SUMMARY OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL,
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 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, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Lee Pavăo was absent excused. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Finance Director James Baker, Library Director Kathleen Thompson, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.
Annual Presentation of Community Appearance Awards
Diane Bachman, Chair of the Chapel Hill Appearance Commission, presented the sixth annual Community Appearance Awards. Ms. Bachmann emphasized the importance of publicly recognizing significant contributions to the natural and built environment of the Town. She thanked the Mayor and Council, Rob Wilson of the Town’s Planning Department, Appearance Commission Members Terry Eason, Sarah Haskett, Nancy Gabriel, Joan Page, and Planning staff member Kay Tapp in addition to this year’s judges Bruce Ballantine, Sarah Haskett, Milton van Hoy, Stick Williams and Virginia Young.
Kimberly Kyser accepted this year’s Robert E. Stipe Award on behalf of the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery Project. The Jean and Pearson Stewart Award was presented to the Marin Development Company for its efforts to preserve 76 acres of the Mason Farm Biological Reserve.
Madison Partners Limited. received an award for the best adaptive use for its conversion of a home into office space at 214 West Cameron Avenue.
Kenan Oil’s Exxon Service Station on the corner of Raleigh and Hamilton Roads received an award for excellence in commercial landscaping.
For excellence in residential gardens, Marcia Graf received an award for her construction of a garden on Lake Ellen Dam.
The Pine Knolls Development Association was recognized for its contributions to the restoration of community pride. Bo Sanford, President of the Association, accepted the award on behalf of the Association.
Jiffy Lube and Papa John’s received an award for excellence in design for commercial use. Doug Roan, Vice President of Development for NuCor Inc., accepted the award.
Tony Bayless accepted an award for excellence in community landscaping on behalf of the Carol Woods Retirement Community.
Item 3 Petitions
Planning Board Chair John Hawkins said that the Board was concerned about potentially hazardous traffic conditions on Purefoy Road. Mr. Hawkins said that the Board urged the Council to give consideration to a number of safety improvements on Purefoy Road.
Kimberly Brewer expressed strong support for the Planning Board’s resolution on behalf of residents of the Purefoy/Howell Road neighborhood. Ms. Brewer stated that speeding cars frequently swerved around cyclists and pedestrians on Purefoy and Howell Roads.
COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO TOWN STAFF. MAYOR WALDORF SUGGESTED THAT RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESS BOTH SHORT AND LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Myles Presler of Empowerment, Inc. spoke regarding a parcel of property on Creel Street, on which his organization intended to build a four-bedroom home that would require a lot of site work. Mr. Presler requested the Council’s assistance in acquiring a third mortgage with an $8,000 cap for the property.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE MATTER TO TOWN STAFF. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Brown petitioned the Council to move agenda item #9, regarding the proposed Nunn subdivision, up to after item #5. There were no objections from the Council.
Council Member Andresen requested that the Council direct the Town Manager to contact Mr. Dwight Merriam, requesting that he review the recommendations of the Horace Williams Zoning Committee. Council Member Evans stated that Mr. Merriam previously noted that he was not an expert on North Carolina law and further suggested that the Council consult someone at the Institute of Government regarding these matters.
Council Member Andresen noted that the Town Attorney could cover points pertaining to North Carolina law. Council Member Andresen said she would be interested in Mr. Merriam’s recommendations and whether or not the Town’s goals could be realized regarding the zoning. Mayor Waldorf called upon committee representatives Council Members Capowski and Franck for their views on this matter. Council Member Capowski agreed that Mr. Merriam should be consulted in the matter. He stated that a final draft of the proposal would be finalized some time in December.
Council Member Brown agreed with Council Members Andresen and Capowski and added that although Mr. Merriam might not be familiar with North Carolina law, he certainly was familiar with the proposed project.
Mayor Waldorf recommended that the Council accept Council Member Andresen’s petition requesting that the Manager contact Mr. Merriam for his input on the project.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI., TO ACCEPT THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Evans noted that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) had recently changed its policy regarding the placement of water and sewer lines. She stated DOT now required that lines be placed in the right of way, often under sidewalks, which precluded tree planting because roots could damage sewer lines. She requested that staff report to the Council on how to address this issue. She also commented that the revised DOT policy was in opposition to the recommendations of the Town’s Committee on Sustainability.
Mayor Waldorf announced that there would be a joint meeting of the Chapel Hill Town and Durham City Councils regarding the U.S. 15/501 major investment study on Tuesday, November 18th.
Town Attorney Karpinos distributed a memo requesting a closed session of the Council this evening. Mayor Waldorf requested, and the Council concurred, that the session should be held on Monday, November 17th.
Council Member Franck requested the removal of item h from the consent agenda for discussion later in the meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, EXCEPTING ITEM H. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS
AND ORDINANCES
(97-11-13/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
a. Minutes of October 13th and 21st.
b. Annual Reappropriation of encumbrances (O-1).
c. Proposed change in public access fees (O-2).
d. Distribution of details for traffic and stormwater impact statements (R-2).
e. Deleted.
f. Revision of public housing lease agreement (R-5).
g. Northern Community Park Change Order (R-6).
h. Closure of Carolina Avenue right-of-way (R-7).
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND "THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND
THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1997"
(97-11-13/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1997" as duly adopted on June 23, 1997 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Mayor/Council 165,656 1,800 167,456
Town Manager 812,044 68,664 880,708
Personnel 451,944 8,697 460,641
Finance 818,377 69,045 887,422
Legal 145,315 1,234 146,549
Planning 786,766 8,000 794,766
Inspections 405,825 0 405,825
Engineering 658,412 21,456 679,868
Public Works 7,359,256 808,012 8,167,268
Police 6,299,982 5,255 6,305237
Fire 2,968,559 20,814 2,989,373
Parks & Rec. 1,448,667 5,978 1,454,645
Library 1,477,248 10,022 1,487,270
Non-Dept. 3,721,745 58,018 3,779,763
TOTALS 27,519,796 1,086,995 28,606,791
PUBLIC HOUSING FUND 1,191,197 8,219 1,199,416
LANDFILL FUND 7,171,701 365,913 7,537,614
ON STREET PARKING
FUND 479,500 1,592 481,092
OFF-STREET
PARKING FUND 940,530 675 941,205
TRANSPORTATION FUND 5,514,824 83,699 5,598,523
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS FUND 1,270,392 529,919 1,800,311
HOUSING LOAN
TRUST FUND 76,000 31,289 107,289
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Fund Balance 833,096 1,086,995 1,920,091
PUBLIC HOUSING FUND
Fund Balance 0 8,219 163,429
LANDFILL FUND
Fund Balance 702,400 365,913 1,068,313
ON STREET PARKING FUND
Fund Balance 0 1,592 1,592
OFF-STREET PARKING FUND
Fund Balance 0 675 675
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Fund Balance 285,364 83,699 569,063
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FUND
Fund Balance 326,200 354,919 681,119
Grants 0 100,000 100,000
Bond Proceeds 0 75,000 75,000
HOUSING LOAN TRUST
FUND
Fund Balance 9,000 31,289 40,289
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN INFLATION
ADJUSTMENT TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS FEE BILLED TO CABLE TELEVISION CUSTOMERS IN
CHAPEL HILL (97-11-13/R-1.1)
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1997 the Council held a public forum on whether to increase the public access fee, which will generate about $83,000 annually; and
WHEREAS, comments received at the public forum from representatives of The People’s Channel Inc. and the Chair of the Public Access Advisory Committee were in favor of making an annual inflation adjustment; and
WHEREAS, the inflation adjustment would not apply to Time Warner Cable of Durham customers who reside in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, a one cent increase in the public access fee would generate about $1,400 in additional annual funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes an increase to the public access fee from 65 to 66 cents per month.
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
A RESOLUTION REGARDING DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC AND STORMWATER IMPACT
STATEMENTS (97-11-13/R-2)
BE IT RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council instructs the Town Manager, in his review and evaluation of development applications, to make information about Traffic Impact Statements and Stormwater Impact Statements available to the Town Council in the following manner:
When a development application is received and evaluated by the Town Manager, and such application contains either a Traffic Impact Statement or a Stormwater Impact Statement, the Manager shall make information from these statements available to the Town Council as follows: Copies of narrative statements and summaries shall be included as attachments in memoranda that are sent to the Town Council; copies of computer printouts and work sheets included in such statements shall not be copied for distribution to individual Council Members, but rather shall be kept available for review in the Town’s Planning Department.
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC HOUSING
PROGRAM (97-11-13/R-5)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development encourages and sometimes requires periodic revisions to public housing Lease Agreements; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the Lease Agreement of Chapel Hill’s Public Housing Program are necessary as required by U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council amends the Lease Agreement for the Public Housing Programs as follows:
1. Amend Section 3 by changing $65.00 to $100.00.
2. Amend Section 5 by adding the following paragraph:
D. If your unit is to be renovated as part of a comprehensive renovation effort, you on behalf of yourself and all members of your household, agree to move to another unit of appropriate size and location as determined by the Town, upon notice provided by the Town which shall be a minimum of 20 days prior to date required for relocation.
3. Amend section 7, paragraphs (F) and (G) by adding the following:
F. That you, and any member of your household, or guests shall not engage in any drug or other illegal or criminal activity in your unit or within the common area of the neighborhood, and further that you or any member of your household shall not engage in any illegal drug related criminal activity no matter where the location.
