MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1995 AT 7:00PM

Mayor Broun called the meeting to order. Council Members in attendance were Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Lee Pavão, Barbara Powell, Jim Protzman and Rosemary Waldorf. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Parks and Recreation Director Mike Loveman and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

There were no ceremonies or hearings.

Item 3 Petitions

Tom Heffner presented a petition requesting modifications to the Forest Creek II Subdivision, approved by the Town Council in May, 1988 with a total of 28 lots.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO REFER THE MATTER TO STAFF. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO REFER A PETITION FROM TIMOTHY POE, CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS ON SHADY LAWN ROAD. THE MOTION TO REFER WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Jerome Daley, Associate Pastor of the Grace Lutheran Church, said his congregation was in the process of building a new church along Sage Road. Citing unexpected costs related to Appearance Commission requirements for the site, Mr. Daley requested that the Church be permitted to defer installation of an asphalt overlay on the church's parking lot. Mr. Daley stated that a number of other area churches also had unpaved parking lots.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO STAFF. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Stating that recent flooding along Bolin Creek had seriously damaged a total of sixty-four units in Camelot Village, Margaret Leone petitioned the Town Council to hold a public hearing about flood-related concerns. She requested that University students, business owners and area renters be made aware of any such hearing.

Robert Malloy expressed concern that civic and church-related groups had not done more to assist victims of recent flooding along Bolin Creek. Mayor Broun inquired whether staff was preparing a follow-up report on flooding concerns in general. Mr. Horton said yes.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO RECEIVE MS. LEONE'S AND MR. MALLOY'S PETITIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Noting that he had been unable to attend the recent banquet of the Public Housing Residents Council, Mayor Broun noted that Mayor Pro Tim Brown had accepted a plaque from the Residents Council on the Council's behalf, commending the Mayor and Town Council for their assistance. Mayor Broun thanked the Residents Council for all of their excellent work.

Item 4.1 Consent Agenda/Information Reports

Council Member Brown requested removal of item d for discussion later in the meeting.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, EXCEPTING ITEM D. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING MINUTES AND VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (95-10-9/R-1)

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

a. Minutes of September 9th and 11th.

b. Declaration of surplus items (R-2).

c. Authorizing agreement with NCDOT for curb and gutter and road widening projects in the downtown area (R-3).

d. Approving transfer of State economic development funds to Triangle J Council of Governments (R-4).

e. Budget amendment to reflect approval of the federal Comprehensive Grant for public housing renovations and related costs (O-1).

f. Restoration of certain recreation programs (R-5).

g. Rescheduling a public hearing on development review changes (R-5.1).

This the 9th day of October, 1995.

A RESOLUTION DECLARING 138 ITEMS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DISPOSAL OF SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS (95-10-9/R-2)

WHEREAS, Article 23 of N. C. General Statute 160A and Section 4.16 of the Charter of the Town of Chapel Hill authorizes the Town to dispose of surplus property; and

WHEREAS, the Town desires to dispose of certain items of personal property;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill;

1. That the following items of personal property are hereby declared surplus:

VEHICLES

QUANTITY ITEM

(1) 1980 GMC Brigadier Garbage Truck

(1) 1983 Plymouth Fury 4S

(1) 1984 Chevrolet C-20 Truck

(1) 1985 Chevrolet C-20 Truck

(1) 1985 Ford F-350 Truck

(1) 1985 Chevrolet 4S

(1) 1986 Chevrolet Caprice 4S

(1) 1987 Chevrolet C-10 Truck

(1) 1988 Chevrolet Caprice 4S

(4) 1990 Chevrolet Caprice 4S

(1) 1992 Chevrolet Caprice 4S

(1) 1993 Chevrolet Caprice 4S

HEAVY EQUIPMENT

(1) 1970 Gallion 118B Motor Grader

(1) 1973 Drott 35B Tracked Excavator

(1) 1953 Lowboy Trailer

(1) 1967 Brockway Tractor

(1) 1972 Ford 2000 Tractor

(1) 91-815 NAPA Fleet Lift

(2) Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

(1) Lincoln Oil Pump

(1) Ammco Tire Changer

(1) Craftsman 2500 Watt Generator

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

(1) Bus Parts

(1) Assorted Tissue Dispensers

(1) Video Monitor TTT

(1) Centel Cellular Phone

(1) B & E 5510A Cash Register, 8 Item Key

(1) Blood Pressure Test Instrument

(1) Set of Scales (Broken)

(1) Venus Television

(1) Book Cart

(1) Small Battery Charger

(1) Screens for Windows

(1) Screen Door (Broken)

(1) Hose Bed Divider

(1) Red Lens for Light Bar

(2) Charcoal Grills

(1) Gas Grill (Broken)

(2) Metal Mop Buckets

(1) Bed Frame

(1) Dry Erase Board

(2) Slide Projectors

(1) Display Stand

(1) Wooden Shelves

(1) Black Stand

(1) Reel to Reel Movie Projector

(1) Cassette Player

(1) Coffee Maker

(1) Tool Box

(1) Hand Saw

(1) Walkie Talkie Battery Charger

(1) Volleyball

(1) Basketball

(1) Bar Stool

(1) Assorted Uniforms

(2) Cincinnati CTP6 Ticket Dispensers

(1) Tec F10-40 Serial Printer

OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT

(2) Desks

(6) Desk Chairs

(2) Tables

(1) Desk with Typewriter Pull-Out Tray

(1) Computer Desk

(2) School Desks

(1) 3-Drawer File Cabinet

(2) Adding Machines

(3) IBM Typewriters

(1) Panasonic FP3007 Copier

(1) PCI Sentry Voice Display

(1) Harris/3M 2127 Facsimile Machine

(1) Easel

(1) Single Line Telephone

(1) Miscellaneous Office Supplies

COMPUTERS AND ACCESSORIES

(16) Tandy Computers

(5) IBM Computer

(1) Epson Computer

(4) Lap Top Computers

(2) Hyundia CPU286 Computers

(1) Leading Edge VDT Computer

(1) Perry Printer

(1) Epson LG800 Printer

(1) HP Desk Jet Printer

(1) Dot Matrix Printer

(2) Panasonic 1624 Printers

(7) Assorted Keyboards

(1) Adds Monitor

(2) Black & White Monitors

(1) Technology Monitor

2. That the Purchasing Agent of the Town of Chapel Hill shall be and is hereby authorized to dispose of this surplus personal property in accordance with statutory requirements.

3. That the public auction is to take place on Saturday, November 4, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., at the Municipal Operations Facility, 1099 Airport Road.

4. That prior to the public auction the Purchasing Agent is authorized to dispose of any of this personal property by sale, lease, exchange, sealed bid, or transfer to other governmental units in conformity with N. C. General Statutes 160A-274.

5. That the terms of sale shall be to the highest bidder for cash or other form of cash equivalent acceptable to the Purchasing Agent. All sales shall be designated final on the day of the auction.

6. That all items shall be sold on an "as is" and "where is" basis and the Town makes no guarantee of and assumes no responsibility for any of the items.

7. That it shall be condition of sale that all items purchased shall be picked up and removed from the premises of the Municipal Operations Facility by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the auction. Successful bidders shall bear the sole risk for loss of any items remaining on said premises past the designated time.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any surplus property is not sold at the public auction, or sold, leased, exchanged or transferred to governmental agency, the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to sell said surplus property by private negotiated sale in conformity with N. C. General State 160A-267.

This the 9th day of October, 1995.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT PROVIDES FOR STATE REIMBURSEMENT OF UP TO $75,000 FOR COSTS INCURRED FOR ROADWAY WIDENING AND CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA (95-10-9/R-3)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has expressed its desire to have sidewalks constructed along Merritt Mill Road; and

WHEREAS, the construction of these sidewalks is best accomplished concurrently with the installation of adjacent curb and gutter; and

WHEREAS, the Council has adopted the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan as part of the Town's Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Downtown Streetscape Mater Plan addresses the need for infrastructure improvements in the downtown area; and

WHEREAS, $75,000 in State funding is available for roadway widening and curb and gutter improvements consistent with the above objectives;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to enter into an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation that provides for State reimbursement of up to $75,000 for costs incurred for roadway widening and curb and gutter construction in the downtown area.

This the 9th day of October, 1995.

AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE GRANT PROGRAM (CGP) PROJECT ORDINANCE (95-10-9/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following project ordinance is hereby established:

Section I

The projects authorized are the Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP) projects as approved by the Council on May 8, 1995: funds are as contained in the Amendment to Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract between the Town and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dated July 17, 1995.

Section II

The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the project within the terms of the contract document(s), the Rules and Regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and budget contained herein.

Section III

The following revenue is available to complete the project:

Comprehensive Grant Program $443,269

Section IV

The following amounts are appropriated for the project as follows:

Management Improvements $ 34,900

Administration $ 28,870

Dwelling Structures $379,499

TOTAL $443,269

Section V

The Finance Director is hereby directed to maintain within the Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to HUD as required by the agreement(s) and federal regulations.

Section VI

Funds may be advanced from the General Funds for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement requests should be made to HUD in an orderly and timely manner.

Section VII

The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of each project in Section IV and on the total revenues received.

This the 9th day of October, 1995.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT FOR FY 1995-1996 (95-10-9/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended additional programs for consideration by the Council during FY 1995-1996; and

WHEREAS, the Town Manager has confirmed that these programs could be implemented and has recommended additional allocations for reinstating programs and equipment; and

WHEREAS, the Town Manager has recommended using funds from lapsed salaries in the current budget for FY 1995-1996 for this purpose;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the following allocations for FY 1995-1996:

Youth Fall/Winter Swim Team $2,000

Youth Tennis $1,850

Parent-Tot Pottery $500

Youth Volleyball $300

Senior Citizen Low-Income Van Trips $500

National Jr. Tennis League $750

Portable Speaker System $550

Video Cassette Training Tapes $140

Senior Citizen Supplies $810

Allocation to Senior Games $500

Allocation to Easter Egg Hunt $500

TOTAL $8,400

This the 9th Day of October, 1995.

A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING (95-10-9/R-5.1)

WHEREAS the Town Council called a Public Hearing for October 18, 1995, to consider a proposal for adjusting the Town's development review process; and

WHEREAS workload demands have interfered with planned staff work on this item;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council reschedules this Public Hearing to November 20, 1995.

This the 9th day of October, 1995.

Council Member Capowski suggested that item 4.2 a, concerning bicycle traffic safety regulations, be deferred for two weeks. There were no objections from Council Members. Council Member Brown said she had some questions regarding item 4.2 b. Mayor Broun said these could be discussed at the end of the meeting.

Item 5 Meadowmont Development Applications

Persons not previously sworn in the matter were sworn by the Town Clerk or the Deputy Town Clerk.

Mr. Horton noted that the review process for the Meadowmont development proposal had included site visits by the Council, a detailed land analysis and other elements which differed from smaller-scale development applications.

