SUMMARY OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL,
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Pat Evans, Richard Franck, Lee Pavao, and Edith Wiggins. Also in attendance were Acting Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper.
Item #1 Regulating Parking in Front Yards
Planning Director Roger Waldon presented an overview of the issues surrounding the use of front yards for parking purposes. He reminded the Council that this issue was brought to the Town’s attention by citizens expressing concerns about the negative impact on neighborhoods of front yards being used as parking areas. Mr. Waldon stated that the Council had directed the Manager to draft an ordinance for consideration and to submit this draft to the Planning Board and Historic District Commission for review and comment. Mr. Waldon also the key issues in the Manager’s recommendation.
Planning Board Chair John Hawkins stated that the Board had reviewed this issue at their September 2nd meeting and unanimously supported approval of the concept of regulating front yard parking. Mr. Hawkins added that the Board asked that a stipulation requiring curb cuts be included in the proposed ordinance. He said some concerns were expressed by Board members regarding the provision of exceptions, regarding whether exemption authority should be with the Town Manager or the Historic District Commission, as well as suggesting that the Town be sensitive to the academic school year as enforcement is considered.
Historic District Commission Chair Lee Corum stated that the Commission had considered this issue at its September 11th meeting and had voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance as proposed by the Town Manager.
Loren Hintz said that he supported adoption of the proposed ordinance. He commented that vehicles damaged yards and caused more run-off, as well as causing a hazard to those using the sidewalk when vehicles were backing out of driveways and yards. Mr. Hintz suggested that individual vehicles should be ticketed rather than the owner/resident being cited. He also suggested that front yard coverage be reduced to twenty or thirty percent.
Fred Meier expressed his support for the proposed ordinance. Mr. Meier stated his belief that this problem would continue and would most certainly get worse over time.
Katie Eyer said she owned property on McCauley Street and Mallette Street. She said all of her property had parking problems when she bought it and she was proud that she was able to solve the problem without allowing front-yard parking. Ms. Eyer also said that parking spaces in this neighborhood currently sold for $50 per month and unless the proposed ordinance carried a monetary fine she did not believe it would be effective.
Catherine Frank requested that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance. She indicated that front yard parking was an eyesore in the historic district and believed that the forty percent rule provided adequate parking for area residents.
Sue Vause, a resident of McCauley Street, said she rented property to students and did not allow parking in her front yard. She urged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance.
Tara Powell stated that the passage of this ordinance would be an embarrassment to the community. She said that many in the community would lose their parking spots with the adoption of this ordinance and it would present a monetary disadvantage to students and low-income persons. Ms. Powell said she believed that the proposed ordinance curtailed fundamental property rights and it would be an over-extension and abuse of the law. She urged the Council to reject the proposed ordinance.
Andrea Wise-Leach, a resident of West Cameron Avenue, said she had watched her neighborhood gradually erode. She commented that some historic homes were being sold to persons who did not properly take care of them, that many unrelated students live in the same house, cars parked in front and back yards and that more and more litter lined the Town’s streets. Ms. Wise-Leach said that this issue was much larger than just front-yard parking. She noted that when many students occupied the same house, fire hazards were multiplied and that the owners of these houses should be taxed or fined in some way. Ms. Wise-Leach said that if something wasn't done soon, her neighborhood would become a student slum. She urged the Council to visit her neighborhood and observe the erosion in the quality of life for themselves.
Roy Fauber said he did not believe that front yard parking was the biggest problem in the historic district and did not want this issue to turn into one of students against other neighborhood residents.
Mr. Fauber said that he supported the stipulations outlined in the proposed ordinance.
