MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF

  THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1990, 7:30 P.M.

 

Mayor Howes called the proceedings to order.

 

Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Nancy Preston, Alan Rimer and Roosevelt Wilkerson.  Mayor Howes noted that Council Member Arthur Werner was unable to attend this evening's meeting due to a professional commitment.  Council Member Wallace was absent.

 

Also in attendance were Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Inter­im Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Public Safety Director Cal Horton and Planning Director Roger Waldon.

 

Ceremony

 

Mayor Howes read a proclamation into the record, declaring March as Mental Retardation Month. Ellen Russell, President of the Association for Retarded Children Board of Directors, thanked the Mayor for the proclamation. Ms. Russell said that the dreams and goals of mentally retarded citizens were reached through greater public awareness of mental retardation. Ms. Russell said the Association for Retarded Children appreciated the time and atten­tion of the Town.

 

Mayor Howes noted that he had acquired an old‑fashioned egg timer during his recent visit to England. Mayor Howes said that the timer contained sufficient sand for approximately four minutes and forty‑five seconds of oratory, adequate time to make any case.

 

Sign Regulation Public Hearing

 

Mr. Waldon said that a comprehensive review of signs had been initiated in the spring and summer of 1989. He noted that the review had been interrupted by concerns about neon signs.

 

Mr. Waldon said that six specific changes were recommended as a result of the Appearance Commission's comprehensive review. Mr. Waldon briefly reviewed the changes, as follows:

 

(1)  Permitting two eight‑square‑foot signs as an alternative to one sixteen-square-foot sign at each major subdivision entrance.

 

(2)  Establishing provisions to permit cantilevered or "Williamsburg style" signs.

 

(3)  Allowing businesses to display small signs stating business hours or "open".

 

(4)  Including a definition for unified sign plans within the Development Ordinance.

 

(5)  Creating greater flexibility in the placement of projecting signs.

 

(6)  Making minor changes to correct spelling errors or clarify meanings.

 

Mr. Waldon said that the Appearance Commission recommendation coincided with the Planning Board recommendation and Manager's preliminary recommendation with one exception. Mr. Waldon said the point of discord concerned the permitted size of "open" signs. The Appearance Commission recommended limiting such signs to one square foot, while the Planning Board and Town staff rec­ommended permitting two square foot signs.

 

Appearance Commission Chairperson Roy Lindahl said his commission concurred with the Planning Board's recommendations with the ex­ception of size standards for open signs. Mr. Lindahl said that the Town staff had found that most existing "open" signs exceed one square foot. Mr. Lindahl stated that the one square foot limit was recommended for overall Town appearance considerations. Mr. Lindahl also indicated that many installed signs differ from initial applications submitted to the Town staff and Appearance Commission. Mr. Lindahl added that most applicants comply with existing sign regulations.

 

Council Member Herzenberg inquired about the Appearance Commis­sion's rationale for limiting "open" signs to one square foot. Mr. Lindahl said that non‑illuminated one square foot signs were visible from a distance. He noted that the smaller size limita­tion would assist in the preservation of the Town's appearance.

 

Council Member Andresen asked whether the proposed modifications would be flexible enough to deal with problems as they occurred. Mr. Lindahl said the Appearance Commission believed that the pro­posed changes would permit sufficient flexibility to permit han­dling of most cases.

 

Council Member Rimer asked how many existing signs did not con­form with the two square foot size limitation.  Mr. Waldon said that approximately two dozen signs did not meet this criteria.

 

Ms. Loewenthal said her preliminary recommendation was Ordinance A, which would permit "open" signs of up to two square feet.

 

Robert Joesting said he was happy to see the proposed changes in the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Joesting said he favored the provision to permit cantilevered signs, but added concern about the pro­posed size limitations. Mr. Joesting said that such signs are normally nine to twelve feet high, rather than six feet as pro­posed. Mr. Joesting suggested that cantilevered signs would be most attractive at eye level or above. Mr. Joesting concluded his remarks by suggesting that the Town more vigorously enforce current sign regulations.

 

Council Member Andresen requested a clarification of the types of

signs covered by the proposed one or two‑square‑foot limitation.

Mr. Waldon said such signs could state "open" and/or the hours of

operation. Council Member Andresen inquired about current enforcement procedures for nonconforming signs.  Mr. Waldon said the enforcement process was quite cumbersome. Mr. Waldon noted that violators were initially notified of the situation, subse­quently fined if the circumstances were not remedied, and ulti­mately, proceedings could be filed for a lawsuit. Mr. Waldon said enforcement procedures are expensive and time‑consuming. Mr. Waldon said the Town staff was conferring with other communities about better methods of sign enforcement.

 

Council Member Preston inquired about the location of signs at different angles, as referenced in the memorandum to the Council. Mr. Waldon said he would investigate and report back on this mat­ter. Council Member Preston also inquired about a reference to the element of "matter" in the proposed sign ordinance. Mr. Waldon said he would also report back to the Council on this question.

 

Council Member Rimer said that a six foot limitation on cantile­vered signs appeared to be highly restrictive. Mr. Waldon noted that the Appearance Commission had initially discussed an eight foot height limitation, but this had generated some disagreement on the Appearance Commission.  Mr. Lindahl stated that the sign ordinance limits ground signs to six feet and eight feet for pro­jecting signs. Mr. Lindahl added that ground signs would be located away from the right‑of‑way.

 

Council Member Andresen inquired whether some ground signs on the University of North Carolina campus were eight feet high. Mr. Lindahl said he was uncertain of the height of these signs.

 

Council Member Herzenberg expressed appreciation that the one of the objectives of the revised regulations was to make them easier to read and understand.