G. That you, your family members who occupy the unit with you, and your guests, shall not engage in alcohol abuse that the Town determines interferes with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
4. Amend section 11, paragraph (B) by adding the following:
G. Refusal to relocate in accordance with Section 5D, drug related criminal activity on or off the premises, alcohol abuse that interferes with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CHANGE ORDERS
TOTALING $68,400 FOR THE NORTHEN COMMUNITY PARK PROEJCT (97-11-13/R-6a)
WHEREAS,
bid documents for the Northern Community Park project incorrectly directed
bidders to submit bids that did not include expected sales tax expenses; and
WHEREAS,
the constructors sales tax expenses must be reimbursed; and
WHEREAS,
change orders are pending that would establish allowances for sales tax
expenditures for the project’s general and electrical contracts;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council authorizes the Manager to execute a $60,000 change order to establish a
sales tax allowance for Clancy and Theys Construction Company, Inc. and a
$8,400 change order to establish a sales tax allowance for KAD Construction,
Inc.
This
the 13th day of November, 1997.
A RESOLUTION INCREASING THE MANAGER’S
LIMIT FOR APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE NORTHEN COMMUNITY PARK PROJECT
(97-11-13/R-6b)
WHEREAS,
numerous change orders due to a combination of poor soils, excessive rock and
major amounts of grading are expected for the Northern Community Park; and
WHEREAS,
speedy processing of change orders is essential to maintain the project
schedule, contain costs, and minimize conflicts between the contractors and the
Town; and
WHEREAS,
the Manager’s current authorization limit for approval of change orders of
$50,000 may result in delays that could hamper progress on the project; and
WHEREAS,
the Council will not be available to approve change orders between November 24,
1997 and January 12, 1998; and
WHEREAS,
the Council will be recessed between July 6, 1998 and August 24, 1998 and will
not be available to approve change orders during this period;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council authorizes the Manager to approve up to $150,000 in additional change
orders for the Northern Community Park without Council approval.
This
the 13th day of November, 1997.
Item 4.2 Information Reports
Mr. Horton reported that staff turnover during the first quarter was 15%, compared to 10% during the fourth quarter of last year. He stated that this difference could principally be attributed to the community’s tight labor market. Mr. Horton suggested that this matter could be addressed during future budget hearings.
Council Member Andresen noted that the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department offered fewer youth programs and questioned whether this was due to unfilled staff positions. Mr. Horton said he did not believe this to be the case.
Council Member Evans said that she understood that the increase in bus ridership was largely artificial. She stated that UNC Hospitals had closed some parking areas and given bus passes to employees who previously parked in those lots. Mr. Horton concurred and added that other parking areas on the University campus had been eliminated as well, and noted the increasing ridership on the Tar Heel Express.
Item 5 Appointments
ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, THE COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0) TO APPOINT KEVIN DARBRO AND EDGAR MARSTON TO THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO APPROVE ALL APPLICANTS TO THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY NEEDS ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE BY ACCLAMATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Evans suggested the appointment of Council Member Pavăo as Council Liaison to the Orange County Recreation and Parks Working Group. Council Member Brown suggested that the Council consider this matter at its December 1st organizational meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO TO SERVE AS THE COUNCIL’S LIAISON TO THE ORANGE COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS WORKING GROUP. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Horace Williams Airport Committee
Mayor Waldorf noted that UNC Chancellor Michael Hooker had agreed to the formation of an advisory board addressing the concerns of the Town regarding the Horace Williams Airport. Mayor Waldorf said that concerns identified by the Airport Committee included: operational oversights, types of aircraft authorized, noise abatement, night time operations and defining University business. Mayor Waldorf requested that the Council authorize her to forward the proposed letter to Chancellor Hooker outlining the Town’s concerns regarding operations at Horace Williams Airport.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the proposed committee on Horace Williams Airport Committee operations would include representatives from the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, Orange County, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County School Boards.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR WALDORF TO FORWARD A LETTER REGARDING THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE TO CHANCELLOR HOOKER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 6 Fee Waiver/Expedited Review Request for Nunn Subdivision
Mr. Horton said that the criteria for a fee waiver did not apply to this particular situation and therefore the Town and the Nunn-Snipes family were bringing the matter to the Council for a decision. Mr. Horton said based on existing Town policies, he could not recommend a fee waiver to the Council. He noted that the Council was not bound by any previous criteria and had the power to establish new criteria in making this decision.
Judy Nunn-Snipes, representing the Nunn family, requested a fee waiver for a special use permit and an expedited development application review. Ms. Nunn-Snipes said that the subject property had been devalued by the presence of two landfills adjacent to the property, with the possibility of a third landfill site in the future. Ms. Nunn-Snipes requested that the Council adopt Resolution B.
Council Member Capowski requested a review of applicable special use permit fees. Mr. Waldon replied that fees for a special use permit were $1,350 plus $2.00 per 100 square feet of floor space. Council Member Capowski inquired whether the present situation was unique to the Nunn family. Mr. Horton replied that it was highly unlikely that other cases would be similar.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION A.
Council Member Chilton said it was likely that others would request permission to subdivide, rather than request a special use permit. Council Member Andresen said that it was generally not a good idea to amend the Town’s Zoning Ordinance for special cases and asked whether adopting this resolution would slow the progress of other projects. Town Manager Horton said that adopting this resolution could slow the consideration process for some other projects or proposals.
RESOLUTION A WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES LIST TO WAIVE THE
FEES FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS INVOLVING LOTS OF TEN ACRES OR
GREATER, WHERE THE PROPOSED USE IS TO CREATE FIVE OR FEWER INDIVIDUAL
RESIDENTIAL LOTS (97-11-13/R-9a)
WHEREAS, the Council has received a request from the Nunn family to waive the fees associated with a Special Use Permit application to subdivide 11 acres of land adjacent to the Orange Regional Landfill and the Neville Tract;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, that the following language be added to the Town of Chapel Hill Development Review Fees list:
For Special Use Permit applications involving lots of ten (10) acres or
greater, where the proposed use is to create five (5) or fewer individual
residential lots, the development application fee shall be waived.
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
COUNCIL
MEMBER CHILTON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, to adopt Resoulution B. THE
MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING AND WAIVER OF FEES IN THE
REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE THE NUNN PROPERTY
(97-11-13/R-9b)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a written request from Gertrude F. Nunn, on behalf of the Nunn family, for expedited processing and waiver of fees associated with a Special Use Permit application to subdivide the Nunn property; and
WHEREAS, the Council has amended the Development Review Fees list to allow a waiver of fees for Special Use Permit applications involving lots of ten acres or greater, where the proposed use is to create five or fewer individual residential lots; and
WHEREAS, the Nunn family desires to subdivide an approximate 11-acre parcel of land adjacent to the Orange Regional Landfill and the borrow site known as the Neville Tract;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing and waive the fees associated with the Special Use Permit application to subdivide the Nunn property, in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
Item 7 Proposed Changes to Resource Conservation District (RCD) Regulations
Mr. Waldon presented an overview of proposed changes to existing Resource Conservation District regulations.
Joanna Haymore stated that approximately 1,200,000 square feet of the Resource Conservation District would be cut and filled to complete the Southern Village development. She asked the Council to visit the site and to envision nature’s master plan versus the Town’s land-use regulations.
Julie Coleman said that she had spoken with a number of soil erosion experts and engineers. Ms. Coleman said that these experts thought that the present Town ordinance did not make common sense. Ms. Coleman also said that the experts stated that the grass and native trees worked effectively with run-off but would not deal effectively with pollutants added to the stream by building a road through Southern Village.
Coleman Day urged the Council to consider the bigger picture, particularly the importance of water quality. Mr. Day said that he had already noticed that many Town residents chose to drink bottled water. Mr. Day told the Council that Mr. Bryan, developer of Southern Village, had interpreted the law correctly as written. Mr. Day also said that some Planning Board members were baffled by what was taking place at the Southern Village site. He added that the proposed changes to the Resource Conservation District Ordinance would be positive steps in the right direction.
Dave Cook pointed out that the land was held in public trust and that so far 90,000 square feet of hard wood trees had been bulldozed on the Southern Village site. Mr. Cook said that the developer had interpreted the language of the law to allow the permitted use of over thirty acres. He added that although the developer of Southern Village did not violate the law, it was his opinion that existing regulations were inconsistent. Mr. Cook said that the existing ordinance wasn’t working and would not work until the Council agreed on what the ordinance should protect. Mr. Cook requested that the Council schedule a work session to clarify the intent of the Town’s RCD ordinance.
Section 5.3.2
Council
Member Brown moved THE PROPOSED CHANGE REGARDING SECTION 5.3.2, THE determination of a perennial
stream. Council Member FRANCK seconded
the motion.
Council Member Evans said she was uncomfortable judging on hearsay rather than facts. She also said that she was often amazed by the areas which ended up being designated as RCD areas by the Council.
Council Member Andresen described a lot in her neighborhood which contained an apparent perennial stream. Council Member Andresen said that the criteria applied in determining a perennial stream were that it must contain water, aquatic life, and vertebrates. She stated that the body of water in question did not meet the criteria for RCD determination because on the particular day a staff inspector checked the area, there were no fish, vertebrates or vegetation in evidence. Council Member Andresen said that she favored having a way for citizens to present evidence of a perennial stream, as opposed to staff making such determinations on a single day.
