15-501 refer to Fordham Boulevard. That is why mitigation of traffic congestion plays a role in how well transit can operate on Highway 15-501 itself, he said. Council Member Harrison wondered if the Town needed to repeat the study through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT), since that is what his petition, which had become a Council resolution, had already accomplished. He said that the study would help feed into the transit master plan because it looks at how well Highway 15-501 could be working. So, Council Member Harrison said, #36 had already been done and the Town was waiting for NCDOT to get around to it. He pointed out that another request from the Council to the MPO might move it along.

Mayor Foy asked if Council Member Harrison was suggesting changing or eliminating the goal. Council Member Harrison replied that he was trying to jump-start it. There was not that much for the staff to do on it, he said, because it was going to be a State study and the State had already begun doing those on troubled corridors elsewhere.

Mayor Foy commented that getting a resolution from the Council to go the MPO would not be a problem. But if Council Member Harrison was recommending changing the description, or moving the item or eliminating it, then the Council should do that tonight, said Mayor Foy. He recommended leaving the item as it was and doing as Council Member Harrison had recommended in a resolution. Council Member Harrison agreed, adding that he had wanted that kind of analysis.

Council Member Hill pointed out that publicly financed elections had not been put on the list even though the Council had discussed it. He proposed that it become a high priority regardless of what the General Assembly decides to do. Mr. Horton offered to bring that back as an amendment at the next Council meeting. Council Member Hill explained that he wanted to make candidacy for Town Council more inclusive and to have campaign finance reporting done "in real time."

Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that they make sure that this gets addressed this year rather than next since it would be unseemly to do it during the 2005 election year. It would be better to have this kind of conversation with the community in the absence of that kind of electoral overly, Council Member Kleinschmidt reasoned. Mr. Horton and Mayor Foy agreed that a Council Committee should address this issue.

Council Member Strom recommended that #21 be moved to the highest priority. He suggested trying to compress the timetable, secure funding, get the study underway in 2005, and get it in place as quickly as possible. Council Member Strom stressed the importance of the Council having a vision and direction for public transit.

Mayor Foy asked if moving #21 to the highest priority would place an undo burden on the staff. Mr. Horton replied that the staff would look at the entire package and bring back a recommendation for modification if moving it up would be an unrealistic objective. Mayor Foy recommended moving that to highest priority then, with the modification that Council Member Strom had recommended.

With regard to #23, Council Member Ward determined from Mr. Horton that what the staff had proposed would allow the Council to know what it could do during this budget cycle. With regard to #35, he expressed concern that the strategy would have significant negative health implication. If drainage ponds were leading to more mosquitoes then he would like to know that soon, he said. Mr. Horton replied that this was the fastest schedule they could promise given the limited staff to focus on this issue. He added, though, that the Town might obtain University assistance that would allow it to move faster. Council Member Ward asked the Council to support allowing the Manager to look into obtaining University assistance with #35. Mr. Horton noted that there was consensus for that based on the nods from Council members and the lack of any objection.

With regard to #8, Council Member Greene said that the Council had asked to review how the 5,000 square foot threshold was working versus the 2,000 square foot one that had been proposed but had not been adopted. She explained that the rationale for the 5,000 square foot threshold, for this and the tree ordinance, was that it would catch most Chapel Hill development anyway. But the Planning Board had asked that it be tracked for a year or so, Council Member Greene recalled, and she asked if that could be worked in as a goal in the next review of the LUMO. Mr. Horton replied that the staff was scheduled to report on that this year.

With regard to #16, Council Member Greene emphasized that the NC Rehabilitation Code already exists. She had asked whether the Town should opt into that program or not, she said, and had hoped it could be done earlier in 2004 rather than at some unspecified date. Mr. Horton replied that so many things fit into that category he would not want to make a promise.

With regard to #34, Council Member Greene asked the Manager if he had any ideas about where to pursue grant funding. She also asked who on the staff had been assigned to head that up. Mr. Horton replied that he had not made the assignment yet but thought that funding was possible based on limited discussions with Planning Department staff.

Mr. Horton suggested that the staff bring back a revised resolution that would include the Council's discussion tonight. The Council agreed by consensus. Mr. Horton thanked the Council for the work they had created over a two-year period. It had moved the Comprehensive Plan implementation ahead in a good way, he said, and the staff was very grateful for that leadership.

Item 9 - Appointment of a Council Member to the

Orange County Library Services Task Force

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-10 APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO THE ORANGE COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICES TASK FORCE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE ORANGE COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICES TASK FORCE (2004-02-23/R-10)

WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has requested that the Town Council designate a Council member to serve on the Orange County Library Service Task Force; and

WHEREAS, Council Member Jim Ward has agreed to serve on this Task Force;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council designates Council Member Jim Ward as its appointee to the Orange County Library Services Task Force.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

Item 10 - Appointments to the Horace Williams Citizens Task Force

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-12 CLARIFYING THE MAXIMUM MEMBERSHIP OF THE HORACE WILLIAMS CITIZENS COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION CLARIFYING MAXIMUM MEMBERSHIP FOR THE HORACE WILLIAMS CITIZENS COMMITTEE (2004-02-23/R-12)

WHEREAS, the Council at its October 7, 2002 meeting established the Horace Williams Citizens Committee and in its charge to the Committee set the composition of the Committee as a maximum of 19 members appointed by the Town Council, and one member each appointed by the Town of Carrboro, Orange County, and the University of North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, on January 29, 2003, the Council adopted resolution 2003-01-27/R-14, “increasing the total Committee membership to 20;”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council desires the maximum membership in this Committee to be 22 members, including up to 19 members appointed by the Town Council, and one member each appointed by the Town of Carrboro, Orange County, and the University of North Carolina, consistent with the charge adopted by the Town Council on October 7, 2002.

This the 23^rd day of February, 2004.

Appointments to the Horace Williams Citizens Committee

The Council appointed Laurin Easthom and Gene Pease to the Horace Williams Citizens Committee.

Council Members

Horace Williams Citizens Committee

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Laurin Easthom

Paul Jansen

Ed Neely

Gene Pease

Item 11 - Petitions

(1) Request for Expedited Processing for the Southern Community Park.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

(2) Request for Expedited Processing for the Homestead Park Aquatics Center.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 12 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items If Necessary

Council Member Strom suggested that the Council ask the staff to schedule a meeting of the Project Planning Committee to discuss the greenway. Mr. Horton agreed to do so.

Item 13 - Request for Closed Session to Discuss Property

Acquisition, Personnel, and Litigation Matters

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, AS AUTHORIZED BY NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE SECTION 143-318.11(A)(5), TO INSTRUCT THE TOWN STAFF CONCERNING THE POSITION TO BE TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN IN NEGOTIATING THE TERMS FOR THE POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF A TRACT OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES OF LAND ON MILLHOUSE ROAD ADJACENT TO THE TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER AND IDENTIFIED AS TMBL#7.18..3." THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m.