Isabelle Lewis commented that many changes had taken place in her neighborhood around Mallette Street and she believed that a large part was due to landlords who rented to students and allowed them to park in front yards. Ms. Lewis indicated that it might be difficult to measure the forty percent maximum suggested for front yard parking when the property had irregular borders. Ms. Lewis also suggested that a stiff fine should be included in the ordinance to be levied against property owners who did not adhere to the ordinance’s standards. Ms. Lewis also read statements from two of her neighbors on Mallette Street who agreed that the ordinance was necessary and urged the Council to restrict front yard parking in order to enhance and protect the Town’s historic districts.
William Lindsay, a fifty-nine year resident of 204 McCauley Street, said that he allowed students to park in his front yard and believed that his rights as a property owner permitted him to do so. Mr. Lindsay cautioned the Council to protect the constitutionally-protected rights of property owners.
Bob Joesting stated that front yard parking was a problem throughout the Town, although the problem tended to be more noticeable in the area near the University campus.
Chuck Alcorn, a resident of McCauley Street, expressed concern about the appearance of his street. Mr. Alcom said that some accommodation should be made for residents who did not have back yard parking and suggested the issuance of residential parking permits. Mr. Alcorn suggested that it be the responsibility of landlords to provide on-parking premises or on-street for their renters. Expressing his support for the proposed ordinance, Mr. Alcom requested that the Council be mindful of the needs of all neighborhood residents.
Baird Grimson, representing the Westside Neighborhood Association, applauded the Town advisory boards who had worked on this ordinance and urged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance.
Joe Herzenberg, a resident of Cobb Terrace, said this issue was about cars, not students, even though most of the cars in question belonged to students. Mr. Herzenberg remarked that one of his neighbors used his front yard as a used-car lot, while another rented to what he thought was six females, when in fact their six male friends also resided there, resulting in up to twelve cars being parked there on a daily basis.
Pat Oglesby, speaking for Marian Johnson, stated that Ms. Johnson was President of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society and that the Society strongly supported the adoption of this ordinance so that historic neighborhoods could be protected.
Louis Rubin, a resident of Gimghoul Road, voiced his opposition to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rubin said he believed that this ordinance was an invasion of privacy. Mr. Rubin also said if the streets were kept open and safe, why did it matter where a resident chose to park? He asked also why the proposed ordinance only applied to historic districts. Noting that he lived on a fixed income, Mr. Rubin said that the Town was making it harder each year for him to continue living in the Town due to higher property taxes and other factors. Mr. Rubin urged the Council to oppose the proposed ordinance.
UNC Student Body President Mohan Nathan expressed his opposition to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Nathan said that many students on the campus felt that the issue was really between property owners and their tenants. Mr. Nathan requested that the amortization period be changed from six months to one year in the event that the proposed ordinance were adopted. He also expressed concern that there were currently no alternatives to front-yard parking being offered to students residing in the areas in question.
Linda Davis, a resident of Hillview Road, expressed her support for the proposed ordinance. Stating that a landlord near her home allowed front yard parking, Ms. Davis said that all she could see from her front window was six cars parked on this front yard.
Pat Olgesby stated that if four people lived in a home, then four parking spaces should be provided. He noted that if the only parking available was in the front yard, then some exception should be made to accommodate the needs of residents. Mr. Olgesby also said he believed that parking spaces were being sold and that this was a great incentive to some property owners.
Eanion Gilmartin, a student at UNC, said he believed that this ordinance singled out students, particularly those who lived on McCauley Street. Mr. Gilmartin also said he believed that the larger issue was with landlords. Mr. Gilmartin said that students were often unaware of the existence of the historic district and it’s significance to the Town. He suggested initiating educational efforts in this regard. Stating that students in the potentially impacted neighborhoods needed a place to park, Mr. Gilmartin urged the Council to rethink the matter before taking any action.
Council Member Chilton stated that the proposed forty percent rule applied to the entire footage, including property depth. He requested that Town staff rethink the proposed wording of this provision. He also requested that the Northside neighborhood be considered for inclusion in the proposed ordinance.