Council Member Evans stated that she lived near a stormwater runoff which was actually a gully, not a stream. She stated that it appeared to be a stream because it had water in it, but it came from runoff higher up the street. Council Member Evans also said that it would be poor public policymaking to change the policy based on one situation. She stated that specific criteria were needed to determine what constituted a perennial stream, rather than a neighbor’s opinion.
Council Member Chilton suggested that the Council agree on separate components of the ordinance, then vote on them in their totality. He proposed a straw poll to determine whether or not an item should be included in the amendments.
Mr. Horton noted that elements of the ordinance passed on 5-3 votes would require a second reading.
Council Member Andresen repeated her suggestion that the Council establish specific criteria to evaluate a perennial stream, not to change the criteria to fit individual situations. Mayor Waldorf commented that citizen testimony pertaining to perennial streams could involve more than one staff member’s analysis of the situation.
THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-2, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS AND WIGGINS VOTING NO.
Mr. Horton commented that notice to adjoining property owners of a perennial stream determination would be appropriate.
Section 5.5.1 D
Mr. Waldon noted that the proposed amendment would eliminate golf courses and driving ranges as permitted uses in the Resource Conservation District.
Mayor Waldorf asked how the proposed change would affect improvements made to an existing golf course, such as the Chapel Hill Country Club.
Planning Director Waldon said that Mayor Waldorf’s question required a complex answer. He said that a golf course did not become non-conforming by virtue of non-compliance with any provision in the RCD ordinance. Mr. Waldon added that the portion within the one hundred year flood plain would become non-conforming because a golf course was not a permitted use within the Resource Conservation District.
Mayor Waldorf asked whether the proposed change would affect some but not all portions of the golf course if the Chapel Hill Country Club wanted to make improvements. Mr. Karpinos commented that although the ordinance was based on statutory authority regulating the floodway, golf courses and driving ranges were specifically excluded from floodway regulations. Mr. Horton noted that there might be some impediment and that it was very difficult to give a broad answer to encompass all of the hypothetical possibilities. Council Member Capowski requested clarification of “some impediment.” Mr. Waldon explained that it was not clear whether or not golf course improvements would be non-conforming. He said that existing regulations stated that a golf course could continue in use with severe limitations and restrictions on any proposed changes. He said that for some purposes, such as financing, non-conforming status would present difficulties for the property owner.
Council Member Capowski said that he thought non-conforming uses could not be terminated but that if the ordinance were changed, it could then be determined that a facility had become more non-conforming. Mr. Waldon replied that if the property use were non-conforming and it were significantly altered, then it became a non-conforming use. Council Member Chilton pointed out that if property improvements exceeded the required criteria, the proposed use of the property could still be approved He cited the Days Inn proposal as an example of such improvements which would be clearly better for the environment. Mr. Waldon said that there was built-in flexibility for the Council to determine an equivalent public purpose.
Council Member Evans said that there was a cart path at the Chapel Hill Country Club which acted as a dam. She asked whether the property owner would need to apply for a special use permit which would improve the flooding situation upstream. Mr. Horton said it was very difficult to respond to hypothetical cases such as this one. He reiterated his earlier statement that some impediments might be involved in such a situation.
Council Member Wiggins requested clarification of the Manager’s comments. She said that the existing language of the ordinance permitted golf courses in the Resource Conservation District under particular standards and she asked what these particular standards were. Mr. Horton replied that he was referring to the existing standards in the Resource Conservation District Ordinance. Council Member Wiggins asked for an identification of the specific standards. Mr. Waldon explained that the standards were outlined in the use and design section of the ordinance. He said that these standards included flood-proofing, maintaining a natural vegetation buffer next to streams and channels, safe and convenient access to streets and driveways, water supply, sanitary sewer system design, and related items.
Council Member Andresen added that it was undesirable to place a golf course next to a stream because there was no tree infiltration to screen pollutants and pesticides. Council Member Andresen agreed with the Manager’s assessment that it would be difficult to address all possible situations but that the intent of the ordinance was to discourage introduction of a new golf course in the Resource Conservation District.
Council Member Wiggins asked whether the Town needed a standard to permit additional golf courses. She also asked if there were any environmentally acceptable golf course maintenance procedures. Mayor Waldorf noted that although the Finley Golf Course used a minimal herbicide treatment, she did not know whether the Country Club followed the same procedure Council Member Wiggins said that she would like a way for a new golf course to meet water quality standards while providing an important recreational outlet to the community.
Council Member Andresen expressed
concern about allowing golf course development next to a stream. She also said that the proposed amendments
to the ordinance attempted to protect a limited and sensitive area.
Mr. Waldon explained that in some cases the Resource Conservation District allowed seventy-five feet on either side of a narrow stream or one hundred feet on either side of a wider stream or two feet above the 100-year flood plain area. He noted that most of the Country Club property was within the RCD because of its location and elevation in the RCD flood plain, not because it was near a stream. He further explained that the Eastgate Shopping Center was also within the Resource Conservation District because of its elevation in relation to the flood plain..
Council Member Capowski commented that the Finley Golf Course comprised one hundred and ten acres and asked whether a new golf course in the Town could be considered as permitted use and constructed without coming before the Council. Mr. Waldon replied that the Council would need to be involved in such a process. He added that a special use permit was automatically required for any land disturbance greater than forty thousand square feet. He added that the ordinance distinguished between privately and publicly-owned outdoor recreational facilities and anything over 1,000 square feet needed to come before the Council.
COUNCIL
MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI TO APPROVE THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 5.5.1 D OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION
DISTRICT. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE
OF 5-3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS AND WIGGINS VOTING NO.
Mayor
Waldorf noted that a second reading of this amendment would be required, since
it had not received six votes on first reading.
Section 5.5.1E
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION 5.5.1E.
Council Member Capowski requested an explanation of the proposed change. Council Member Brown explained that the burden of proof was being placed on the developer rather than on citizens.
THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NO.
Section 5.5.1F
COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION 5.5.1F. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NO.
Section 5.5.1I
Mr. Waldon said that the proposed amendment added the language “only if a demonstrated public need is served”.
COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO SECTION 5.5.1I. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Section 5.5.2.2 Limited Impervious Surface
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO LOWER THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMIT IN SEWERED AREAS FROM 30% TO 20% AND TO LEAVE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMIT FOR UNSEWERED PROPERTY UNCHANGED AT 12%, WITH THE LANGUAGE “LEGALLY REASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY” INSERTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NO.
COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO CHANGE THE LAND DISTURBANCE LIMIT FROM 40% TO MINIMAL LAND DISTURBANCE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Section 5.6J
COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THE MOTION TO REQUIRE THE REPLANTING OF NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY
(8-0).
Section 5.6K
COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ALLOWING CUTTING AND FILLING ONLY AS NECESSARY FOR THE LEGALLY REASONABLE USE OF PROPERTY.
Council Member Andresen commented that the term “legally reasonable” appeared to be a good wording choice. Mr. Waldon replied that it was difficult for staff to make a legal determination on these matters. Council Member Capowski: suggested dropping the word “legally,” and leaving the word “reasonable.” Mr. Waldon explained that the ordinance would then have the potentially difficult situation of asking Town staff to determine what was a reasonable use of property. He said as currently written, there were no specific standards to make such a determination. Mr. Waldon also said the term “reasonable use “ added a huge subjective area to the engineering criteria applied as outlined in items 1 and 2.
Council Member Brown said that this was a critical proposal and urged the Council to go forward with it. She added that the reasons for the proposed change were well articulated by the citizens who had spoken in favor of it.
Council Member Andresen agreed with Council Member Brown and added that cutting and filling in the Resource Conservation District would be reduced under the terms of the proposed amendment.
Council Member Wiggins asked how the proposed change could have prevented what occurred at Southern Village. Mr. Karpinos repeated that it would be difficult for Town staff to judge whether cutting and filling was necessary or not. He said that a determination regarding property use could potentially be challenged and taken to the Board of Adjustment.
Council Member Andresen stated that citizens would be given an opportunity to appeal determinations.
Referencing the Southern Village situation, Mr. Waldon said the term “reasonable use” would have involved decisions made by the Council on matters such as street placement.
He continued that it was a technical matter to determine how much cutting and filling was necessary after a site plan was approved by the Council.
Council Member Capowski asked whether or not anything in Southern Village would have been done differently if the proposed amendment had been in place. Mr. Karpinos replied no, because the Council approved a legally reasonable use of property when it issued a special use permit for the Southern Village project, thereby indicating that a certain amount of cutting and filling would be necessary.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 5-3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS AND WIGGINS VOTING. MAYOR WALDORF NOTED THAT A SECOND READING REGARDING THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE NECESSARY.
Section 5.8M
COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REGARDING HAVING A CLEAR PUBLIC RECORD IN WRITING WHENEVER AN EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Andresen commented that the Council had approved a number of good changes to the Resource Conservation District ordinance. She commended Town staff and urged Council Members to visit the Southern Village site. Council Member Andresen added that a tremendous number of acres in the Resource Conservation District were being destroyed and suggested that Council hold a work session to further discuss Resource Conservation District protection provisions in future developments.
Council Member Wiggins noted that her votes were persuaded by the recommendations of various Council advisory boards whose advice had been requested by the Council.