Mr. Waldon presented an overview of the item before the Council this evening, noting that the applicant was requesting rezoning approval for two portions of the DuBose property and approval of a master land-use plan for the entire 435-acre parcel. He stated that following review of the application, felt that the rezoning proposal would promote the purposes of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He also presented a brief overview of materials in this evening's Council agenda packet, including proposed densities and the proposed master land-use plan. Mr. Waldon said the proposal called for a maximum of 1,298 dwelling units, including garage and accessory apartments, and 785,000 square feet of non-residential uses. Noting that staff recommended adoption of Resolution A, Mr. Waldon also presented a brief overview of the revised ball parks site. He also briefly reviewed suggested revised language for stipulations 9 and 33 in the proposed conditions of approval.

Roger Perry of East-West Partners, applicants for the Meadowmont proposal, said that he and his partners were willing to dedicate ten of eighteen acres for a school site in lieu of a requirement to build a portion of Meadowmont Lane to the south of the estate. He also noted that a change in the school site configuration was proposed, moving the school site building further south and east on the parcel. Mr. Perry also presented an overview of proposed activities in pocket parks throughout the site.

Council Member Waldorf inquired whether Mr. Perry was interested in exchanging eighteen acres for a school site for building phase two of the proposed Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Perry said this was correct. Council Member Capowski asked whether Mr. Perry was requesting an exemption from making a payment-in-lieu for Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Perry said yes.

Project Engineer George Kirschbaum presented an overview of site drainage and wetlands, noting that the vast majority of Little Creek was located upstream from the proposed Meadowmont development. He stated that the United States Army Corp of Engineers had reviewed the site's wetlands in January, 1995. Mr. Kirschbaum also said that proposed recreational fields were not, and had never been, located in the wetland areas. He also noted that all proposed facilities in Meadowmont were located about the 240 contour and none would be located in the flowage easement. Mr. Kirschbaum stated that some recreational facilities would be partially located within the flood area or Resource Conservation District (RCD).

Stating that the process for concept and design review of the proposed Meadowmont development had taken approximately five years, Mr. Perry requested that the Council act on the applications this evening. Noting that the plan was not a perfect one, Mr. Perry stated that the proposed development would increase traffic along the eastern entranceway corridor and would likely decrease traffic in the rest of the Town. He also said that Meadowmont would provide the Council with an opportunity to preserve and restore meadowland areas along NC 54, reserve a school site and a corridor for a future mass transit link, preserve 145 of the site's 435 acres as open space and add a net of $6 million per year to the Town's property tax base. Mr. Perry stated that the proposal complied with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and had been recommended for approval by all Council advisory boards and commissions. He urged the Council to approve Meadowmont's rezoning and master land-use plan approval requests.

Jerri Pomerantz said the Mayor and Town Council were responsible for providing leadership to the community's citizens and leaving a legacy to the Town on matters such as the Meadowmont request. Ms. Pomerantz said some believed that Meadowmont would provide affordable housing and other opportunities, while others believed that there were better alternative's to the applicant's proposal.

Stating that the proposed master land-use plan did not represent the Council's vision, Ms. Pomerantz urged the Council to ensure that a neighborhood-scale development be realized. She also suggested that the applicant needed to provide additional specifics about the proposed special use permits and related impacts. Ms. Pomerantz stated that the Council could create a new zoning category, similar to those in Belmont, North Carolina, for commercial and mixed--use projects. She urged the Council not to react to pressure and rezone this evening without having a means to assure the Council's long-term vision.

Julie Andresen urged the Council to vote against the rezoning requests until the Council fully understood the potential impacts of the proposal. She expressed particular concern that there had not been sufficient review of traffic counts, a school or stormwater impact analysis or a cost/benefit analysis of the proposed plans. Ms. Andresen stated that the Council needed to determine how and if the Town's needs could be met. She stated that a moratorium on development in the east entranceway would provide time to identify a new zoning district. Ms. Andresen also said she supported a moratorium in order to provide the Council with time to fine-tune its vision for the area.

Stating that the Council continued to hear thoughtful citizens asking good questions about the Meadowmont proposal, Barbara Chappie urged the Council to call for additional traffic impact studies. She urged the Council not to be pressured into making a decision before it had all the necessary facts about the proposal. Ms. Chappie requested that the Council support a development moratorium in the east entranceway area.

Bill Davis, President of the Alliance of Neighborhoods, stated that a number of major questions, especially about traffic impacts, needed to be answered before the Council voted on the applicant's requests. He urged the Council not to vote on the matter until all questions were answered in their minds. Mr. Davis also expressed concern that the other half of the proposed school site was on the edge of the Resource Conservation District. He reiterated his request that the Council get answers to all questions before acting on the matter.

Ed Wise, a property owner of land abutting the proposed Meadowmont development, said he was ashamed that the applicant was threatening to proceed with an R-1 zoned development if the master land-use plan were not approved. Stating that estimated raw land costs for commercial land were generally many times more than for residential land, Mr. Wise said he did not believe that the applicant would follow through on plans for a large-lot, single family development. Mr. Wise urged the Council to vote "no" on the rezoning request and in favor of a development moratorium in the east entranceway corridor.

Dan Coleman, representing the Orange County Greens, said he supported Council Member Brown's proposal to impose a moratorium along the east entranceway corridor. He stated that it was important to mix office and retail uses in fine grains, rather than having separate zones for these uses. Mr. Coleman said that the Town of Belmont, North Carolina had defined a neighborhood as not being any larger than two hundred acres. He also stated that the Meadowmont proposal was not on a neighborhood scale.

Ruby Sinreich stated that Boards and Commissions had made specific proposals concerning the Meadowmont plan over a year ago. She stated that very few development proposals were ever denied by the Council. Ms. Sinreich stated that the Meadowmont proposal failed to embrace the Town's mixed-use principles. She also said that the concept of a moratorium was very valid. Ms. Sinreich stated that she favored the Meadowmont proposal if there were a better overall plan.

Cheryl Prather said she was concerned about the proposed extension of Pinehurst Drive. Ms. Prather said she did not consider a 5-4 vote of the Transportation Board or a 50%/50% split of the Planning Board to indicate solid support for the applicant's proposal. She expressed concern that residents of Pinehurst Drive were being asked to absorb traffic of the proposed Meadowmont development. Ms. Prather also stated that current and future property owners had a right to know as much as possible about traffic master plans for projects such as Meadowmont. She requested the Council's assistance in making positive compromises for existing residents relative to roadway plans.

R. D. Vickers said he opposed the requested rezoning, but not the master land-use plan proposal. He expressed concern that approval of the rezoning would involve a major change for the Town with a lot of uncertainty. Mr. Vickers stated that the proposal was a strip development with some high and low-density zones. He asked the Council to think carefully about the rezoning request and act responsibly for the future of all Town residents.

John Lattimer, a resident of the Oaks, said he did not believe that any residents of the Oaks favored the possible connection of Pinehurst Drive to Meadowmont. He stated that an argument that Pinehurst Drive had excess capacity was not a very strong argument for the Council to approve the connection. Noting that it would not pose a problem to the applicant if the Pinehurst Connector were not approved, Mr. Lattimer asked that the Council not support the connection.

Toni Jo Friedman presented a statement outlining the results of a request survey commissed by a Council candidate. Ms. Friedman said that preliminary survey results indicated that planning for growth, crime and school overcrowding were the top three priorities of survey respondents. She urged the Council to vote against the proposed rezoning. A copy of Ms. Friedman statement is on file in the Town Clerk's Office.

Kevin Foy said he support Council Member Brown's proposal for a moratorium on development in the east entranceway corridor. He noted that in his mayoral campaign, a number of constituents had stated that the Town was a special place worth protecting. Mr. Foy also said he believed that the rezoning request would intrude too massively on the property. He also stated that there was no legal foundation for the rezoning request. Mr. Foy urged the Council to declare a moratorium and think the matter through carefully.

Phillip Goodman stated that the Council had one mandate: to determine whether or not the requested rezoning and master land-use plan would fit the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed concern that staff comments in the Council's report had not responded to concerns relative to matters such as affordable housing, land use and densities and pedestrian facilities. Mr. Goodman said he did not believe that the proposal was in keeping with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.

Planning Board Member Diane Bloom stated that the proposed development would have a major impact on already overcrowded schools. She also stated that the development might have a deleterious impact on the environment due to increased impervious surface areas and traffic gridlock. Ms. Bloom said a better traffic study was needed and proposed commercial development was not consistent with neighborhood scale. She urged the Council to support a development moratorium in the east entranceway corridor.

Linda Convissor said although she supported the requested master land-use plan and rezoning, she was concerned that the developer might be relieved of responsibility for building Meadowmont Lane as a connector between NC 54 and Chapel Hill Boulevard. She stated that the Council would need to determine who would pay for this roadway and when it would be built. Ms. Convissor also urged the Council to remember that a large portion of the proposed development was in Durham County.

Durham resident Mike Waldroup stated that Laurel Hill Parkway was intended as a minor roadway corridor. Mr. Waldroup said he had concerns about roadway access in the area to substantially valued lots, such as portions of the Lloyd property. He provided the Council with copies of roadway concept plans for the Meadowmont proposal.

Flicka Bateman said she supported the concept of mixed use and having a variety of different types of dwelling units. Noting that the recently-approved Southern Village mixed-use project had sought a total of 225,000 square feet of commercial uses, Ms. Bateman expressed her opposition to the approval of 785,000 square feet for commercial uses. Ms. Bateman also said that although she believed in development rights, these rights should not have an overall negative impact on the community.

Stick Williams spoke in support of the proposal for the dedication of a school site. He noted the importance of promoting employment and housing opportunities for diverse groups of persons through projects such as Meadowmont. Mr. Williams stated that the proposal offered larger scale commercial economic development opportunities for the Town. He also urged the Council to vote on the proposal this evening.

Henry Lister, a six-year resident of Sherwood Forest, said the proposed project would ideally offer housing opportunities in the range of $100,000 to $120,000. Directing his comments to traffic on NC 54 in the area near the proposed Meadowmont development, Mr. Lister expressed concern about the increase in the number of fatal automobile accidents in this area. He also expressed concern that the Council might be being asked to rush to judgment on the matter, at the expense of items such as traffic safety.

Roger Perry stated that an extensive traffic study of the area conducted by Kimley-Horn Associates was very thorough and complete. Mr. Perry also stated that mixed-use proposals at densities less than currently proposed would not be economically viable. He also noted that the current commercial and retail densities being sought were considerably less than originally proposed. Mr. Perry said that infrastructure outlays for the project, excluding lot-related costs would total approximately $7,280,000. He also stated that one could make the argument that the applicant had been pressured throughout the five-year review process to provide extraordinary amounts of information, including studies costing a total of approximately $600,000.