Council Member Capowski said when he was a student, people renting housing were required to provide necessary parking areas. Noting that the front-yard parking problem was not limited to the Town’s historic districts, Council Member Capowski asked staff to address the issue of houses which would become non-conforming upon adoption of an ordinance regulating front-yard parking. Mr. Waldon commented that property owners would be notified by Town staff that their property was in non-compliance with the Town’s ordinance and would be given an appropriate time period to come into compliance or to apply for an exception and acquire a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District Commission.
Council Member Julie Andresen stated that the Town staff had presented the argument that this should apply to historic districts rather than the entire Town based on the difficulty in enforcement. Council Member Andresen said she believed that different approaches should be considered and asked that the staff rethink the enforcement issue and offer some alternatives. Council Member Andresen also stated that a stipulation for financial penalties should be included in the ordinance. Council Member Andresen also asked that the staff consider regulating the number of vehicles rather than using a percentage of the yard.
Council Member Pat Evans said that many sororities were located in historic districts and would therefore be impacted by the proposed regulations. She expressed concern about curb cuts, as well as a desire to look at ways of protecting landscaping in front yards. Council Member Evans said that if several persons were legally residing in a house, the necessary number of parking spaces should be provided.
Council Member Brown requested that on-street parking be reexamined when the matter of front-yard parking came back before the Council. She noted that a valid point was made regarding educating students about the importance of historic districts and asked whether some process could be put in place to accomplish this objective.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf asked for clarification of the forty percent rule, regarding the depth of the lot and the length of the frontage. She also asked that Town staff reconsider having the ordinance apply Town-wide rather than only in historic districts. Mayor Waldorf said that it was difficult to determine how many people actually lived in a particular residence.
Council Member Edith Wiggins expressed her support for educating students about the importance of the Town’s historic districts. Council Member Wiggins said there was an advantage to living in historic districts, mainly that one was very close to the University campus. Council Member Wiggins suggested that parking could be provided elsewhere, rather than at particular residences.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER 27TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 2 Zoning Atlas Amendment - West Rosemary Street Apartments
Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper stated that the application for a zoning atlas amendment, if approved, would rezone approximately one-half acre of land located in the 300 block of West Rosemary Street from the current designation of Residential-3 zoning to Town Center-2 conditional-use zoning.
Council Member Andresen asked Ms. Culpepper to describe the area. Ms. Culpepper said the property was located on the north side of Church Street, near Pantana Bob's, with Breadmen's Restaurant just beside it.
Michael Hining, representing the applicant, noted that the only uses of this property would be for parking for the specific use of the apartment building and recreation consisting of a tot lot and other amenities.
John Hawkins, Chair of the Planning Board, noted the Board’s unanimous support of the requested rezoning.
Acting Manager Sonna Loewenthal indicated that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was that the rezoning request be approved.
Council Member Chilton asked whether or not R-3 zoning would permit the amount of parking proposed for this property. Mr. Hining stated that R-3 zoning would not permit the necessary parking.
Council Member Evans asked whether it would be problematic that the requested zoning would permit uses other than residential ones. Mr. Hining said that this would not be a problem, because the proposed rezoning should actually help the parking situation in this area. He also noted that this rezoning would not allow retail uses on this particular piece of property.
Council Member Brown noted that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was that no recreation area be provided. Mr. Hining said that the applicant would be agreeable to removing the recreation area. He commented that although some nearby residents believed that the proposed recreation area might create noise problems, the applicant did not want to be penalized if the area became a buffer, rather than an area used for recreation.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 13TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 West Rosemary Street Apartments Special Use Permit
Persons wishing to testify in the matter were sworn.
Ms. Culpepper noted this application for a special use permit was for the construction of a four-story multi-family structure on West Rosemary Street. She stated the proposed structure would contain fifty-five residential units on the north side of West Rosemary Street and the east side of Andrews Lane. Ms. Culpepper noted that the applicant was proposing both indoor and outdoor recreation space, including an outdoor volleyball/badminton court, a tot lot, a game table area, and an indoor weight room/aerobic area and game room. She also indicated that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was the adoption of Resolution A.