The text of the revised RCD
ordinance with changes noted in bold print and second readings regarding
Sections 5.5.1d and 5.6k to occur at the Council’s November 24, 1997 regular business meeting, follows:
ARTICLE 5 RESOURCE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5.1 Intent
The
Resource Conservation District (herein sometimes RCD) is intended to be applied
to the areas within and along watercourses within the Town's planning
jurisdiction in order to preserve the water quality of the Town's actual or
potential water supply sources, to minimize danger to lives and properties from
flooding in and near the watercourses to preserve the water‑carrying
capacity of the watercourses and to protect them from erosion and
sedimentation, to retain open spaces and greenways to protect their
environmentally‑sensitive character, to preserve urban wildlife and plant
life habitats from the intrusions of urbanization, to provide air and noise
buffers to ameliorate the effects of development, and to preserve and maintain
the aesthetic qualities and appearance of the Town.
In the
interpretation and application of this Article, all provisions shall be: (a)
considered as minimum requirements, (b) strictly construed in favor of the
public interest and community benefit, and (c) deemed neither to limit nor
repeal any other powers provided by Town ordinance or State statute.
5.2 Definitions
Definitions
of terms used in this Article, where not otherwise defined in this Article, are
contained in Article 2.
5.3 Establishment
of Resource Conservation District
5.3.1 Resource
Conservation District Elevation
A Resource
Conservation District Elevation is hereby established, and defined to be the
elevation two (2) feet above the 100‑year floodplain elevation (with
reference to mean sea level), as:
1)
The regulatory floodplain as
delineated in the latest revision of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Flood
Boundary Floodway Maps, and Flood Insurance Study, for the Town of Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, Orange, Durham, and Chatham Counties, as designated by the
Associate Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or
2)
calculated for unmapped or
undefined areas using engineering methodology compatible (as determined by the
Town Manager) with that used to develop the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Flood
Boundary, Floodway Maps, and Flood Insurance Study.
Note: The official floodplain maps are on file in
the Engineering Department office in the Municipal Building.
5.3.2 Resource
Conservation District Established
The
Resource Conservation District is hereby established as a district that
overlays other zoning districts established in Article 12. The Resource
Conservation District shall consist of 1) the Resource Conservation District
Elevation, and 2) the areas within buffer zones established as follows:
a.
Seventy‑five (75) feet from
the stream bank of a perennial stream draining less than one square mile.
b.
One hundred (100) feet from the
stream bank of a perennial stream draining one square mile or more.
These
distances shall be measured as the horizontal, linear distance from the stream
banks.
The perennial stream determination shall be in
accordance with the criteria established in Section 2.90.1 of the Development
Ordinance and shall take into account information provided by individuals
familiar with the surrounding area.
5.4 Development
in Resource Conservation District
5.4.1 Development
in Resource Conservation District after March 19, 1984.
Development
and land‑disturbing activities within the RCD are prohibited after the
effective date (March 19, 1984) of this Article unless exempted by this
Section, or permitted by Section 5.5, or allowed pursuant to a variance
authorized by this Article and approved by the Board of Adjustment.
5.4.2 Application
of Resource Conservation District Ordinance to Development Existing on March
19, 1984 Outside of the Regulatory Floodplain.
This
Article shall not apply to the continued use, operation or maintenance of any
development (outside of the regulatory floodplain) existing, or for which
construction had substantially begun, on or before March 19, 1984. With respect
to the requirements of this Article, such development shall not be considered
as nonconforming within the meaning of Article 22 of this Chapter.
5.4.3 Exemptions
for Expansion, Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, or Renovation of Development
Existing on March 19, 1984 Outside of the Regulatory Floodplain.
a)
This Article shall not apply to
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation of any development (outside of
the regulatory floodplain) existing, or for which construction had
substantially begun, on or before March 19, 1984. With respect to the requirements of this Article, such
development shall not be considered as non conforming within the meaning of
Article 22 of this Chapter.
b)
Within the part of the Resource
Conservation District that is outside of the regulatory floodplain, expansion
of development is allowed only under the following circumstances:
1)
With respect to the requirements
of this Article any single family or two-family dwelling or single dwelling
unit within a townhouse development may be expanded. With respect to the requirements of this Article, the dwelling or
dwelling unit as expanded pursuant to this subsection shall not be considered
as non conforming within the meaning of Article 22;
2)
With respect to the requirements
of this Article, development, other than single-family or two-family dwellings
or single dwelling units within a townhouse development, on any single zoning
lot may be expanded to the extent of ten percent (10%) or less of its footprint
as it existed on February 11, 1985; however, this exemption shall not apply in
cases where a development has been expanded one or more times since February
11, 1985, and where the past and proposed expansions, considered together,
would increase the development's footprint by a total of more than ten percent
(10%) of its footprint as it existed on February 11, 1985. With respect to the requirements of this
Article, such development as expanded pursuant to this subsection shall not be
considered as non conforming within the meaning of Article 22.
5.4.4 Application
of the Resource Conservation District to the Expansion, Reconstruction,
Rehabilitation or Renovation of Development Existing Within the Regulatory
Floodplain.
a) Within the regulatory floodplain, the
expansion of a development existing, or for which construction had
substantially begun, on or before March 19, 1984, is prohibited unless:
1) the expansion is permitted by Section
5.5 and meets the design standards of Section 5.6; or
2) the expansion is permitted by a
variance authorized by this Article and approved by the Board of Adjustment.
b) Within the regulatory floodplain, the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation of a development existing, or for
which construction had substantially begun, on or before March 19, 1984, is
prohibited unless:
1) the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
renovation complies with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in place at the time of reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation.
5.4.5 Development
Within Floodway Portion of the Regulatory Floodplain.
a) Within the floodway portion of the
regulatory floodplain, the expansion of a development existing, or for which
construction had substantially begun, on or before March 19, 1984, is
prohibited unless:
1) the expansion is permitted by Section
5.5 and meets the design standards of Section 5.6; or
2) the expansion is permitted by a
variance authorized by this Article and approved by the Board of Adjustment.
b) Within the floodway portion of the
regulatory floodplain, the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation of a
development existing, or for which construction had substantially begun, on or
before March 19, 1984, is prohibited unless:
1) the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
renovation complies with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in place at the time of reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation.
5.5 Permitted
Uses Within Resource Conservation District
5.5.1 Permitted
Uses
Provided
they are permitted within the underlying zoning district, and subject to the
provisions of Sections 5.6 and 5.8, the following uses shall be permitted uses
within the Resource Conservation District:
a)
pasture, outdoor plant nurseries,
horticulture, forestry, wildlife sanctuary, and other similar agricultural and
related uses that do not require extensive land‑disturbing activities or
extensive use of fences or walls;
b)
ground level loading areas,
parking areas, and other similar ground level area uses;
c)
lawns, gardens, play areas and
other similar uses;
d)
archery ranges, picnic grounds, parks,
hiking or horseback riding trails, open
space, and other similar
public and private recreational uses that do not require
extensive use of fences or walls;
e)
space, and other similar public and
private recreational uses that do not require
extensive use of fences or walls;
Note:
NC General Statute 143‑215.54 establishes certain permitted uses in
floodways.
e)
public utility and storm drainage
facilities where there is a practical necessity to their location within the
Resource Conservation District;
f)
streets, bridges, and other
similar transportation facilities where there is a practical necessity to
their location within the Resource Conservation District;
g)
accessory land‑disturbing
activities ordinarily associated with a single‑family or two‑family
dwelling, such as driveways, utility service lines, gardens, and similar uses;
h)
public maintenance of streets,
bridges, other similar transportation facilities and/or public utility and
storm drainage facilities;
i) lakes, ponds, and associated infrastructure,
such as dams, spillways, riser pipes and stilling basins, that are located
outside of the regulatory floodplain, shall be permitted with a Special Use
Permit pursuant to Article 18 of this chapter and only if a demonstrated public purpose is served.
DOCR: Section 12.3, uses in various zones.
5.5.2 Intensity
Regulations
5.5.2.1 Land Use Intensity Regulations
In lieu of
the intensity regulations generally applicable to the underlying zoning
district, the following LUI ratios shall be applicable within the Resource
Conservation District:
LUI
Use
Rating
Group FAR
OSR LSR
RSR
6
A,B,C .019 .93 .85 N/A
DOCR: Section 13.7.3 re floor area of lots
partially within the Resource Conservation District.
Application
of these regulations shall be established in Section 5.8 of this chapter.
5.5.2.2 Additional
Intensity Regulations
Any
development in the Resource Conservation District shall be subject to the
following limitations on the amount of impervious surface and land disturbance
on any zoning lot.
The amount of impervious surface shall be limited
to that which allows a property owner to make a legally reasonable use of the
property subject to the following limitations:
Impervious
Surface Limitation: In sewered areas: twenty
percent
(20%)
of land within the Resource
Conservation District;
In
unsewered areas: twelve percent (12%)
of land within the Resource
Conservation District.
In
Town‑Designated Water Critical Areas: Six percent (6%) of land
within
the Resource Conservation District.
Land
Disturbance Limitation: Minimal land
disturbance within the Resource Conservation District.