Council Member Capowski requested clarifications about how far the proposed Meadowmont Lane would be built out and who would build this roadway. Mr. Waldon stated that Resolution A would require the developer to physically build Meadowmont Lane to the eastern property line. He added that some public funds would be needed to complete some portions of the proposed roadway.

Mayor Broun read a statement from Transportation Advisory Committee Member Sandy Ogburn, concerning possible shifting of the alignment of Laurel Hill Drive. Ms. Ogburn said she was disappointed at the prospect of a shift in alignment without discussion by the Transportation Advisory Committee. She expressed hope that there would be an opportunity for such a discussion prior to final action by the Council.

Mr. Waldon said a key idea in the Thoroughfare Plan relative to proposed roadways was the identification of specific points, such as Laurel Hill Drive/Meadowmont Lane crossing NC 54 and the Corps of Engineers property. He stated that how a road got between two points was much less important in terms of regional planning matters. Mr. Waldon also noted that the Thoroughfare Plan only offered general guidance on proposed roadway alignments.

Council Member Pavão said he had received a variety of telephone calls from citizens concerning the Meadowmont proposal. He noted that some citizens believed that the project had only been in process for two years, rather than for over three and a half years, when the project was first presented to the Town's Design Review Board. Council Member Pavão said another misconception was that the developer was planning some nine-story buildings for the site. He stated that the tallest proposed buildings would be five stories on the south side of NC 54 and three stories on the north side. Council Member Pavão also said some people believed that total proposed commercial and retail use for the site was two or three the actual proposed square footage.

Stating that he and Council Member Evans had walked the proposed soccer field site earlier in the day and had found the edges of the fields soggy, but the fields themselves were likely playable. He also noted that the area around the Rainbow Soccer fields and fields at Cedar Falls Park had similar amounts of standing water today as the areas around the fields at Meadowmont. Council Member Pavão also noted that the Kentlands, a neoclassical mixed-use development designed by Andres Duaney in June, 1988, comprised 356 acres, with 1,600 dwelling units and significantly more commercial development than the proposed Meadowmont project.

Council Member Brown requested that an extract from Agenda Item #5 of the July 8, 1991 meeting, concerning the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Thoroughfare Plan, be entered into the record of the meeting. Council Member Brown inquired whether athletic fields were permitted in the Resource Conservation District (RCD). Mr. Waldon said that there were a number of permitted uses in the RCD, including athletic fields, which did not require a variance. Council Member Brown asked whether school buildings were permitted. Mr. Waldon said school buildings would require variances in the RCD. He added that if only a corner of such a lot were in the RCD, building was permitted on the balance of the lot.

Council Member Brown asked whether the Town's Transportation Planning staff had reviewed the applicant's traffic study in detail. Stating that transportation impact statements were reviewed by Town Engineering staff, Mr. Waldon said Engineering staff had performed a detailed analysis. He stated that staff believed that the traffic study's findings and assumptions were realistic. Mr. Waldon also said that regardless of whether or not Meadowmont was approved, traffic congestion was going to increase along NC 54 to a level below acceptable Town traffic standards.

Council Member Brown said she had also recently walked the southern soccer field site and believed that some areas of standing water in the area were ankle-deep.

Council Member Waldorf distributed a proposed amendment concerning the stipulation related to dedication of a school site by the applicant. She requested that the Council favorably consider this revised stipulation.

Council Member Evans asked whether a connection to Laurel Hill Parkway was recommended in Resolution A. Mr. Waldon stated that Resolution A included a stipulation for a stubout to the proposed connection. Council Member Evans asked whether stipulation 29 (f) should refer to backyard, rather than curbside, refuse collection. Mr. Horton said this was correct. Mr. Waldon noted that stipulation 23 on page 6 alerted residents to pending roadway connections.

Council Member Chilton noted that the applicant was required to build something similar to the illustrative plan, rather than exactly replicating the plan, including retail buildings in the village center area. Mr. Waldon said this was correct. Council Member Chilton asked whether any building height caps were outlined in the master plan. Mr. Waldon said the maximum permitted height was ninety feet and was tied to the setback from roadways. Council Member Chilton asked how the matter of rebuttable presumption entered into this matter. Mr. Karpinos stated that rebuttable presumption required that building heights be consistent with conditions of the master land-use plan. He added that all four findings of fact would need to be met if the rebuttable presumption were not met. Council Member Chilton inquired whether Mr. Perry was agreeable to height limitations and maximum square footages.

Council Member Protzman inquired whether a final decision was needed concerning the alignment of Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Waldon said the alignment of Meadowmont Lane could be realigned within the context of the special use permit. Council Member Protzman inquired about the amount of commercial and office space proposed south of NC 54. Mr. Waldon said 385,000 square feet of commercial or office space were proposed south of NC 54. Council Member Protzman noted that the Southern Village project had 100 fewer acres and 100 more dwelling units than the Meadowmont proposal. He also noted that Southern Village had received approval for 225,000 square feet of office and retail uses.

Council Member Powell inquired about the location of the proposed "affordable housing" units. Mr. Perry stated that the units would have two locations near the Village Center area. Council Member Powell inquired whether anyone had put together a cost/benefit analysis for the proposed project. Mr. Horton said although tax values and yields had been estimated, staff had not undertaken a study to project the costs of police, fire and other Town services. He added that staff did not have the capacity to generate such a study. Council Member Powell asked why it was believed that the proposed project would benefit the Town. Mr. Horton noted that only the Council could make a judgment about the benefits of the proposal to the community.

Council Member Capowski said he never thought that roadway dedication would be linked to donation of a school site. He inquired about the applicant's reaction to the possibility of donating the full school site to the School District. Noting that he had recently walked the proposed soccer field and school sites on the Meadowmont property, Council Member Capowski said although the areas were wet, he did not see any standing water. He also requested the applicant's comment concerning possible reductions in requests for commercial/office square footage and the number of proposed dwelling units.

Council Member Pavão said although he had seen standing water in the soccer fields area, he believed this was in the wetlands area. He inquired whether it was correct that the square footage of the proposed Wellness Center was included in total commercial square footage. Mr. Horton said this was correct. Council Member Pavão asked whether proposed retirement units were also included in this total. Mr. Horton said these were in the residential component of the project. Council Member Powell inquired about arrangements for a football field at the school site. Mr. Horton said the soccer fields site could serve as multi-purpose fields for football, lacrosse and other sports.

Council Member Brown said she believed that the existing understanding for Meadowmont Lane was that developers would pay for it and the original agreement was agreed to by all local jurisdictions. She requested that the Master Land-Use Plan contain the original roadway alignment, that commercial/office square footage and the number of dwelling units be reduced, with zoning compliance permits being considered by the Council, rather than the Manager. Council Member Waldorf inquired whether the applicant would be open to having the Wellness Center being subject to State and Local property taxes.

Mayor Broun requested the applicant's comments on the proposed stipulations.

Mr. Perry said he would be willing to agree to the stipulations about the wellness center's tax status, building height restrictions on the north and south side of NC 54, and having no building with more than 40,000 square feet on any one level.

Mayor Broun inquired about the applicant deeding eighteen acres for a school site. Mr. Perry stated that his firm had offered to sell the proposed school site to the School Board at the raw land price. He expressed Meadowmont's willingness to either dedicate the school site or build a portion of Meadowmont Lane. Citing economic concerns, Mr. Perry said it was not possible to offer further concessions concerning the school site.

Council Member Capowski asked whether the applicant was willing to reduce the number of dwelling units to less than 1,298 or the amount of commercial/office space to less than 785,000 square feet. Mr. Perry said the project feasibility fell apart at lesser densities than these figures.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO CLOSE THE HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Stating that the Council had worked very hard to develop goals for the Town's East Entranceway, Council Member Brown suggested that the Council move ahead with a development moratorium in the area. She stated that during the moratorium period the Council could develop a new zoning category to realize the Council's goals for the entranceway corridor.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 10, ENACTING A DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM FOR THE TOWN'S EAST ENTRANCEWAY CORRIDOR.

Stating that he definitely did not believe in delay for its own sake, Council Member Chilton said he favored postponing this evening's vote because the Council still had a number of significant questions needed to be resolved.

Noting that the Council had been working on the East Entranceway Corridor and the proposed Meadowmont plan for a long time, Council Member Pavão said he could not vote in favor of the proposed development moratorium.

Expressing concern that a brand new intersection along NC 54 ("New Street") was predicted to fail (Service Level "F") from its first day of service, Council Member Capowski said he would support the proposed moratorium.

Council Member Waldorf requested the Attorney's opinion on the matter of a development moratorium. Mr. Karpinos said he did not believe that the proposed moratorium would be legally defensible. He noted that while State law generally did not obligate the Council to act immediately on zoning and master plan requests, he nonetheless felt that such a moratorium would not withstand a legal challenge. Mr. Karpinos also stated that the Town did not have sufficient standing or documented deficiencies, such as unavailability of water, sewer or other types of infrastructure, to deny platting of the property. He also said that the establishment of a moratorium would not be upheld in the State Courts due to its timing. Stating that Institute of Government Professor Owens comments to Mayor Pro Tem Brown were solely intended to provide general guidance and information, Mr. Karpinos stated that moratoria should not be used to handle general development trends.

Mr. Karpinos noted that an annexation plan for the East Entranceway corridor, including the subject property, had been developed nine years ago in order for the Town to have control over zoning in the area. He noted that three lawsuits filed in April, 1988 has challenged the proposed annexation. Finally, Mr. Karpinos expressed concern that a full development moratorium in the East Entranceway Corridor could possibly be construed as a denial of all reasonable property uses and a temporary taking of property.

Noting that Mr. Karpinos had assisted in developing the materials relative to a moratorium before the Council this evening, Council Member Brown said her objective was to move ahead with developments which were consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Stating that the Council had sometimes chosen to act against the Manager's and Attorney's recommendations in the past, Council Member Brown said she hoped that the staff would be supportive if the Council chose to do so in this matter. Mr. Horton said once the Council made a decision on the matter, the staff would enthusiastically support the position.

Mayor Broun said he opposed the proposed moratorium on two levels: (1) on a legal level, the indefensibility of a moratorium on subdivisions and (2) on a policy level, he thought the proposed project was consistent with the Council's vision and the Town's Comprehensive Plan for the East Entranceway area. Expressing his respect for all people with strong feelings on the matter, Mayor Broun said he thought the proposed project was a good one which should move ahead.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO CALLED THE QUESTION. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI AND CHILTON VOTING IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION 10.

Council Member Pavão said he favored the staff's recommendation concerning proposed rezoning of the subject property. Noting that he had fought hard for the establishment of the Town's Senior Center on Elliott Road beginning in 1990, Council Member Pavão said part of his platform for the Town Council was the need to diversify the Town's tax base. Stating that the provision of thirty-two affordable housing units was not a big number, Council Member Pavão said this represented a start on attainment of a very worthwhile objective. He also stated that there had been no discussion about school facility needs during consideration of the Southern Village proposal. Council Member Pavão noted that he had been one of the individuals instrumental in securing a future school/multiple use site for the Southern Village area. Noting that the developer was proposing a fully-developed park with three fields, Council Member Pavão suggested that the Council could possibly negotiate additional parks if the Council chose to approve the developer's rezoning and master land-use plan requests.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PROTZMAN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2.