 

Council Member Andresen said she wanted to see eight-foot pole signs permitted.  Mr. Waldon noted that a summary of benefits and shortcomings would be provided in a follow‑up memorandum to the Council.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED" BY‑ COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

 

Proposed Establishment of Design Review Board

 

Mr. Waldon noted that the Council had recently adopted Design Guidelines for development in the community. Mr. Waldon indicat­ed that the guidelines were, in his professional judgement, ex­cellent. Mr. Waldon indicated that the Design Review Board would be composed of design professionals and representatives of the Town's development‑related advisory boards and commissions. He added that the board would meet with the applicant to review how plans did or did not meet design guidelines.

 

Mr. Waldon said that the Design Review Board had two major objec­tives: better design and reduction in delays associated with development applications. Mr. Waldon noted that the proposed board would have ten members, four design professionals and one member each from six Town advisory boards (Planning Board, Ap­pearance Commission, Transportation Board, Parks and Recreation commission, Greenways Commission, and Historic District Commis­sion)‑ Mr. Waldon stated that the board would provide guidance to applicants, rather than having final decision‑making authori­ty. Mr. Waldon briefly reviewed a flow chart outlining the proposed design review process. Mr. Waldon said that the new process would not necessarily shorten the length of the review process.

 

Ms. Loewenthal said her preliminary recommendation was the adop­tion of Ordinance A, creating the Design Review Board. Mr. Waldon noted that the Planning Board concurred with this recom­mendation.

 

Council Member Andresen said she thought that expediency of ap­plication processing was one of the objectives of the Design Re­view Board. Mr. Waldon stated that one objective of the process was to expedite projects since better design would be encouraged at earlier review stages. Council Member Andresen noted that she supported implementing the board on a trial basis. Council Mem­ber Andresen inquired which person or persons would determine which applications should receive expeditious treatment. Mr. Waldon said this would lie principally with the Design Review Board.

 

Council Member Andresen inquired about the status of the rewrite of the Town Engineering and Design Manuals.  Mr. Waldon noted that work on this project continued.  He added that the Design Guidelines served as a policy base for revisions to these manuals.

 

Council Member Rimer noted that the Design Task Force supported the development of the Design Guidelines. Council Member Rimer said the Design Task Force did not see the Design Review Board as a hurdle in the development process. Council Member Rimer noted that the task force had agreed to serve as a advisory panel as guidelines were developed for individual neighborhoods and areas ?f the Town. Mr. Waldon noted that the small area planning pro­cess was underway.

 

Council Member Rimer noted that the Town had received an award for the development of its Design Guidelines. Mr. Waldon said that the Town would receive an award from the North Carolina chapter of the American Planning Association on April 11th.

 

Council Member Preston inquired whether the conceptual develop­ment plan was a step in the review process. Mr. Waldon said the intent of this step was to review plans which were less detailed than those later in the process. Mr. Waldon noted that it is much easier for applicants to make changes early in the review process. Council Member Preston asked whether developers were being encouraged to introduce conceptual planning early in the process. Mr. Waldon said this was correct, noting that some de­velopers already follow this approach.

 

Council Member Preston said the concept of a Design Review Board was a very good one which should be implemented, with an opportu­nity for review of its impact in the future. Mayor Howes sug­gested that development‑related advisory boards and commissions review the proposed membership of the Design Review Board. Mr. Waldon said that the staff would present the concept to affected boards and commissions.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER, ATTORNEY AND PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION BOARDS, AND APPEARANCE, GREENWAYS, HISTORIC DIS­TRICT AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONS. THE MOTION WAS Adopted UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

 

Public Hearing on Proposed Assessment Roll for Maple Drive Improvements

 

Town Engineer George Small said that if the assessment roll were confirmed by the Council this evening, it would be brought back to the Council for final action in the near future.  Mr. Small noted that individual property owners could pay their assessment in one cash payment or make payments over a ten-year period, with an annual interest rate of eight percent.

 

Council Member Herzenberg inquired why figures on the assessment roll did not agree with figures provided on an exhibit map. Mr. Small stated that the assessments were based on front footage per lot, rather than centerline dimensions which were provided on the exhibit map. Mr. Small observed that assessments would be made on an equal share per lot in the near future.

 

Mayor Howes inquired whether Town staff or outside crews had com­pleted the street improvements. Mr. Small said that Lee paving, a private firm, had completed the project. Mayor Howes noted that area residents were generally pleased that the work had been carried out. Mayor Howes inquired when the item would be re­turned to the Council. Mr. Small said April 10th.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILKERSON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

 

Public Hearing on Proposed Assessment Roll for Stateside and Dixie Drive Improvements

 

Mr. Small noted that this project had been paved without curb and gutter. Mr. Small also noted that residents had agreed to be assessed on an equal share per lot basis. Mr. Small noted that if the assessment roll was confirmed on April 10th, residents could pay their assessment in one payment or over ten years at an annual interest rate of eight percent. Mr. Small added that there was a one‑year warranty on this project.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

 

Public Hearing on Mat and Seal Paving of Markham Drive

 

Mr. Small noted that if the Council confirmed the assessment roll for this project on April 10th, a contract could be initiated in the spring. Mr. Small said that the staff would return to the Council with a resolution ordering the work on April 10th.

 

Radford Adams said he hoped that the Council would approve the project. Mr. Adams stated that completion of the project would be beneficial to area residents, since the amount of dust gener­ated by vehicular traffic would be greatly reduced.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

 

Mayor Howes noted that the Council would be holding an    Executive

 

Session on personnel matters on March 2Oth and a regular meeting

on March 26th.

 

The hearing adjourned at 8:42 p.m.