5.6 Standards for
Development in Resource Conservation District
The
following standards and criteria shall apply to any portion of a development
or, as
appropriate,
to any land disturbance within the Resource Conservation district:
a)
the lowest floor elevation of all
permanent structures shall be placed at least eighteen (18) inches above the
Resource Conservation District elevation and in such a manner as not to
adversely impede the flow of waters; (This clause refers to floors of
buildings. It does not refer to bridges or roads.)
b)
wherever practicable, a natural
vegetative buffer at least fifty (50) feet wide from either bank of the channel
shall be retained;
c)
wherever practicable no stormwater
discharge shall be allowed directly off an impervious surface into the channel
of a watercourse;
d)
safe and convenient access, such
as streets and driveways shall be provided to any development at or above the
Resource Conservation District elevation unless otherwise authorized by the
Town Manager; utility lines, roads and driveways shall be located, as much as
practicable, parallel to the flow of waters. Where a road, driveway, or utility
line necessarily must cross a watercourse, such crossing shall be located and
designed so as to allow convenient access by wildlife through and beyond such
crossing, and shall be designed to safely convey floodwaters to the same extent
as before construction of said crossings;
e)
street crossings, utility lines,
recreational and greenway facilities and recreational‑related surfaces
may be permitted in the vegetative buffer required in Section 5.6.b, but only
to the minimum extent necessary;
f)
the site plan shall be designed
to minimize adverse environmental and flooding effects on the Resource
Conservation District and to achieve the purposes of this ordinance; permanent
structures shall be located, to the maximum extent feasible, as far from the
watercourse, and as close to the outer boundary of the Resource Conservation
District, as is practical, permanent structures shall be clustered as much as
practical, to minimize land disturbance, to maximize undeveloped open space,
and to maximize retention of natural vegetation and buffers;
g)
water supply, sanitary sewer, on‑site
waste disposal systems, shall be designed to;
1)
prevent the infiltration of flood
waters into the system(s),
2)
prevent discharges from the
system(s) into flood waters and,
3)
avoid impairment during flooding
to minimize flood damage; finished floor elevations to be served by sanitary
sewer shall be at or above the rim elevation of the nearest upstream manhole
cover or be otherwise approved by the Town Manager; sanitary sewer manholes
must be provided with locking, watertight manhole covers, or be elevated to a
height sufficient to prevent submersion or infiltration by floodwaters; all
sewer and sewer outfall lines shall use gravity flow to a point outside the
Resource Conservation District or be otherwise approved by the Town Manager and
OWASA;
h)
electrical, heating, ventilation,
plumbing, gas, air‑conditioning, and other service/utility facilities
shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or
accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding during the
base flood discharge;
i)
to the maximum extent feasible, all
utility and service facilities shall be installed, constructed and otherwise
protected so as to remain operational should floodwaters reach the Resource
Conservation District elevation;
j)
land disturbing
activity shall be kept to the minimum feasible; the smallest practicable area
of land shall be exposed at any one time during development; such minimal area
shall be kept exposed as short a duration of time as is practical; temporary
vegetation or mulching shall be used as needed to protect exposed areas;
natural plant covering and vegetation shall be retained and protected to the
maximum degree practical when developing the site, as shall natural features
and terrain; disturbed areas shall be replanted with native trees, shrubs and ground
cover;
k) Cutting
or filling shall be permitted within the watercourse only if the resulting
change to the hydraulic characteristics of the watercourse will:
1)
Reduce or maintain the water
surface elevation during the base flood discharge in the vicinity of the development;
provided however, that in no case will cutting or filling be permitted within
the watercourse if greater than a one foot per second increase in the velocity
would result; or
2) Reduce or maintain the velocity of flow during
the base flood discharge in the vicinity of the development; provided however,
that in no case will cutting or filling be permitted within the watercourse if
greater than 1/2 foot rise in the base flood elevation would result.
l)
all new construction and/or
substantial improvements (including the placement of prefabricated buildings
and manufactured homes) shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored
to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure;
m)
all manufactured homes permitted to
be placed within Resource Conservation District shall be anchored to resist
flotation, collapse, or lateral movement by meeting the minimum requirements of
the North Carolina Building Code (latest revision).
n)
any manufactured home, new
manufactured home park or new manufactured home subdivision permitted to be
placed within the Resource Conservation District shall:
1)
have stands or lots elevated on
compacted fill or on pilings so that the lowest floor of the mobile home will
be at or above the Resource Conservation District elevation:
2)
have adequate surface drainage;
3)
provide access for haulers;
4)
have lots large enough to permit
steps when the mobile home is placed on pilings;
5)
have pilings placed in stable
soils no more than ten (10) feet apart, and reinforcement shall be provided for
pilings more than six feet above ground level.
o)
development shall not be permitted
if it results in any increased regulatory floodway elevation, during base flood
discharge, as certified by a registered professional engineer;
p)
for all new
construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the
lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically
equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry
and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be
certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or
exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings having a total
net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed
area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be
no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens,
louvers, or other covering or devices provided that they permit the automatic
entry and exit of floodwaters.
5.7 Variance
From Board of Adjustment
5.7.1 Application
An owner
of property who alleges that the provisions of this Article leave no legally
reasonable use of the property may apply to the Board of Adjustment for a
variance. An application for a variance shall be filed with the Town Manager in
accord with the provisions of Subsection 24.4.1. In addition to the materials
required by that subsection, the application must also comply with the
submittal requirements of Section 5.8.
DOCR: Sec. 24.3 and 24.4 re variance procedures.
On receipt
of a complete application, the Town Manager shall cause an analysis to be made
by appropriate Town staff based on the findings required in Subsection 5.7.2.
Within a reasonable period of time, the Town Manager shall submit the
application and a report of his or her analysis to the Board of Adjustment.
5.7.2 Required
Findings
a)
The review of the Board of
Adjustment shall extend to the entire zoning lot that includes area within the
Resource Conservation District. The Board of Adjustment shall grant a variance,
subject to the protections of this Article, if it finds:
1)
That the provisions of this
Article leave an owner no legally reasonable use of the portion of the zoning
lot outside of the regulatory floodplain; and
2)
That a failure to grant the
variance would result in extreme hardship.
In
making such findings, the Board of Adjustment shall consider the uses available
to the owner of the entire zoning lot that includes area within the Resource
Conservation District.
b)
The Board of Adjustment shall
grant the minimum variance necessary to afford appropriate relief under this
section. The Board may attach such reasonable conditions to the grant of a
variance as it deems necessary to achieve the purposes of this Article.
c)
The Board of Adjustment shall not
grant any variance if it finds that such a variance would:
1) result in any increased regulatory
floodway water surface elevation during the base flood discharge as certified
by a registered professional engineer; or
2)
result in significantly increased
velocity of flow or deposit of sediment; or
3)
result in significantly increased
erosion, significant additional threats to public safety; or
4)
result in significant threats to
water quality; or
5)
result in the removal of
significant wildlife habitat; or
6)
result in extraordinary public
expense; or
7)
result in public nuisance; or
8)
impede the provision of greenway
paths called for by the Town's Greenway Plan; or
9)
conflict with the provisions of
any other law or ordinance.
d)
The Board of Adjustment may refuse
to grant any variance if it finds that the owner of a lot, or any predecessor
in interest, has subdivided such lot or has otherwise acted in an attempt to
avoid or evade the provisions or intent of this Article.
DOCR: Article 17 re subdivisions.
5.7.3 Burden of
Proof
Any owner
of property applying to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the
provisions of this Article shall have the burden of establishing that such
variance should be granted by the Board.
5.7.4 Presumption
Notwithstanding
5.7.3, a showing that the portion of the Resource Conservation District outside
of a regulatory floodplain overlays more than seventy‑five percent (75%)
of the area of a zoning lot, shall establish a rebuttable presumption that the
Resource Conservation District leaves the owner no legally reasonable use of
the zoning lot outside of the regulatory floodplain. Such presumption may be
rebutted by substantial evidence before the Board of Adjustment.
5.7.5 Referral
The Board
of Adjustment, before taking final action on an application for a variance, may
refer such application to Town advisory boards or commissions.
5.7.6 Review
Criteria
In
reviewing applications for variances pursuant to this Article, the Board of
Adjustment shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors,
other provisions of statute or ordinance, and:
a)
the danger to life and property
due to flooding, sedimentation, and/or erosion damage at the site;
b)
the danger that structures or
materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
c)
the danger to life and property
from flood waters backed up or diverted by any obstruction or by debris
collected by the obstruction;
d)
the susceptibility of the proposed
development and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on
the individual owner;
e)
the importance of the services
provided by the proposed development to the community;
f)
the necessity to the facility of
a waterfront or low‑lying location, where applicable;
g)
the availability of alternative
locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the proposed use;
h)
the compatibility of the proposed
use with existing and anticipated development within the vicinity;
i)
the relationship of the proposed
use to the comprehensive plan and the stormwater management program for that
area;
j)
the safety of access to the
property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;
k)
the expected heights, velocity,
duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at
the site;
l)
the effects of the proposed
development on the heights, velocity, duration, and rate of rise of the flood
waters upstream and down‑stream of the proposed site;
m)
the costs of maintaining or
restoring public services during and after flood conditions including
maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges;
n) the susceptibility of water supply and
sanitation systems to contamination and unsanitary conditions during and after
floods; and
o)
the danger that issuance of the
variance will set a precedent for future development in the Resource
Conservation District which cumulatively may increase the flood hazard.
p)
the impact of the proposed use on
the Town's open spaces and Greenway System.
q)
the effect to water quality of the
Town's actual or potential water supply sources.
r)
the effect on urban wildlife and
plant life habitats.
s)
the effect on air and noise
buffers which ameliorate the effects of development.
t)
the degree to which drainage and
flooding conditions in the vicinity would be improved by the proposed
development.