Stating that the proposed project was generally a good one, Council Member Protzman requested that Council support the applicant's rezoning requests. Noting that many people were concerned that the Town was becoming a white, upper-class community lacking diversity, Council Member Protzman said Meadowmont represented an opportunity to provide such diversity. Adding that a number of local businesses had recently located to other nearby counties due to the lack of affordable commercial space, Council Member Protzman said more commercial options were needed in the Town.

Council Member Chilton said although Council Members Pavão and Protzman had both made good points about the proposal, he did not think that there had been sufficient give and take relative to how the applicant's proposal was consistent with the East Entranceway portion of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that although the rezoning could be justified under the recent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the Council was not compelled to do so. Council Member Chilton said he intended to vote against the applicant's rezoning requests.

Council Member Waldorf said she would vote for the requested rezonings and the master land-use plan approval, with an important additional stipulation. She stated that the landowner had made it emphatically clear that he did not wish to enter into a new process relative to development of the subject property. Council Member Waldorf said she did not believe that delaying the request was a viable option. She also said that it would take years to develop either a quality, attractive R-1 subdivision or a mixed-use development on the property. Council Member Waldorf said that the applicant was proposing a 70-acre park, greenway trails, a desperately needed school site, a mix of housing types, including 32 affordable housing units and retail uses to keep more tax dollars in the Town and Orange County. Stating that it was not desirable to delay the proposed development into non-existence, Council Member Waldorf urged the Council to think about the need for greater diversity in the community.

Council Member Powell said she had several reasons for voting against the proposal. Council Member Powell stated that although the proposed 32 affordable housing units were a start, it was possible that these units might not come to fruition. She also expressed concern that existing school overcrowding and water system capacity matters. Council Member Powell stated that these questions and concerns expressed by other Council Members needed to be addressed.

Council Member Brown said there were a lot of problems associated with the proposal. She stated that the development community had tended to build higher-end homes. Council Member Brown also said she believed that the proposed shopping center in the Meadowmont development was designed to attract shoppers from outside the Meadowmont community, rather than serving as a neighborhood center. Council Member Brown said she intended to vote against the proposal.

Council Member Capowski stated that last June the Council had voted 5-3 to limit office and retail components in the East Entranceway component of the Comprehensive Plan. Stating that there was a greater percentage of profit in developing lower density mix-use projects, Council Member Capowski said he did not think a subdivision of expensive homes would be built on the site if the rezonings and master land-use plan were not approved. Council Member Capowski also expressed concern that the illustrative renderings of the site were not realistic.

Council Member Capowski stated that the Southern Village was a truly-balanced community, with 225,000 square feet of commercial uses. He also stated that the Southern Village area had been downzoned so that total, overall density for the area would remain constant. Council Member Capowski stated that no downzoning had been proposed for the eastern portion of the Town. Expressing concern that the east entranceway portion of the Town might be compromised, Council Member Capowski said he would vote against the proposed rezonings.

Council Member Evans noted that the Town's Board of Aldermen had approved the Eastowne and Pinegate master planned areas about 25 years ago. Stating that the University was a major employer in the community, Council Member Evans said it was important to have housing diversity in the Town. Council Member Evans said she believed that great efforts had been made to develop a quality mixed-use project while preserving entranceway vistas into the Town. Responding to Council Member Powell's earlier concern, Council Member Evans said there were adequate water resources to support the proposed project.

Council Member Chilton said he did not appreciate any implication that any Council Members were opposed to the provision of housing diversity in the community. Council Member Powell expressed her concurrence on this matter.

ORDINANCE 2 WAS APPROVED ON FIRST READING, BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR BROUN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, PAVÃO, PROTZMAN AND WALDORF VOTING YES AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI, CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING NO. MAYOR BROUN NOTED THAT SINCE THE ORDINANCE ONLY RECEIVED FIVE VOTES, IT WOULD NEED TO BE PLACED ON A FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR A SECOND READING.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS (95-10-9/O-2)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of EastWest Partners to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-1 to Mixed Use Residential-1, and finds that the amendment achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Council finds that any approved special use under the Mixed Use Residential-1 (MU-R-1) zoning would be suitable for the property proposed for rezoning under the conditions of the approved Master Land Use 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

That the portion of the property identified as Chapel Hill Tax Map 52, Lot 6, and Durham County Tax Map 479, Lot 1B, located on both sides of NC 54, plus portions of the adjoining right-of-way of NC 54; all approximately 70 acres in area, be rezoned from Residential-1 to Mixed Use Residential-1. The legal description of the entire property is as follows:

Beginning at the Reference Point at the intersection of the centerline of Burning Tree Drive and the Northern R.O.W. line of N.C. Hwy. 54 proceeding S 62°26'14² E 246.28' then proceeding S 62°26'14² E 123.54' then proceeding S 00°13'42² W 102.87' then to the P.O.B. of MU-R-1 and proceeding:

S 62°20¢51² E 279.24¢

S 62°20¢51² E 139.97¢

N 27°38¢49² E 591.69¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 637.10¢ Arc Length = 670.93¢ Radius 295.01¢

S 19°20¢04² E 50.02¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 206.30¢ Arc Length = 361.44¢ Radius 300.00¢ Delta = 69°01¢45²

S 88°21¢49² E 387.58¢

N 00°38¢05² E 187.99¢

N 12°19¢33² E 303.33¢

S 83°21¢22² E 116.41¢

S 88°28¢42² E 440.72¢

S 02°20¢58² E 593.46¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 185.53¢ Arc Length = 362.71¢ Radius 700.00¢ Delta = 29°41¢19²

S 27°22¢03² W 734.52¢

N 62°43¢15² W 486.60¢

S 25°35¢33² W 88.90¢

S 27°35¢54² W 473.78¢

N 72°18¢33² W 188.47¢

N 70°54¢58² W 150.16¢

N 56°37¢27² W 271.31¢

N 63°04¢21² W 352.18¢

N 64°48¢54² W 179.78¢

N 59°40¢17² W 140.68¢

N 57°01¢18² W 398.58¢

N 30°02¢44² E 155.43¢

N 00°13¢42² E 351.63¢

N 00°13¢42² E 102.91¢

Returning to the P.O.B. of MU-R-1

SECTION II

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

This the 9th day of October, 1995. (First Reading)

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 3.

ORDINANCE 3 WAS APPROVED ON FIRST READING BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR BROUN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, PAVÃO, PROTZMAN AND WALDORF VOTING YES AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI, CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING NO. MAYOR BROUN NOTED THAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE CONSIDERED ON SECOND READING IN THE FUTURE.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS (95-10-9/O-3)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of EastWest Partners to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-1 to Residential-5-C, and finds that the amendment achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Council finds that any approved special use under the Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C) zoning would be suitable for the property proposed for rezoning under the conditions of the approved Master Land Use 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

That the portion of the property identified as Chapel Hill Tax Map 52, Lot 6, and Durham County Tax Map 479, Lot 1B, located on the north side of NC 54, except for the portion described in the attached Ordinance A to be rezoned to Mixed Use Residential-1 (MU-R-1) zoning district, and except for the 225-acre portion to remain in the Residential-1 zoning district; plus one-half the adjoining right-of-way of NC 54 along the frontage of the R-5-C area described in same map (approximately 140 acres) be rezoned from Residential-1 to Residential-5-C. The legal description of the entire property is as follows:

Beginning at the Reference Point at the intersection of the centerline of Burning Tree Drive and the Northern R.O.W. of N.C. Hwy. 54 proceeding S 62°26'14² E 246.28' then proceeding S 62°26'14² E 123.54' then proceeding S 00°13'42² W 102.87' then proceeding S 62°20'51² E 279.24' to the P.O.B. of R-5-C and proceeding:

S 62°20¢51² E 139.97¢

N 27°38¢49² E 591.69¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 637.10¢ Arc Length = 670.93¢ Radius 295.01¢ Delta = 130°18¢26²

S 19°20¢04² E 50.02¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 206.30¢ Chord 339.97¢ Arc Length = 361.44¢ Radius 300.00¢ Delta = 69°01¢45²

S 88°21¢49² E 387.58¢

N 00°38¢05² E 187.99¢

N 12°19¢33² E 303.33¢

S 83°21¢22² E 116.41¢

S 88°28¢42² E 440.72¢

S 02°20¢58² E 593.46¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 185.53¢ Arc Length = 362.71¢ Radius 700.00¢ Delta = 29°41¢19²

S 27°22¢03² W 734.52¢

S 27°35¢54² W 141.89¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 179.19¢ Arc Length = 351.24¢ Radius 719.59¢ Delta = 27°58¢00²

S 00°22¢06² E 350.26¢

S 89°34¢28² E 334.96¢

S 89°44¢21² E 35.98¢

S 89°44¢21² E 336.57¢

S 89°33¢05² E 247.57¢

N 17°39¢20² E 359.99¢

N 86°51¢11² E 380.95¢

N 11°59¢45² E 220.94¢

N 11°54¢40² E 2882.61¢

S 89°53¢14² W 924.57¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 375.04¢ Arc Length = 677.86¢ Radius 636.69¢ Delta = 61°00¢03²

N 62°22¢59² W 320.90¢

S 37°36¢09² W 91.48¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 78.91¢ Arc Length = 145.28¢ Radius 150.00¢ Delta = 55°29¢36²

N 86°54¢15² W 128.97¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 1655.83¢ Arc Length = 1113.71¢ Radius 421.34¢ Delta = 151°26¢50²

S 31°44¢12² W 244.09¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 118.87¢ Arc Length = 236.01¢ Radius 800.00¢ Delta = 16°54¢10²

S 31°44¢12² W 345.88¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 33.39¢ Arc Length = 66.11¢ Radius 190.00¢ Delta = 19°54¢14²

S 11°47¢58² W 88.80¢

to a curve whose Tangent = 329.25¢ Arc Length = 563.67¢ Radius 435.00¢ Delta = 74°14¢37²

S 27°33¢21² W 591.80¢

Return to P.O.B. of R-1

SECTION II

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

This the 9th day of October, 1995. (First Reading)

Mayor Broun inquired whether the Council could act on the applicant's requested master land use plan this evening. Mr. Karpinos said if the Council voted affirmatively on the plan, it would be appropriate to tie such an approval to approval of the rezonings on second reading.

Council Member Brown said it was very important that the Council carefully scrutinize proposed alignments and who would pay for proposed future roadways along the NC54 East Entranceway corridor. She urged the Council to consider changing the proposed alignment of Meadowmont Lane this evening, rather than waiting until the special use permit portion of the review process.