Michael Hining, speaking on behalf of the applicant, indicated that the proposal was for a mixture of four-bedroom, three-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. He noted that there were sixty parking spaces proposed, which was more than adequate for this structure. Mr. Hining stated that an additional control was that of on-site management and that parking would be assigned and enforced. Noting the applicant’s efforts to comply with all ordinance provisions, Mr. Hining said he did not believe that noise would be a problem in the outdoor recreation area. He further noted that the applicant should not be penalized if the Council chose not to allow a recreation area.
Planning Board Chair John Hawkins said that the Board unanimously supported the approval of this Special Use Permit application. He noted the Board's concern regarding outdoor lighting in the recreation area and the potentially negative impacts of lighting on surrounding residences. Mr. Hawkins also said that the Board suggested a better use of this area would be as a landscaped buffer rather than a recreation space, adding that a payment-in-lieu for recreation space might be appropriate.
Velma Perry noted this project would practically be in her back yard and most of the residents of this area were senior citizens. Ms. Perry expressed her belief that mainly students would occupy these apartments and that young people were inherently noisy and tended to congregate, therefore the outdoor recreation area would be a noise hazard. Ms. Perry requested that the Council not allow any outdoor recreation in this area.
Council Member Capowski asked the Town staff if any other structure in the Town was built as close to the street as the proposed structure. He also asked if there was anything else in Town that had the same density as the proposed apartments. Council Member Capowski noted that between 140 to 150 bedrooms would exist in the proposed structure and asked how sixty parking spaces would be sufficient. Mr. Hining replied that the people who rented here would be aware of the limited parking, and that off-site parking, such as in park and ride lots or downtown monthly rentals would be encouraged.
Mayor Waldorf asked Town staff to explore alternative parking solutions for this project, stating that she did not necessarily believe it was the applicant's responsibility to provide more than the required number of spaces.
Council Member Andresen stated that the biggest challenge of new developments, especially in the downtown area, was meeting parking requirements. Council Member Andresen said that although she believed that some development was needed on West Rosemary Street, such projects should be pedestrian friendly and less than the four stories proposed by the applicant. She also stated that the neighbor’s concerns about possible noise from the outdoor recreation area was a valid one. Mr. Hining remarked that many of these same issues were discussed by the Planning Board and the Appearance Commission. He noted that the applicant took the board and commission suggestions to heart and had reworked the proposal, gaining unanimous approval from both the Appearance Commission and the Planning Board.
Council Member Evans requested that Town staff produce a map identifying the footprint of the building as well as nearby properties She inquired whether on-site bike storage would be provided. Mr. Hining responded that such storage would be provided. Council Member Evans commented that the back of this area might be ideal as a small park or garden area.
Council Member Brown noted that on page 28 of the agenda item, under finding #4, reference was made to other developments in the downtown area who had used this same method to accommodate parking. Council Member Brown said that she would like to have some idea of what was happening at the Chancellor's Square development, relative to parking
Mayor Waldorf requested that Police Chief Pendergraph give his opinion of the safety issues which might be associated with a development such as having the proposed development as opposed to leaving the lot vacant. Mayor Waldorf also asked that Town staff consider the option of a
payment-in-lieu versus a buffer, noting it would be helpful to know the estimated amount of a payment-in-lieu for a recreation area.
Council Member Chilton inquired how many units would need to be eliminated if all recreation space were moved indoors. Mr. Hining said it would be necessary to eliminate an estimated eight units.
Council Member Chilton inquired whether the applicant would be willing to make a payment-in-lieu for outdoor recreation space. Mr. Hining commented that this would be like paying for the property twice. Council Member Franck asked Town staff to report back on how much authority the Council had to require such changes.