5.8 Requirements
for Development Applications
Every
application which proposes development or land‑disturbing activities
wholly or partially within the Resource Conservation District, shall include
the following, unless affirmatively exempted by the Town Manager in part or
entirely, for the whole area covered by the application:
a)
a utilities plan;
b)
a grading plan showing existing
and final contours;
c)
a sedimentation and erosion
control plan;
d)
a storm water management plan;
e)
a soils analysis;
f)
plans view showing: the
topography of the site at a minimum horizontal scale of 1:60, at two‑foot
contour intervals; the location of streams, watercourses, stormwater runoff
channels, etc; the limits of the floodway and floodplain; existing or proposed
storm and sanitary sewers and sewer outfalls; septic tank systems and outlets,
if any; existing and proposed structures and development; and the 100‑year,
10‑year flood, and RCD elevations and limits; existing and proposed tree
lines;
g)
profile view showing: at a minimum
horizontal scale of 1:60, and minimum vertical scale of 1:10, the elevations of
the watercourses bed; waterway openings of existing and proposed culverts and
bridges within or near the site; size and elevation of existing or proposed
sewer and drain outlets; the 100‑year and 10‑year flood water
surface elevations and limits; and the elevation of the Resource Conservation
District.
h)
a description of existing
vegetation, including significant trees and shrubs; and a landscape plan for
the completed development;
i)
a description of wildlife
habitats, noting the types of habitat on site and their potential as habitats
for various species of wild‑life and identifying any relevant limiting
factors;
j)
description of proposed storage
of materials and of waste disposal facilities;
k)
certificate from a registered
professional engineer or architect, with respect to floodproofing, or from a
registered professional engineer or surveyor with respect to elevation, that
any floodproofing measures on nonresidential uses or finished elevations meet
the requirements of this article.
l)
copies of notifications to and
responses by adjacent communities, the North Carolina Department of Crime
Control and Public Safety, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
regarding any proposed alteration or relocation of a riverine watercourse.
m)
the increase in elevation of the
100‑year flood upstream from the development, velocity changes and rate
of rise changes, runoff, water quality change, sediment deposit rate changes,
and the duration of the flood. The Town Manager shall approve the methodology
used to determine the changes.
All
applications shall include a list of owners of properties located within 500
feet of the subject property boundaries with the full name and address of each
property owner, and shall include stamped, pre‑addressed mailing
envelopes for each owner on the mailing list.
When considering affirmative exemption requests, the Town Manager shall
examine the particular parcel of land, existing information related to the
parcel or the area, and other relevant
information. Requests for affirmative
exemption shall be in writing and shall include an explanation of the request.
DISCUSSION
Planning
Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board recommends that the
proposed language be added to the end of Section 5.8. Vote: 10-0.
Manager’s
Comment: We believe the present
language of the regulations is appropriate.
Section 5.8 of the Development Ordinance states that the Town Manager
may affirmatively exempt an application from specific Resource Conservation District submittal requirements. Present practice requires that requests for
affirmative exemption from specific Resource Conservation District submittal
requirements be provided in writing
with an explanation of why the application should be exempted from the
submittal requirement. When considering
such a request, we take into consideration the particular parcel of land,
existing information related to the parcel or the area, and other relevant
information. Every request is unique..
5.9 Correction
of Violations
The owner
of any land within the Resource Conservation District shall be presumed
responsible for any violation of this Article committed on his or her property.
The owner of any land within the Resource Conservation District shall be
responsible for correcting any activity undertaken therein in violation of this
Article. In addition, any other person found in violation of this article shall
be liable as provided by law. The Town may institute any appropriate action to
restrain or prevent any violation of this ordinance or to require any person
who has committed any such violation to correct the violation or restore the
conditions existing before the violation. The Town Manager shall enforce this
article as provided for in Article 23.
5.10 Warning
and Disclaimer of Liability
With
respect to flood hazard, the degree of protection required by this Article is
considered reasonable for regulatory purposes. Larger floods than anticipated
or protected against herein will occur on occasion. This Article does not imply
that land outside the Resource Conservation District or uses or variances
permitted or allowed within such district will be free from flooding or flood
damages. This Article shall not create any liability on the part of the Town,
or any officer or employee thereof, for any flood damages that result from
reliance on this Article or any administrative decision or process lawfully
made thereunder.
5.11 Other
Approvals Required
No permit
or approval required to be issued by the Town under the provisions of this
article shall be valid until all other permits or variances for the same
proposal required by any other ordinance of the Town or statute of the State of
North Carolina or United States have been received from those agencies from
which such permits or variances are required.
DOCR:
Articles 6 and 7, certificates of appropriateness in historic
districts and special appearance
districts
Article
17, subdivisions
Article
18, special uses including planned developments
Article
19, site plan review
5.12 Records
and Filings
The Town
Manager shall maintain records of all development permits, approvals,
certification of as‑built finish floor elevation(s), certification of
floodproofing measures, or variances regarding development within the Resource
Conservation District. Such records shall include all actions on applications
for such permits, approvals, or variances, as well as any conditions attached
thereto. The Town Manager shall report variances granted for the relocation or
alteration of riverine watercourses to adjacent communities, the N.C.
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Such report shall contain assurance that the relocation or alteration
maintains the watercourse's flood carrying capacity.
The Town
Manager shall notify any applicant in writing of the decision on any
application for any permit, approval, or variance with respect to property
within the Resource Conservation District and shall file a copy of it with the
Town's Planning Department.
The
applicant shall record any variance with the Orange County Register of Deeds
within sixty (60) days after written notice of approval of such variance by the
Board of Adjustment.
5.13 Resource
Conservation District Guide
The Town
Manager shall cause to be prepared a Resource Conservation District Guide. Such
guide shall contain appropriate descriptive maps, presumptive criteria and
guidelines for interpretation of this Article and evaluation of applications to
develop or disturb land within the Resource Conservation District, as well as
design and construction standards, consistent with the general performance
standards contained in this Article.
Item 8 Changes to Development Review Process
Mr. Waldon presented an overview of recommendations from the Appearance Commission and the Design Review Board regarding proposed changes to the Town’s development review process.
Council Member Andresen inquired about the proposed scope of commission reviews. Mr. Waldon said that the Community Design Commission would suggest changes to the applicant’s conceptual development plans. Mayor Waldorf said that the proposed review process was an interactive one.
Council Member Andresen suggested taking comments from citizens and asked whether or not design experts would be serving on the proposed commission. Mr. Waldon replied that special training or experience would be needed and that this could be accomplished by revising the Council’s Procedures Manual regarding appointments to boards and commissions. Council Member Andresen inquired what percentage of design experts would be required on the commission. Mr. Waldon replied that a majority of members needed to have design experience.
Council Member Andresen requested a clarification of the duties to be performed by the proposed Community Design Commission. Mr. Waldon explained that page ten of the Ordinance described which items would be included and what the Community Design Commission would do when a concept plan was presented.
Council Member Brown asked what would happen if the Council mandated that the change take effect this evening, rather than waiting until April 1, 1998. Mr. Horton replied that there would be no change in the proposed process.
Council Member Capowski pointed out that the initial goals of Ordinance A were to save the developer time and money plus having greater opportunities for citizen involvement earlier in the process. Mr. Waldon said that the implementation measures were in place but that an effective date of April 1, 1998 would be better. He stated that this would allow time to notify property owners that an application had been submitted, to schedule a public hearing, and to meet with developers.
Council Member Capowski commented that citizen involvement was generally minimal until a request for a special use permit came before Council, which was well into the review process. Mr. Horton said that at present, applicants invested a great deal of work by the time a public information meeting was scheduled. He added that possible change proposed that a plan would not have advanced so far beyond the concept and site analysis stage to preclude flexibility.
Council Member Wiggins asked whether the proposed new position would be a full-time position which would pay $15,000 for three months or an annual salary of over $60,000 in addition to benefits. Mr. Waldon replied that the position allotted an estimated annual salary of $40,000 with an up-front expenditure of $5,000 for office furnishings and a computer.
Council Member Wiggins asked whether Town staff would be assigned to work with the new Commission proposed in Ordinance B. Mr. Waldon replied that the key difference between Ordinances A and B was that Ordinance B would not involve staff work beyond the distribution of copies to the new commission without comment or review
Council Member Wiggins said that she approved of Ordinance A except for the addition of a staff addition. She added that it was not the time of the year to create a new staff position outside of the context of budget work. Council Member Wiggins also expressed concern that adding the staff position now would lock the Council into a decision which could effect more pressing staff needs at budget time. Council Member Wiggins also said she preferred to evaluate the proposed position in context with other staffing needs. Mr. Horton suggested postponing discussion of the additional staff position until the Council’s budget discussions for 1998-1999.
Council Member Andresen asked why it was necessary to create a full-time position. Mr. Horton answered that a full-time staff position would be required to handle the large number of applications submitted for consideration of reviews.
Council Member Andresen asked Mr. Horton whether the proposed new position would be in addition to the one currently vacant position. Mr. Horton said this was correct.
Mr. Waldon noted that most developments automatically require special use permits or modifications, master land use plans or subdivision review. He stated that each of these types of applications involved staff time to check applications against standards, send copies to other departments for review, collect and discuss staff comments with applicants, and preparation of memorandums to the new commission detailing the ways in which each application did or did not comply with existing standards.