Council Member Chilton said if the Council were disposed to change the road's alignment, this evening would be the proper time to move forward, rather than leaving the developer and the future Council with uncertainties in this regard.

Council Member Evans said she believed that the Thoroughfare Plan only showed a general alignment for the proposed Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Horton said he believed that the alignment in the Thoroughfare Plan was intended as a broad guide, principally depicting key connection points.

Council Member Brown said although there had been considerable rancor in 1991 about the proposed roadway's alignment, the Town, City of Durham and Durham County had reached a joint agreement about this matter following a public hearing. Council Member Brown said she thought the earlier roadway alignment was best.

Council Member Protzman said he favored the development of a transit corridor on the western side of the Meadowmont property.

Noting the complexity of planning for mass transit corridors and facilities, Council Member Capowski suggested that the Council not act on this aspect of the plan this evening.

Council Member Brown said if the Council chose the current proposed roadway alignment, it was unlikely that the roadway and transit corridor would ever be constructed.

Mayor Broun said he was sympathetic to the notion of locating the roadway to the west. Stating that this evening's discussion on roadway alignments was useful, Mayor Broun suggested that this matter could be taken up by the Council seated in December as part of the special use permit process.

COUNCIL MEMBER WALDORF MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION A, WITH ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS CONCERNING DEDICATION OF A SCHOOL SITE, SPECIAL WATER SYSTEMS AND REQUIRING THAT THE PROPOSED WELLNESS CENTER FACILITY PAY LOCAL AND STATE PROPERTY TAXES AND CLARIFYING THAT STIPULATION 29 SHOULD REFERENCE BACKYARD, RATHER THAN CURBSIDE, REFUSE COLLECTION, AND THAT ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION BE SUBJECT TO ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED REZONINGS ON SECOND READING.

Noting that she intended to vote against the proposed resolution, Council Member Brown said she had a number of additional suggested stipulations.

Mayor Broun noted that the applicant was not required to move forward with the master land-use plan if they did not agree with some or all of the conditions of approval. Mr. Karpinos noted that the applicant also had the right to challenge any stipulation which they disagreed with. Council Member Brown asked whether all stipulations had to be agreed to by the motioner and seconder. Mayor Broun said this was correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REQUIRE THAT THE PROPOSED PINEHURST DRIVE CONNECTOR BE LIMITED TO EMERGENCY ACCESS AND ACCESS BY PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.

Stating that it would be very difficult to make a judgment concerning the future impact of the Pinehurst Drive Connector, Council Member Chilton suggested the possibility of deleting stipulation #17. Council Member Waldorf suggested the possibility of having physical devices to make the connector uninviting for vehicular traffic. Reiterating his support for deletion of stipulation #17, Council Member Chilton said one possibility was installing low-cost traffic calming devices on Burning Tree and Pinehurst Drives.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CAPOWSKI, CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO DELETE THE STIPULATION CONCERNING THE PINEHURST CONNECTOR.

Council Member Evans said it was very important to let people know what would happen relative to the proposed Pinehurst Connector.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4-5, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI, CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PROTZMAN, TO INCLUDE TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES ON THE PROPOSED PINEHURST DRIVE CONNECTOR. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Brown suggested that the proposed alignment for Meadowmont Lane be moved back to the pre-August, 1995 alignment. Council Member Chilton suggested that stipulation #9 be revised to note that Meadowmont Lane would be sited west and north of the estate, with the developer paying for the cost of the roadway. Mr. Horton stated that reference to a specific alignment could be made in an exhibit to the master land-use plan. Mayor Broun noted that any differences related to driveways and related matters could be addressed in the special use permit process.

Mayor Broun requested the applicant's comment on the proposed roadway alignment. Mr. Perry said a potential compromise would be to route the roadway to the west and north, with a mass transit corridor remaining in its current location. Council Member Chilton said it would be necessary to modify the stipulation concerning driveways on to Meadowmont Lane.

Mr. Horton stated that changing one stipulation could impact other stipulations. Mr. Horton said he would advise the Council against making such adjustments on the floor this evening.

Council Member Evans also stated that the prospect of a school being located on a major thoroughfare was not a positive one.

Council Member Brown said it was very important for the Council to proceed with the best roadway alignment as soon as possible, relative to roadways and a future mass transit corridor.

Mayor Broun said he concurred with the Manager's guidance not to attempt to make major adjustments this evening on matters such as roadway alignments.

THE MOTION TO MOVE MEADOWMONT LANE TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THE ESTATE WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-3, WITH MAYOR BROUN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS AND WALDORF VOTING NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO LIMIT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USE TO 392,500 SQUARE FEET.

Council Member Chilton said he would support this proposal. Council Member Powell inquired how this proposed figure had been determined. Council Member Brown said this represented one-half of the applicant's request and was closer to the amount of commercial/office square footage sought by Southern Village.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4-5, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI, CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, THAT THE COUNCIL HAVE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSIT MANAGEMENT PLAN.

Council Member Pavão asked whether it was correct that the Council would not see the proposed plan at all if stipulation 5 on page A-2 remained unchanged. Mr. Horton said this was correct. He added that staff would always follow the Council's instructions on these matters. Council Member Brown said she believed that the Council should be the main body involved in reviewing transit management plans. Council Member Capowski inquired whether the stipulation differed from Transit Management Plans for projects in the downtown area. Mr. Horton said no. Council Member Evans asked whether Council Member Brown was proposing that the Council review all zoning compliance permits in Meadowmont. Council Member Brown asked how many zoning compliance permits would be involved. Mr. Horton said this would be contingent upon the number of phases proposed by the developer.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2-7, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN AND CHILTON VOTING YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER POWELL, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN PROPOSED STIPULATION #32 FROM 32 TO 75.

Council Member Brown asked how the 80% of median income cited in the stipulation had been determined. Mr. Horton said this was generally consistent with language in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Chilton said although he appreciated the sentiment of the proposal, he believed that the proposed stipulation went beyond the Council's bounds.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI AND POWELL VOTING YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO REQUIRE THAT NO BUILDINGS BE VISIBLE FROM NC 54.

Stating that the proposed buildings across the meadow would be good-looking ones, Mayor Broun said he did not agree with the proposed motion.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2-7, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN AND CHILTON VOTING YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO MODIFY STIPULATION 15 J ON PAGE A-14, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE "AND INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT WITH EXPERTISE IN WETLANDS... WITH FINAL APPROVAL BY THE TOWN COUNCIL".

Council Member Evans inquired whether Corps of Engineers staff had expertise in wetlands. Council Member Brown said she believed that an environmental consultant was needed to protect the Town's interests.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2-7, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN AND CHILTON VOTING YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO RESTRICT BUILDINGS IN THE VILLAGE CENTER AREA TO A MAXIMUM OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET.

Council Member Capowski inquired about the goal of the proposed stipulation. Council Member Chilton said the objective was to avoid the construction of "superstores" on the site. Council Member Evans asked whether this could be addressed in the special use permit. Council Member Protzman suggested that the Council take the applicant up on his offer to restrict buildings in the Village Center to a maximum of 40,000 square feet. Council Member Evans noted that many grocery stores felt that a store of 40,000 square feet was too limiting.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 4-5, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI, CHILTON AND PROTZMAN VOTING YES.

Council Member Powell inquired about why it is alright to ask the developer to provide a larger school site, while it was not alright to seek more affordable housing units. Mayor Broun stated that the school building involved a specific identified site, while the proposed affordable housing units were not tied to a specific proposal.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REQUIRE THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TOTALLING 5% OF ALL DWELLING UNITS TO PERSONS MAKING NO MORE THAN 80% OF THE LOCAL AREA MEDIAN INCOME.

Council Member Chilton said he opposed the proposal because it was similar to a taking of the applicant's property.

THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI AND POWELL VOTING YES.

Hearing no additional proposed stipulations, Mayor Broun said the original resolution was on the floor with amendments concerning Meadowmont Lane north and west of the estate, the deeding of eighteen acres of school land, the inclusion of traffic calming devices on the Pinehurst Connector, requiring that the Wellness Center pay State and local property taxes, and that condition 29f refer to backyard, rather than curbside pickup.

Mr. Perry said he believed that the applicant was offering an enormous series of benefits in the proposed Meadowmont plan. He stated that requesting an additional $1 million for dedication of the entire school site would make the project economically unviable. Mr. Perry strongly urged the Council to accept Meadowmont's magnanimous offer of ten acres for a school site. He also stated that the Meadowmont partners did not have a major objection to the proposed Meadowmont Lane going to the north and west of the estate, with the transit stop and corridor remaining in its present location (where it would not transverse a residential neighborhood).

Council Member Waldorf said it was somewhat unclear whether the applicant was accepting responsibility for constructing Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Horton said Mr. Perry was repeating his earlier offer to pursue the original roadway alignment and reserve a mass transit corridor to the south and east. Mr. Horton noted that under these conditions, Mr. Perry and his partners would not have to bear the cost for building another roadway.

Mayor Broun asked whether the applicant was willing to build a road to the north and east of the estate and dedicate land south of Meadowmont Lane for a future mass transit corridor. Mr. Perry said this was correct. Council Member Brown urged the Council to adopt the roadway alignment adopted prior to August, 1995. Mayor Broun said this was not necessarily inconsistent with Mr. Perry's proposal. Mr. Perry stated that he could not accept the requirement for additional land dedication for the school site.

Council Member Protzman said it was important to ensure that there would be sufficient breadth of the transit corridor to accommodate buses or trains. Council Member Brown said it was not necessary to be this specific concerning mass transit. Council Member Capowski noted that the location of Meadowmont Lane had been moved several months ago to avoid driveway cuts directly on to the roadway. Council Member Chilton stated that the Master Land-Use Plan contained a provision limiting driveway cuts on Meadowmont Lane. Mr. Perry said it would not be acceptable to have driveway cuts if mass transit were involved.

Mayor Broun said he thought the best way to proceed was to leave roadway alignment matters open until the special use permit stage.

Noting that a fairly large scale upzoning was proposed, Council Member Protzman suggested that the Council proceed with the request that the applicant dedicate eight more acres for a school site. Stating that the proposed project would likely have an impact on area schools, Council Member Protzman said that the applicants had been very generous concerning facility dedications to this point.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PROTZMAN, TO ADD A STIPULATION TO #8A ON PAGE A-4, THAT "ACCESS FROM MEADOWMONT LANE BE PROHIBITED, EXCEPT WHERE RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT DRIVEWAYS ARE NECESSARY". MAYOR BROUN NOTED THAT THIS WAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION.

Mayor Broun noted that the applicant had indicated that all conditions of approval, excepting Meadowmont Lane and dedication of the school site were acceptable.