Aaron Nelson noted that students who live within a certain distance from the campus could not acquire a parking permit on campus and these students managed to find parking elsewhere. Mr. Nelson said affordable housing for students was in great demand and asked the Council to carefully consider this project.
Council Member Wiggins asked that the concerns expressed by nearby residents be explored.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 13TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0)
Item 4 Zoning Atlas Amendment for Freedom House
Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper stated that this request was to rezone approximately 3.5 acres on the west side of Airport Road, north of the proposed Stateside Drive Extension and Northern Community Park, from Residential-2 zoning to Residential-3-Conditional Use zoning.
Josh Gurlitz, representing the applicant, noted that Freedom House had outgrown its present facility.
He stated that the services of Freedom House were very important to the community’s health, safety, and welfare of citizens.
Planning Board Chair John Hawkins stated that the Board unanimously supported the rezoning request.
Flicka Bateman encouraged the Council to approve the rezoning request, noting the importance of this Freedom House facility to the community.
Council Member Chilton pointed out that Freedom House was a good example of a cooperative effort between local governments to obtain grants so that Freedom House could continue its programs.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO OCTOBER 13TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 5 Freedom House Special Use Permit Application
Persons wishing to testify in the matter were sworn.
Ms. Culpepper reviewed the key points of the application.
Josh Gurlitz, representing the applicant, said they had had a strong collaborative effort with the Town staff to bring this project through the review process. He said that the mission of Freedom House was to provide a safe residential facility for persons who had successfully completed drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Mr. Gurlitz noted that although the applicant agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation that the Airport Road access be closed when the Stateside Drive Extension was built, Freedom House could not wait until the Extension was built to move forward with this project. Referencing the sidewalk requirements, Mr. Gurlitz said that the applicant understood the importance of the sidewalk and providing a pedestrian link between Airport Road and the Northern Community Park. Noting the privacy needs of Freedom House residents, Mr. Gurlitz said that the applicant was requesting this sidewalk continuation near Freedom House not be required.
Phil Post, representing the applicant, addressed the issue of additional fire hydrants for the site. Mr. Post stated that two existing fire hydrants were in place within the required five hundred feet of the proposed facility. He requested that the stipulation to require additional fire hydrants be deleted from the proposed conditions of approval.
Planning Board Chair John Hawkins noted that the Board unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit request. He noted that although the Board did not support requiring the applicant to construct the Stateside Drive Extension, it did support requiring the improvement of the driveway access on Airport Road to a 20-foot width with the condition that the Airport Road access be closed when the Stateside Drive Extension was completed. Mr. Hawkins also noted that the Board supported the addition of one additional fire hydrant on the eastern portion of the site and coordination with the Town regarding the installation of a fire hydrant on Stateside Drive Extension to jointly serve the Northern Community Park and the western portion of the Freedom House property.
Gordon Mitchell requested that the Council address the issue of pedestrian traffic using his property to gain access to Freedom House. He requested that a fence be considered along the property line to discourage the use of his property as a path to Freedom House. Mr. Mitchell asked that this be added as a stipulation of approval of the proposed Special Use Permit. Council Member Andresen agreed with Mr. Mitchell, stating that a fence could solve this problem.
Council Member Franck asked whether the staff believed that the two existing fire hydrants could provide adequate fire protection for Freedom House. Ms. Culpepper indicated that Town staff wanted to obtain more information from the Fire Department before responding to this question.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDEED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO OCTOBER 13TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 6 Motion for Closed Session
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO MOVE INTO A CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER LITIGATION AND PERSONNEL MATTERS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The Council moved into closed session at 10:20 p.m.
MINUTES OF A CLOSED SESSION OF THE
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH, 1997 AT 10:20 P.M
1. The Council discussed the status of the Estates case and any role the Town might be able to have in the pending appeal. The Council took no action.
2. The Council conducted the Performance Evaluation of the Town Attorney. The Council took no action.
The closed session was recessed and the public hearing stood adjourned at 11:10 p.m.