Council Member Franck said that he agreed with Council Member Wiggins in her concern for adding staff in the middle of a budget year, but Council Member Franck added that he firmly believed additional staff was not necessary to complete a staff review of concept plans. He suggested that Council proceed with Ordinance A, incorporating some of the language from Ordinance B, and exclude the proposed additional position. He added that a quick review would inform applicants about community feelings early in the process. Council Member Franck also suggested that the Council could review the ordinance after one year to evaluate how well it was working.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE A.
Council Member Brown commented that Council’s original intent in 1992 was to streamline the review process. Council Member Brown inquired how adding another layer to the process would not add the need for more time and money to the process. Mr. Horton said that although he could not appropriately comment on the Council's original intent, he admitted that the process would be lengthened somewhat by the proposed greater complexity. He added that the benefits of adding steps to the process would include the early opportunity for citizens and the commission to favorably influence development decisions. Mr. Waldon commented that there was a strong message indicating that citizen involvement in the process was time-intensive. Council Member Capowski asked Mr. Waldon what contributions a staff person would add by attending meetings. Mr. Waldon replied that a staff member would present applications, check for consistency in materials, answer questions as to which regulations applied, and would serve as a general liaison between applicants and the proposed commission.
Council Member Andresen said that it was unnecessary to have a staff review at the conceptual level of the process. Council Member Andresen also suggested that it would be better for interaction to occur between citizens and the commission at the conceptual stage. Council Member Andresen added that the proposal was innovative and agreed with Council Member Franck that it should be examined for effectiveness after one year
Mr. Waldon commented that there seemed to be a consensus supporting a modified version of the proposal without a formal staff review at the conceptual stage. Mr. Waldon noted that it took time to notify citizens and answer questions. He also said that he was in favor of this proposal which was recommended by the Appearance Commission and the Design Review Board.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED TO AMEND ORDINANCE A, SUBSTITUTING LANGUAGE FROM PAGE 26 OF ITEMS 15.5.2 AND 15.5.3 FOR THE SAME TWO SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOUND ON PAGE 11.
Council Member Andresen suggested adding the words “listen to people attending the public meeting” under the section that describing the duties of the Commission.
Mayor Waldorf suggested revising the second paragraph of section 15.5.5 to read “the Community Design Commission shall consider public comment and base its recommendations..”. Mr. Waldon noted that language used in establishing the new commission already described how the commission should conduct its business. He referenced page 21 of the staff’s memorandum which noted that meetings of the Commission would be open to the public. He suggested the possibility of adding the words “the Commission shall set aside time to hear public comments”.
Council Member Andresen suggested placing the statement in a more prominent place at the beginning of the proposed ordinance.
Council Member Brown said she agreed with Mayor Waldorf’s proposed language and its placement. She suggested putting the language in both sections.
Mr. Horton replied that if the language were inserted into the first section, then work sessions could be held without public comment.
COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI, TO ADD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE.
Council Member Franck commented that the language on page 18 of item 25.5.2 under describing qualifications of the Community Design Commission (“a majority of members”) nearly fit what he had in mind. He noted that by deleting the phrase “which have been appointed by Council” would mean that the majority required would reduce the number of “design proposals.” Mr. Horton asked Mr. Karpinos whether or not this proposal would be consistent with State law. Mr. Karpinos replied that he believed it would be consistent with State law. Council Member Franck also suggested that the phrase be deleted the second time it appeared in the ordinance. Council Member Evans expressed concern that a new member would be excluded from serving on the board if that member failed to meet the experience requirements. Council Member Franck suggested that two years’ prior experience would be sufficient. Council Member Evans responded that she preferred to require one term (three years) of experience.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED TO DELETE THE PHRASE “WHICH HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY COUNCIL” THE SECOND TIME IT APPEARS IN THE PARAGRAPH.
Council Member Franck additionally suggested that the phrase “approval of” be deleted from the bottom of page 12. He noted that advisory boards did not approve, but rather recommended to the Council whether or not an application be approved. He suggested that the Council substitute the language “shall be deemed to recommend the application without conditions.”
Council Member Andresen asked what the advisory boards thought of the proposed changes to the Ordinance. Mr. Horton replied various advisory boards and commissions had had the opportunity to comment and the comments had been forwarded to the Council. Mr. Waldon added that the proposed amendments had been endorsed by the Planning Board, the Transportation Board and the Appearance Commission/Design Review Board. He added that the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions did not review the proposed changes.
Council Member Chilton suggested that the additional staffing issue be decided at a later date.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS ESTABLISHED IN THE
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (97-11-13/O-4a)
WHEREAS, the
Chapel Hill Development Ordinance includes provisions regarding the development
review process: and
WHEREAS, the
Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has called a Public Hearing to consider
changes to the development review process; and
WHEREAS, the
Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendment to the
Chapel Hill Development Ordinance adjusting the development review process, and
finds that the amendments are appropriate due to changed or changing conditions
in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally and achieve the purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel
Hill as follows:
SECTION I
ADD a new Article 15, Site Analysis Data and
Conceptual Development Plans, of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read:
ARTICLE 15 SITE ANALYSIS DATA AND
CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
15.1 Intent
It is the
intent of the Site Analysis Data and Conceptual Development Plan process to
provide an opportunity for the Town Manager, the Community Design Commission
and citizens to review and evaluate the impact of a major development proposal
on the character of the area in which it is proposed to be located. This process is intended to take into
consideration the general form of the land before and after development as well
as the spatial relationships of the proposed structures, open spaces,
landscaped areas, and general access and circulation patterns as they relate to
the proposed development and the surrounding area.
15.2 Site Analysis Data Defined
Site Analysis
Data shall include a description and analysis of what surrounds a site in terms
of roads, utilities, and other land uses; analysis of slopes, drainage
patterns, environmental constraints, existing vegetation and vistas (both on
the site and immediately surrounding the site); and a review of access and
circulation issues in the vicinity of the site.
15.3 Conceptual Development Plan Defined
The Conceptual
Development Plan shall include a drawing(s) that illustrates the applicant’s
land development proposal and relates this information to the accompanying site
plan data. The Plan shall indicate the
general location of proposed structures, vehicular and pedestrian access and
circulation, parking areas, landscaped areas, as well as open, livability and
recreation areas. The Plan shall convey
the general intent and spatial form of the development proposal. The Plan shall be reviewed from the
perspectives of livability within the site and the site's impact on surrounding
properties.
15.4 Site Analysis Data and Conceptual Development Plan
Required
Site Analysis
Data and a Conceptual Development Plan shall be required for all major
development proposals. A major
development proposal is a development proposal which requires or requests a
Special Use Permit or a Special Use Permit Modification, a Master Land Use Plan
or a Master Land Use Plan Modification, or a proposal for a major subdivision
which creates four (4) or more lots.
15.5 Procedures for Review of Site
Analysis Data and Conceptual Development Plans
15.5.1 Application Submittal Requirements
Applications for
Site Analysis Data and Conceptual Development Plan review shall be filed with
the Town Manager.
The Town
Manager shall prescribe the form(s) on which information shall be
submitted. Forms shall include the name
and address of the applicant, the name and address of the owner of each zoning
lot involved, and the relationship of the applicant and property owner in
connection with the plan. If the
applicant or property owner is an entity other than an individual, the plans
shall also include detailed information regarding the principals of the
entity. Forms shall include the name of
the project principles and indicate the project principles development
experience. The Town Manager shall
prescribe any other material that may reasonably be required to determine
compliance with this chapter and relationship to the Town's Comprehensive Plan
with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records.
No application
shall be accepted by the Town Manager unless it complies with such submittal
requirements. Applications which are
not complete shall be returned forthwith to the applicant, with a notation of
the deficiencies in the application.
15.5.2 Action on Site Analysis Data and Conceptual
Development Plans
Upon
receipt of complete Site Analysis Data and Conceptual Development Plans, the
Town Manager shall forward all information submitted by the applicant for
review by the Community Design Commission within thirty (30) days.
15.5.3
Aspects of Review
The Community
Design Commission, in examining development applications, is to consider the
various aspects of design, with special emphasis on how the proposed
development provides consistency with the Town’s Design Guidelines and the
Goals and Objectives of Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan.
15.5.4 Community Design Commission Review of Site Analysis Data and Conceptual Development Plan
The Community
Design Commission shall review the application and shall submit a written
recommendation to the applicant.
The Community
Design Commission shall consider public comments and should base its
recommendation on its determination of whether or not the application conforms
to applicable provisions of this chapter.
All Conceptual
Development Plans should demonstrate a high quality of overall site
design. The design and construction of
site elements should include appropriate descriptions and explanations of the
relationship and balance among site elements, the relationship of the
development to natural features, neighboring developments and undeveloped land,
access and circulation systems, retention of natural vegetation, minimal
alteration of natural topography, mitigation of erosion and sedimentation,
mitigation of stormwater drainage and flooding, arrangement and orientation of
buildings and amenities in relation to each other and to neighboring
developments and streets, landscaping, preservation or enhancement of vistas,
and mitigation of traffic impacts.
The Community Design Commission must
provide its recommendation to the applicant within thirty-five (35) days of the
meeting at which a complete application to it or within such further time
consented to in writing by the applicant or by Council resolution.