THE MAIN MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-4, WITH MAYOR BROUN AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, PAVÃO, PROTZMAN AND WALDORF VOTING YES AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI, CHILTON AND POWELL VOTING NO.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MASTER LAND USE PLAN FOR THE MEADOWMONT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (MLUP.52.6) (95-10-9/R-8a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Master Land Use Plan proposed by EastWest Partners, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 52, Lot 6; Durham County Tax Map 479, Lot 1B, if developed according to the Master Land Use Plan dated April 26, 1994 (revised August 4, 1995), and the general principles outlined in the Developer's Report dated April 28, 1995 (submitted by the applicant and subject to the revisions listed in the conditions below), and the conditions listed below:

1. Would maintain the public health, safety and general welfare;

2. Would maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and

3. Would conform to the Comprehensive Plan.

These findings are conditioned on the following:

Stipulations Specific to the Development

1. Application Deadline: That an application for a Special Use Permit for development of at least one phase be accepted by the Town Manager by October 9, 1997 (two years from the date of Council approval of the Master Land Use Plan), or the above Master Land Use Plan shall automatically expire.

2. Land Use Intensity:

a. That no more than 1,298 dwelling units shall be allowed for the development. This total number of dwelling units includes, but is not limited to, dwelling units in single-family homes, two-family homes, accessory apartments, townhomes, and apartments.

On the Master Land Use Plan, note #6 under "Notes: Land Use Types and Intensities" does not apply.

b. That non-residential floor area shall be limited to 785,100 square feet.

c. That in a case of conflict between the Development Ordinance regulations regarding maximum land use intensity and the developer's proposal, the Development Ordinance regulations in place as of the date of this approval, or applicable approved Special Use Permit or Zoning Compliance Permit, shall supersede the developer's proposal.

3. Land Uses:

a. Permitted land uses within the various land use areas must be limited to those described in the uses shown on the Master Plan submitted by the applicant and identified in Subsection 12.3 (schedule of uses) of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance and any other applicable provisions of the Development Ordinance, or applicable approved Special Use Permit or Zoning Compliance Permit.

b. In a case where the Master Plan or Developer's Report lists a use not included in a particular zoning district according to Subsection 12.3 or other applicable sections, the use shall not be permitted. Uses shall be in accordance with those defined in Article 2 of the Development Ordinance.

c. The proposed 20-foot strip of land bordering Lancaster Drive shall be recorded on final plats with a note indicating it is not a lot which can be built upon.

d. That the 18-acre school site (shown northwest of the DuBose Estate) shall be reserved for five years from the date of this approval, for optional purchase by the local School Board. deeded to the local School Board. The parcel shall be deeded prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development that includes residential units. The deed shall provide that if the School Board does not act within six years to purchase this site, ten years to receive a building permit for construction of a school on this site, title to the property shall revert to the current owner and may be used for the developer may create up to 50 residential lots in this area with the approval of a Special Use Permit. (Maximum number of dwelling units for entire site remains at 1,298).

4. Traffic Impact Analysis: That with the submittal of each Special Use Permit application for development proposing building(s), the developer shall provide an updated detailed Traffic Impact Analysis for the entire 435-acre site.

5. Transportation Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for any portion of the proposed non-residential uses, the applicant shall prepare and receive approval from the Town Manager for a Transportation Management Plan. This Transportation Management Plan shall include provisions to reduce automobile traffic and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. The scope of the plan, and its amendments, shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager.

6. Required Transportation Related Public Improvements:

a. That the improvements identified below be provided at a minimum, and that additional improvements may be required upon review of detailed, updated Traffic Impact Statements which shall be submitted with Special Use Permit application(s) for development of the site.

b. The sequence and extent of the following improvements, unless otherwise noted in the following stipulations, shall be determined by the Town Council, or Council's designee, if Council elects, with each approval of Special Use Permit for the phases of development, according to the relative scale and impact of each phase.

c. NC 54:

1) That the developer provide a signal payment-in-lieu to the Town or State, as appropriate, for the signal installation/upgrades for the intersections of NC 54 and the proposed entrances at approximately 800 feet east of the Burning Tree Drive intersection; at Meadowmont Lane/Friday Center Drive; and at Barbee Chapel Hill Road extension. If the warrants are not met within five years time after full buildout of the development, the developer shall be reimbursed for the full payment amount.

2) That the two entrances across from each other on NC 54 and closest to Burning Tree Drive be shifted east as far as possible without shifting the proposed office/commercial off the knoll just north of the highway.

3) That the developer add left-turn lane and right-hand deceleration/turn lane on NC 54 at each of the proposed entrances into the development, subject to NCDOT and Town Manager approval.

d. Internal Streets: Special consideration shall be given to keeping internal roadway widths as narrow as possible.

1) That the developer's proposed street/alley standard chart be deleted from this Master Land Use Plan application; and the Notes #1-5 under "Notes: Streets" on the Master Land Use Plan shall not apply and shall be deleted from any documents to be recorded. Street and alley standards shall be developed as Special Use Permit applications are received.

2) That with the submittal of Special Use Permit applications, the developer submit a street plan indicating the layout and hierarchy, and indicating which streets and alleys are proposed to be public and which are to be private. (The approval of the Master Plan shall not fix the specific alignment of the proposed new streets.) The Town Council or Manager, as applicable, shall reserve the right to determine whether a given street or alley shall be publicly or privately maintained and the construction standards which shall apply.

3) That as a condition of approval for the first Special Use Permit application proposing building(s), a set of street standards for the entire site (including dimensions of rights-of-way, streets, sidewalks, travel lanes, parking lanes, and planting strips) be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of any Zoning Compliance Permit.

4) That Special Use Permit applications shall include general traffic calming design features such as narrower streets, minimal length straight streets, and sign-controlled intersections.

5) That Meadowmont Lane shall be designed to accommodate future regional mass transit, with a right-of-way width of at least 60 feet (total right-of-way width for Meadowmont Lane and the fixed guideway shall be at least 110 feet.)

6) That the Barbee Chapel Road extension and Meadowmont Lane be constructed to arterial standards of the Town, and if applicable, of the State. If the State accepts these streets for maintenance, the State standards shall apply.

7) That Meadowmont Lane be constructed with a center median, with four lanes from the NC 54 intersection to the commercial center, changing to a two-lane configuration north of the commercial center. The cross-section shall include bike lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalks along both sides of the entire length.

8) That driveways be minimized on Meadowmont Lane. Access from residential lots to Meadowmont Lane shall be prohibited except where right in and right out driveways are necessary. In addition, alternative access shall be provided for the Wellness Center and grocery store, with no direct vehicular access onto Meadowmont Lane or the transit corridor.

9) That Meadowmont Lane shall be extended to stub out to the eastern property line, to enable future connection to adjacent property. That Meadowmont Lane, both for roadway and fixed guideway purposes, be re-aligned such that it runs to the west and north of the existing Meadowmont Estate; and that the roadway segment be completed on this subject property as part of this development.

10) That a preliminary grading plan for the future extension of Meadowmont Lane, from a point at least 400 feet west of the eastern DuBose property line, northeast to the point where Meadowmont Lane leaves the DuBose property and enters the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property, be prepared by the developer to help determine feasibility of a proposed alignment for Meadowmont Lane, and so that the necessary right-of-way width can be determined.

This preliminary grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to plat recordation for any lots fronting the above-described section of Meadowmont Lane.

11) That a turnaround of sufficient size for service vehicles, trucks, and buses be added to the end of Meadowmont Lane and to all streets terminating at the Lloyd property at the eastern property line. The final design shall be subject to Town Manager approval.

12) That the intersection of the proposed Barbee Chapel Road Extension and Meadowmont Lane be at least 800 feet from the Meadowmont Lane/NC 54 intersection as shown on the Master Land Use Plan.

13) That the streets in the commercial areas be public and that cross-sections include sidewalks and planting areas of sufficient size; with plans subject to approval by the Town Manager.

14) That the right-of-way widths for the public streets shall be subject to the approval of the Town Council or Town Manager, as appropriate. The Town Council or Town Manager may require right-of-way width of selected internal streets to include sufficient space for underground utility lines behind the sidewalks.

15) That all public streets and alleys within the development be constructed to Town standards (except where NCDOT standards apply) and dedicated to the Town for public maintenance.

16) That at least three lanes be provided at each project exit onto NC 54 - one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane; with plans subject to Town Manager and NCDOT approval.

17) That access be provided via a publicly maintained street to Pinehurst Drive to the north for a through connection for neighborhood traffic, and that traffic calming measures be considered in the design of Meadowmont streets connecting to Pinehurst Drive.

18) That at least two access points be provided to the Lloyd property adjacent to the east, the locations of which shall be subject to Town Council or Town Manager approval, as appropriate.

19) That the developer explore possibilities for connections to Finley Golf Course Road and to Friday Center Drive with subsequent Special Use Permit applications.

20) That the streets shall be built to Town standards, and shall be dedicated as public streets. The Town Council or Town Manager may require certain private alleys to be built to Town standards to withstand service vehicles even if the streets are not maintained by the Town. Developer and developer's heirs, successors and assigns shall indemnify the Town from claims for damages to any privately maintained streets or alleys caused by vehicles, equipment, etc. belonging to the Town, other governmental body, or public utility vehicles.

21) That each road stubout to a subsequent phase be extended (cleared and graded) at least 100 feet into the adjacent future phases(s). Signage shall be located at each roadway stubout that indicates the roadway will be extended for future development. The size, text, and color of the signs shall be subject to the Town Manager's approval.

22) For construction of streets and drives to be used by service and transit vehicles, subsoil replacement and subsurface drainage shall be implemented as necessary to construct the streets and drives to Town standards.

23) That right-of-way for connecting the neighborhood loop street to Meadowmont Lane be dedicated to the Town as a condition of approval of the Special Use Permit application for development in the area; and that a sign be posted at the future connection point on that loop which states that a through connection will be made when Meadowmont Lane is extended.

e. Transit Related Improvements:

That the developer construct a number of bus shelters within the development, and bus pull-offs along the highway frontages and on Meadowmont Lane. The number, type and location of transit stops shall be determined by the Town Manager as more information about uses and locations becomes available with Special Use Permit and other development applications.

f. Bicycles/Pedestrian Improvements:

1) That safe pedestrian/bike access under NC 54 be provided by the developer to link the two portions of this development, subject to Town and State approval of plans. If the NCDOT does not approve an open-cut method of construction, the developer will make a payment-in-lieu of construction to the Town. Amount of said payment to be based on an open-cut construction technique.

2) That sidewalk be provided in the following locations:

* along this property's frontage on Friday Center Drive

* along both sides of the entire length of Meadowmont Lane

* along both side of NC 54 (at locations approved by the State and the Town Manager, possibly set back from the vehicle travel lanes) along this property's frontage and west to the Burning Tree Drive intersection. Additional right-of-way may be required for this purpose.

3) That sidewalk be installed on at least one side of each street (not the alleys) which is open to the general public, regardless of whether the street is publicly maintained.

4) The location, width, and design/construction standards for the pedestrian and/or bike paths are to be approved by the Town Manager.

5) That off-road bike path at least 6-8 feet from the outside travel lanes be provided along the north side of NC 54 along this property's frontage and west to the Burning Tree Drive intersection.

6) That bike paths be provided along both sides of the length of Meadowmont Lane.

7) That adequate provision be made for bike and pedestrian access between the Meadowmont development and the Lloyd property to the east.

8) That bike and pedestrian access be provided throughout the site, including the portion of the site south of NC 54. An overall conceptual pedestrian/bike access and circulation plan for the entire site shall be submitted with the application for the first Special Use Permit proposing building(s), with detailed plans to be submitted for each individual phase at the time of subsequent Special Use Permit applications.

7. Stormwater/Water Quality Related to Public Improvements:

a. That wet detention basin and/or other stormwater management facilities be provided in accordance with all applicable Town regulations, including the Town's Watershed Protection District regulations, Resource Conservation District regulations, Water Quality District regulations; State regulations; and Federal (FEMA) regulations.

b. The stormwater facilities shall be located and designed where practical to avoid intrusion into required landscape buffers and into the preservation areas proposed by the applicant, bordering the meadow. Design and construction of any stormwater management facility shall be approved by the Town Manager.

All plans and final plats shall include dedication of permanent easements and construction of a paved or gravel drive for vehicular ingress/egress as necessary for construction, maintenance operations and equipment. The easements shall include the ponds, pipes, and other storm drainage improvements, as well as the vehicle access drives. The drives shall be in a location to be approved by the Town Manager.

c. That the retention and detention ponds shall be bonded and maintained by private entities such as an owners' or homeowners' association, and shall be monitored for compliance with Town and State regulations by the Town Manager, with performance guarantees provided as required by the Town Manager.

The Council reserves the right to require public maintenance of stormwater facilities during the life of the project. In the event of such requirement, the party holding title to a given facility may be required to pay maintenance fees lawfully established or to reimburse the maintenance entity for reasonable costs which it determines, and/or to post a financial guarantee of such payments.

8. Water and Sewer Line Extensions: That preliminary utility extension plans for the 435-acre site shall be reviewed and approved by OWASA as part of the final plans for the first phase of development. Thereafter, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for any phase of development, OWASA and Town Manager approval of detailed phase-specific utility extension plans must be obtained. The plans shall include water and sewer line construction proposed by the developer both off-site and on-site.

9. Other Required Public Utility Improvements:

a. That empty duct banks for future street lights and signal cables be installed to and along this property's frontage on NC 54, if deemed necessary by the Town Manager.

b. A street lighting plan, including underground wiring plan, must be submitted with each Special Use Permit application.

c. Future Special Use Permit or Zoning Compliance Permit approvals shall address additional utility requirements, which may include conduit for phone, cable television lines, etc.

10. Stormwater Management Plan: That a general conceptual stormwater management plan for the entire site be submitted for review with the Zoning Compliance Permit application for the first phase of development. A detailed stormwater management plan, based on the Town's Hydros program, shall be submitted with each Final Plan application for approval by the Town Manager. Stormwater management plans shall be approved by State and Federal agencies, if so required.

11. Preservation of Existing Meadows, Barns, Outbuildings: The existing meadows, barns, and outbuildings shall be preserved and maintained as shown on the plans, and all Federal and State regulations regarding preservation of, relocation of, and development around these features shall be complied with.

12. Ownership and Responsibilities of Common Areas: That an owners' association be created for the maintenance and regulation of the private (residential, office, park, landscape, and commercial) areas, including privately maintained streets and alleys. All property owners, excluding governmental bodies, shall be represented in the owners' association. This owners' association may have maintenance responsibilities for commonly owned development elements which affect the entire development, including the stormwater management facilities.

In addition, a separate neighborhood association and/or an owners' association for the private non-residential areas shall be created for the maintenance and regulation of these areas. The documents creating these entities shall be reviewed by and be subject to approval by the Town Manager and shall be recorded in the Orange County (or Durham County) Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development.

The responsibilities of these entities shall include the ownership and maintenance of the private alleys, private green spaces, private parks, private stormwater retention and detention facilities, and the perimeter buffers. These entities shall have the ability to place a lien on property for nonpayment of dues or fees.

13. Service Stations: For any service station within this development, the following stipulations and all applicable State and Federal regulations shall apply:

a. That all applicable Federal and State regulations, including those pertaining to water supply watershed protection, be complied with.

b. That all applicable Town regulations, including those pertaining to water supply watershed protection, storm drainage, and hazardous materials be complied with. Below is a partial list:

* an emergency contingency plan shall be prepared, in accordance with the requirements of Federal regulations, as part of the development application. The report must be updated annually;

* any storage container for hazardous materials (such as gasoline) shall be equipped with leak detection devices and shall be double-walled or have other secondary containment features;

* storage areas shall be protected by a dike of appropriate size; and

* all floor drains that the Town Manager determines might collect hazardous materials shall be connected to a tank or catch basin of appropriate size, and shall not be open to the site's natural drainage system.

c. That the plans and operation of the service station comply with Subsection 18.7.15 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, which includes the following standards for service stations:

* the lot must be at least 20,000 square feet in area;

* the lot must front and have direct access to an arterial or collector street;

* provisions must be made for ventilation and dispersion and removal of fumes, and for the removal of hazardous chemicals and fluids; and

* the service station driveways must be at least 300 feet from any intersecting street, and at least 750 feet from any other service station driveway.

d. Additional protective measures for stormwater quality:

* that surface runoff from the service station be routed to an oil-sand separator or equivalent (subject to Town Manager approval) for liquid waste collection to filter the grease, oils, and other pollutants from the stormwater above the stormwater inlets;

* provisions for a waste disposal plan, addressing disposal methods and record-keeping for solid waste, waste trapped in the oil-sand separator grease traps (and/or other filtering devices), and liquid waste in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. The plan and records shall be provided to the Town annually;

* for the fuel tanks: provision of double-walled piping with automatic leak detectors, and double-walled tanks with interstitial monitoring and automatic alarm systems; registration with the State and annual tank fees paid to the State; and

* provision of monitoring well(s) with a regular monitoring program.

All plans addressing the above measures shall be subject to Town Manager approval.

14. Design-Related Stipulations: The developer's proposed design/construction standards, included in the Developer's Report dated April 28, 1995, shall not be included in the approval of the Master Land Use Plan. The following basic design principles shall apply to development of this site unless amended through a Special Use Permit:

a. All sidewalks within public rights-of-way shall be at least 5 feet in width. Alternatively, the Town Manager may approve a narrower width in situations where there are topographical or other constraints.

b. Landscape protection measures shall be to Town standards. The Town Manager shall review and may approve other methods on a case-by-case basis. Because uses other than single-family and two-family lots are allowed in the residential areas, tree protection fencing shall be required during construction of public utilities and roadways and in other areas as determined to be necessary by the Town Manager.

c. Special Use Permit applications shall include specific street construction standards and materials; maximum slopes and vertical curve data; curb type; drainage methods; typical cross-sections; and landscaping of street side slopes and traffic islands. They shall also address lighting of streets and alleys.

d. All alley/street intersections must be at least 100 feet apart. The Town Council or Town Manager may approve narrower separations on a case-by-case basis.

e. No alleys shall intersect a street at a point where the street slopes over 15% without approval by the Town Council.

f. That all driveway locations, for residential and non-residential uses, be reviewed by the Town Manager, subject to the Town Manager's approval.

g. Front yard driveways and parking areas shall be minimized for the lots fronting on Meadowmont Lane. All such driveways and parking areas shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager.

h. That all parking areas shall be screened from highway view. Screening plans shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager and Appearance Commission.

i. That parking areas for buildings along the highway corridor shall be at or behind the building line.

j. That at the time of application for the first Special Use Permit proposing building(s) for this property, pursuant to an approved Master Plan, the property owner shall:

1) submit a plan defining an "entranceway corridor", identifying those areas of the site where structures would be visible from NC Highway 54; and

2) submit a set of design guidelines that set forth principles which shall be followed and met for structures, including surface parking lots, within the entranceway corridor

These two documents shall be subject to approval by the Town Council as part of any Special Use Permit approval. Any subsequent development of any structure within the defined entranceway corridor shall be required, before construction can begin, to have certification from the Town's Appearance Commission that the proposed structures are generally consistent with the approved design guidelines.

k. That speed limits and on-street parking be regulated by the Town Council or the State, whichever is appropriate.

l. That any elevated connecting walkways between buildings and over streets, driveways, or alleys must provide over 13 feet, 6 inches clearance for service and emergency vehicles.

15. Recreation Space Requirements for Residential Components:

a. That recreation space of sufficient area and type, according to Article 13 of the Development Ordinance, be provided for the residential components, including amenities such as playground equipment and/or picnic shelters. The plans for the recreation space shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager and by the Town Council or Parks and Recreation Commission if so required under the terms of an applicable Special Use Permit. The recreation facilities shall be developed/constructed by the developer.

b. That an overall recreation area concept plan and phasing plan be provided, prior to approval of the first Special Use Permit proposing building(s), showing the proposed locations, sizes, and types of passive and active recreation areas for the 435-acre site.

c. The recreation space and recreation areas, including the main park and the greenway, shall be developed by the developer and shall be dedicated and deeded to the Town of Chapel Hill for Parks and Recreation purposes only, or to an Owner's Association (to be determined by the Town Manager). The developer shall remain responsible for the recreation space or area unless and until the Town or an Owners' Association accepts the property.

If a homeowners' association is responsible for a recreation space or area, and if the Town Manager determines that the recreation area and facilities are not properly maintained, the Town may assume responsibility for same, subject to agreement between the association and the Town, or may require establishment of a maintenance performance guarantee.

The Conservation Area along Little Creek as shown on the approved plans, shall be dedicated and deeded to the Town for conservation and passive recreation purposes.

d. The 70-acre park shall be developed by the developer with the first phase of development which contains residential units or a surety guarantee shall be provided in an amount to cover costs of building the park and access roads to the park.

e. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for the residential units within a phase until all the active recreation facilities for that particular phase have been completed, or a performance guarantee acceptable to the Town Manager is posted with the Town to ensure timely completion.

f. That no private recreation facility on this site may be used to fulfill the Town's recreation space requirements for this development.

g. That the proposed greenway not end at the golf course, but extend to the pond/amenity area to the north, to connect the northern end of the site to the village center.

h. That the greenway coincide with the sewer easement where possible, and that it include a 10-foot wide asphalt path inside a 34-foot pedestrian easement, and that the design and construction be approved by the Town Manager.

i. That in addition to a main central park for the development, additional smaller neighborhood parks shall be provided in the residential areas, particularly in the multi-family residential areas.

j. That the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Town Manager review and approve the plans for development of the park. If the plans are not approved, an alternate location for the playing fields must be provided on the site.

k. That with the Special Use Permit application which includes the 70-acre park, adequate parking for the park (including the athletic fields) be indicated on the plans. If a school is to be constructed near the park, sharing of parking areas and athletic facilities shall be encouraged.

16. Review Process: Each application shall demonstrate compliance with the Development Ordinance, including the intensity regulations of Article 13 and relevant Special Use Permit requirements. The following processes shall be used to review and approve individual phases of development:

Residential:

Single- and two-family structures to be approved by the Town Manager, pursuant to a Council-approved Special Use Permit.

All other residential development to be approved by the Town Council as Special Use Permits.

Non-residential:

All development to be approved by the Town Council as Special Use Permits.

Signage:

All signage to be approved by the Town's Appearance Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Development Ordinance.

Stipulations Related to Resource Conservation District

17. Boundaries: That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District for the entire site be indicated on all plans submitted for development. A note shall be added indicating that "Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Development Ordinance" on all plans and plats.

18. Variances: That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or final plan approval for the subject phases(s) of development.

19. Construction Standards: That for encroachment(s) into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements and standards of subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance shall be adhered to, unless the applicant is granted administrative exemptions. Permitted encroachments may include, but are not limited to:

- street crossings

- pedestrian/bicycle paths along and over the streams

- wet detention basin/stormwater management facility

- utility lines

- surface parking

Stipulations Related to State and Federal Government Approvals

20. State and Federal Approvals: That any required State or Federal permits or encroachment agreements (including but not limited to those needed for improvements to NC 54, for pond and dam construction, for stormwater management and erosion control, and crossings over/under NC 54, for disturbance related to the listed archaeological sites, for water and sewer extension, and for development in the Watershed Protection District) be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of development.

21. NCDOT Approvals: That plans for improvements to State-maintained roads be approved by NCDOT prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of development.

Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements

22. Landscape Protection Plan:

a. That a preliminary Landscape Protection Plan be prepared as part of each Special Use Permit application. The plan shall include a detailed site analysis describing the typical types and sizes of trees on different sections of the site and showing the approximate location of all trees greater than 36 inches in diameter within 100 feet of proposed construction/land disturbance. The plan shall also indicate the approximate location of the clear cutting limits associated with construction of roadways, multi-family development, and non-residential development, borrow areas, stormwater management improvements, and utility installations, especially sanitary sewer.

b. That a detailed tree survey and Landscape Protection Plan shall be submitted to the Town Manager as part of each Special Use Permit application and shall include areas of vegetation to be preserved; the anticipated clearing limit lines; proposed grading; proposed utility lines; a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas.

The plan shall show the use of tree protection fencing, unless alternate protective measures are approved by the Town Manager, between infrastructure construction and existing vegetation in:

* all required landscape buffers;

* all common areas (public or private);

* all areas designated to be used for residential, non-residential, or mixed use development; and

* other areas, to be determined by the Town Manager.

23. Landscape Buffers and Setbacks: That the following landscape buffers and setbacks be provided:

AREA ON MASTER PLAN	BUFFER WIDTH AND TYPE	PERIMETER SETBACK/ SETBACK FROM R.O.W.
Area A	75' type "D"	75'
Area B	100' - 400' type "D"	100'
Area C	100' type "D"	100'
Area D	50' type "D"	50'/75'
Area E	50' type "D"	50'/75'
Area F	500' - 600' type "D"	500' - 600'
Area G	200' type "D"	200'
Area H	200' type "D"	200'
Area I	50' type "D"	50'
Area J	50' type "D"	50'/75'
Area K	50' type "D"	50'/75'
Area L	20' type "C"	50'
Area M	20' type "C"	40
Area O	20' type "C"	25'
Area P	0'	40'

* Along the Highway 54 frontages, type "D" landscape buffers shall be provided with "windows" through the vegetation in accordance with the town's Entranceway Plan.

* For single-family or two-family lots, the required landscape buffer shall be provided on property deeded to the homeowners' association rather than the lot.

* If any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements, then the vegetation shall be protected by fencing from adjacent construction.

* Easements for utility lines and stormwater piping shall be limited to generally perpendicular crossings where necessary to facilitate access to and function of these facilities. These crossings of the bufferyard shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. Stormwater ponds may be located within the Highway 54 landscape buffer.

Ownership and maintenance of the perimeter landscape buffer in residential areas shall be the owners or homeowners' association's responsibility.

Supplemental plantings may be necessary to fulfill the requirements for buffers, screening of parking lots, and entranceway plantings.

24. Street Tree Plantings: That the developer shall provide street tree plantings for internal streets, with canopy trees to be planted 40-60 feet apart behind the sidewalk, in all phases of development where no existing trees are shown as remaining within twenty feet of the curb on the Landscape Protection Plans submitted with final plan applications. Locations shall include:

- at Entranceway on NC 54;

- along entrance roads;

- in the parks, greens, and recreation areas;

- both sides of streets in the non-residential areas;

- both sides of Meadowmont Lane;

- both sides of Barbee Chapel Road extension;

- both sides of streets abutting townhouse development; and

- at least one side of all other streets.

These trees will be installed to Town standards as detailed in the Town's Design Manual, and planters shall have a minimum of 200 square feet of permeable surface, or be in continuous planting strips at least 7 feet wide.

25. Landscape Plan Approval: That preliminary and detailed final landscape plans (including buffers and street tree plantings), landscape maintenance plans, and lighting plans be reviewed by the Town Manager and/or the Appearance Commission for approval in conjunction with application for a Special Use permit for each phase of development.

26. Plantings along the Highway Frontage: That plantings be provided, meadows be restored and existing vegetation preserved along the highway frontage in general compliance with the Town's Master Landscape Plan for Entranceway Corridors along NC 54. A streetscape plan, demonstrating compliance with the Entranceway Master Landscape Plan, shall be submitted for Town Manager and Appearance Commission review and approval with the first Special Use Permit application proposing building(s). A phasing plan for plant installation shall be included with this plan. Planting plans for trees along NC 54 shall also be subject to approval by NCDOT.

Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes

27. That each submittal for Special Use Permit or Zoning Compliance Permit include a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10% or more and demonstrating how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance:

- for slopes of 10-15%, site preparation techniques shall be used which minimize grading and site disturbance;

- for slopes of 15-25%, demonstrate specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation; and

- for slopes of 25% or greater, provide a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineering/environmental aspects of the site.

Each Final Plan application shall demonstrate compliance with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance. The Town Manager shall decide if the proposed building and site engineering techniques are appropriate.

Miscellaneous Stipulations

28. Subsequent Special Use Permits: That subsequent Special Use Permit applications demonstrate compliance with the Master Plan and all applicable provisions of the Development Ordinance, except for specifically permitted modifications to the regulations granted by the Town Council.

29. Solid Waste Management:

a. That a preliminary conceptual Solid Waste Management Plan for the entire site be submitted with the first Special Use Permit application proposing building(s). This preliminary plan shall address the methods of refuse and recyclable collection (i.e., backyard cans, curbside roll carts, neighborhood collection points, dumpsters, etc.) to be used for the various uses proposed within the development; and shall specifically include provisions for dumpster and/or compactor collection for commercial properties having greater than 5,000 square feet of floor area and for attached housing neighborhoods with a total of 6 units or more, unless approved otherwise by the Town Manager.

b. That a detailed Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for management of construction debris, be designed and submitted with each application for final plan approval.

c. That subsequent Special Use Permit applications include community yard waste/compost site(s) with the number and location to be approved by the Town Council or Town Manager. Property owners' association(s) shall be responsible for the management and maintenance of the yard waste/compost site(s), until such time as both the association and the Town agree to the Town taking on same responsibilities. A phasing plan for the construction of these sites shall be submitted as part of the first application for Zoning Compliance Permit.

d. That a neighborhood recycling center be located on the site with a phasing plan for the construction of this center, as part of the first application for final plans. The size and location shall be subject to approval by the Town Manager.

e. Shared dumpsters and compactors shall be located in parking lots behind the buildings in the non-residential areas, where practical in the Town Manager's determination.

f. A note shall be added to all final plats which include residential areas, to read: "In areas with steep slopes, the Town may require refuse collection methods other than curbside backyard collection."

30. Fire and Safety:

a. That a preliminary fire hydrant plan and fire flow report for the entire site be submitted with the final plans for the Special Use Permit application for the first phase of development. A detailed phase-specific hydrant plan and fire flow report shall be required prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for each phase of development.

31. Erosion Control: A phase-specific detailed erosion control plan shall be submitted with each final plan application for review and approval by the Orange County (and Durham County) Erosion Control Officer prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

32. Affordable Housing: That the developer provide an area that will accommodate at least 32 townhouse lots near the village center. The townhouses are to be made available to families that earn no greater than 80 percent of the median income for the Raleigh - Durham Metropolitan Statistical Area published annually by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

33. Special Water System: Applicant agrees to explore with OWASA the potential of utilizing effluent from their sewage treatment plant located on Old Mason Farm Road for irrigation, fire flow and fire sprinkler purposes for the commercial areas to be built in Meadowmont. We will be willing The applicant agrees to work with OWASA to achieve this goal so long as any incremental capital cost of installing systems necessary to facilitate this program can be repaid through savings in operation and water cost within three years of the expenditure of the capital cost.

34. Construction Traffic: That phasing plans and construction sequencing be arranged so as to minimize construction traffic on Pinehurst Drive.

35. Mix of Uses: That the initial phase proposing buildings on this site include a mix of residential and commercial uses.

36. Athletic Fields: That the athletic fields identified on the Master Land Use Plan be shifted further south to a slightly higher elevation.

37. Taxation of Wellness Center Facility: That arrangements be made by the developer such that the Proposed Wellness Center, if built as proposed on the Master Plan, be subject to local and state property and sales taxes, or that provisions be made for payment in lieu of such taxes in the event that the property becomes tax-exempt.

38. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.

39. Non-Severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval of the Master Land Use Plan is contingent upon the two rezoning applications for the subject property being enacted by the Town Council on second reading the next time deciding votes are taken on the two rezoning applications.

This the 9th day of October, 1995.

Noting the lateness of the hour, Mayor Broun suggested that discussion items from the consent agenda and information reports be carried over to the October 23rd meeting.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9, CALLING A HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE ZONING CATEGORIES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON ADJUSTMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE ZONING PROVISIONS (95-10-9/R-9)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance contains provisions regarding Conditional Use Zoning; and

WHEREAS, it has been suggested that a feature of these regulations, requiring approval of a Special Use Permit within one year, is unworkable;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council calls a public hearing for November 13, 1995, to consider the following change to Section 20.3.8 of the Development Ordinance:

Change: "Failure to obtain approval of a Special Use Permit within one year of the conditional approval of rezoning to a conditional use district shall void the conditional approval."

To read: "Failure to submit a Special Use Permit application within one year of the conditional approval of rezoning to a conditional use district shall void the conditional approval."

This the 9th day of October, 1995.

There was no need for a closed session. The meeting concluded at 1:08 a.m.