If the
Community Design Commission fails to prepare its recommendation to the
applicant within this time limit, or extensions thereof, the Community Design
Commission shall be deemed to recommend the application without conditions.
SECTION
II
AMEND Subsection 18.4.14 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
18.4.14 Issuance of Development
After final plan approval, the Town Manager may issue Zoning Compliance Permits, Engineering Construction Permits, Building Permits, Sign Permits, and Certificates of Occupancy for development approved in a Special Use Permit, or an approved phase thereof, in the manner prescribed in Article 19, subject to compliance with the approved final plans and following additional requirements:
a) Prior
to issuance of a Building Permit for any new structures, additions, and
exterior renovations or alterations, detailed architectural elevations of such
structures, additions, and renovations or alterations shall be submitted to and
approved by the Appearance Community Design Commission; and
b) Prior
to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for development approved in a
Special Use Permit, a detailed landscape plan for such development, or an
approved phase thereof, shall be submitted to and approved by the Appearance
Commission Town Manager.
SECTION III
AMEND Section 19.3 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
19.3 Sign Plan Review Required
Sign plan review and approval by the Appearance Commission Town Manager shall be required prior to
issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for any sign requiring such permit.
SECTION IV
AMEND Subsection 19.4.2 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance regarding plan review to read as follows:
19.4.2 Action on the Application
On receipt of a complete application, the Town Manager shall cause an analysis to be made by qualified representatives of the Town and such other agencies or officials as appear appropriate in the circumstances of the case, to determine compliance with applicable provisions of this chapter and any applicable conditions of an approved Special Use Permit or Certificate of Appropriateness.
In the cases of developments exempted from site plan review or signs not requiring sign plan review, the Town Manager shall take final action on the application.
In the case of developments requiring site plan review, the Town Manager shall submit to the Council or Planning Board, as appropriate, a report of his or her analysis of the application. The Council or Planning Board, as appropriate, shall review the application and the Town Manager's report and shall take final action on the application.
In the case of signs requiring sign plan review, the Town Manager shall take final action on the application. the Town Manager shall submit to the
Appearance Commission a report of his or her analysis of the application. The
Appearance Commission shall review the application and the Town Manager's
report and shall take final action on the application.
Final action on an application shall be based solely on findings as to compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, including all applicable conditions of an approved Special Use Permit or Certificate or Appropriateness, and shall be one of the following:
a) Approval
b) Approval subject to conditions
c) Denial
The Town Manager, Council, or Planning
Board, or Appearance Commission, as appropriate, may impose such
reasonable conditions on an approval as will ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
In the case of final action by the Town Manager, such action shall be taken within fifteen (15) days of the acceptance of an application, or within such further time consented to by written notice from the applicant or by Council resolution.
In the case of
final action by the Planning Board or Appearance Commission , the Town
Manager shall submit to the Planning Board or Appearance Commission a written analysis of the application and
his recommendation.
If the applicant does not join in preliminary conferences with the Town Manager, the report shall be prepared within twenty‑five (25) working days after the application is accepted, or within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant or by Council resolution. If the Town Manager fails to prepare a report to the Planning Board within this time limit, or extensions thereof, the application is recommended without conditions.
If the applicant participates in preliminary conferences with the Town
Manager, the Manager will prepare his report to the Planning Board or
Appearance Commission when further conferences appear unnecessary. No time limits shall apply to the Manager's
review when the applicant joins in preliminary conferences. However, the
applicant may require the Manager to submit the application and his report to
the Planning Board or Appearance Commission whenever the applicant
wishes to end discussions with him. In such case, the Town Manager shall
forward his report to the Planning Board or Appearance Commission at the
next available regularly scheduled meeting.
The Planning Board or Appearance Commission shall take action
within thirty‑five (35) days of the meeting at which a complete
application is accepted and Town Manager's report thereon is submitted to it or
within such further time consented to in writing by the applicant or by Council
resolution.
Failure of the Town Manager, or
Planning Board, or Appearance Commission, as appropriate, to
reach a decision within the prescribed time limit, or extensions thereof, shall
result in the approval of the application as submitted.
SECTION V
AMEND Subsection 19.4.5 and Section 19.5 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
19.4.5 Appeal of Decision
A decision by the Planning Board in granting or denying site plan
approval or by the Appearance Commission Town Manager in granting or denying sign plan approval or by the
Town Manager in issuing a Zoning Compliance Permit may be appealed to the Board
of Adjustment in accord with the provisions of Article 24. A decision by the
Council in granting or denying site plan approval may be appealed to Superior
Court within thirty (30) days of the decision.
19.5 Modification of Zoning Compliance Permits
The Town Manager may approve a Modification of Zoning Compliance Permit
for changes to plans approved under site plan review or sign plan review
as long as such changes continue to comply with the approving action of the
Planning Board or Appearance Commission, as appropriate, and all other
applicable requirements. The Town Manager shall not have the authority to
approve a Modification for any substantial changes to plans approved under site
plan review or sign plan unless such changes are specifically required
by a condition of approval.
If a substantial change is proposed, the Town Manager shall require the filing of an application for approval of the modification. An application for Modification of a Zoning Compliance Permit shall be reviewed in accord with the procedures established in Section 19.4.
SECTION VI
AMEND Section 19.7 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
19.7 Master Land Use Plan
It is the intent that the development and approval of a Master Land Use,
or Conceptual Plan would permit greater flexibility in the design and
development of tracts of land twenty (20) acres or greater in size; and
therefore promote and encourage more creative and imaginative design while
conserving the value of land. This process is intended to provide a procedure
which can relate to type, design and layout of residential, commercial and
office development to a particular site in a general way, providing the basis
for subsequent, more detailed development plans and applications through the
Town's Special Use Permit Process.
SECTION VII
AMEND Section 24.2 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
24.2 Appeals
24.2.1 Applicability
Any decision of the Town Manager made in the administration of the
provisions of this chapter may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment by any
person aggrieved by such decision. Any
decision of the Planning Board in granting or denying site plan approval or
of the Appearance Commission in granting or denying sign plan approval may
be appealed to the Board of Adjustment de novo. Any decision of the Historic
District Commission in granting or denying a Certificate of Appropriateness may
be appealed to the Board of Adjustment in the nature of certiorari. Any
decision of the Appearance Community
Design Commission in granting or denying a Certificate of Appropriateness
may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment de novo.
An application for appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing of the decision being appealed or the delivery of any required written notice of the decision, whichever is later.
SECTION VIII
AMEND Subsection 25.3.4 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read as follows:
25.3.4 Powers of the Board
The Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers:
1. To hear and decide appeals from any decision or determination made by the Town Manager in the performance of his or her duties in the enforcement of this chapter:
2. To
hear and decide appeals from any decision of the Council or Planning Board in
granting or denying site plan approval or of the Appearance Commission in
granting or denying sign plan approval or of the Historic District
Commission or Appearance
Community Design Commission in granting or denying a Certificate or
Appropriateness;
3. To hear and decide requests for variances from the dimensional regulations of this chapter, in accord with Article 24 of this chapter;
4. To make interpretations of the Zoning Atlas, including disputed questions zoning district boundary lines or lot lines, and similar questions as they arise in the administration of this chapter;
5. To enter, at reasonable times, upon private lands and make examinations or surveys as necessary for the performance of its official duties;
6. To request the Council to hold public hearings on matters within the purview of the Board; and
7. To hear and decide any other matter as required by the provisions of this chapter and Article IV, Chapter 5 of the Town Code of Ordinances.
SECTION IX
AMEND
Section 25.5 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to read:
25.5 Appearance
Community Design Commission
25.5.1 Establishment of the Commission
A Community Appearance Design Commission, consisting of ten (10) members appointed by the
Council, is hereby established. In addition to Council-appointed members,
the Planning Board, Parks and Recreation Commission, Transportation Board,
Greenways Commission, and Historic District Commission shall designate one
representative from their respective boards to be members of the Community
Design Commission, each with full voting privileges.
25.5.2 Qualifications
All members of the Commission which have been appointed by the Council shall reside within the
planning jurisdiction of Chapel Hill, and a majority of the members shall have
demonstrated special training, or
experience, or interest in a design
field, such as architecture, landscape design, horticulture, city planning, or
a closely related field. Members shall
serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual expenses
incidental to the performance of their duties within the limit of funds
available to the Commission.
25.5.3 Tenure
Members of the Commission shall be appointed to serve terms of three (3) years, and until their respective successors have been appointed and qualified. The terms of the original members may be staggered so that all terms do not expire simultaneously. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term only.
25.5.4 Officers
The Commission shall elect one member to serve as Chairman and preside over its meetings, and shall create and fill such offices and committees as it may deem necessary. The term of the Chairman and other officers shall be one year, with eligibility for re-election to a second term.
25.5.5 Powers of the Commission
The Commission is authorized and empowered to undertake such actions reasonably necessary to the discharge and conduct of its duties and responsibilities as outlined in this chapter, in Chapter 160A, Article 19, Part 7 of the N.C. General Statutes, and in Chapter 278 of the N.C. Session Laws of 1965, including but not limited to the following:
1. To review Site Analysis
Data and Conceptual Development Plans,
and offer recommendations to the applicant.
Re-number items 1-17 to become 2-18.
2. To initiate, promote, and assist in the implementation of programs of general community beautification in the Chapel Hill community;
3. To seek to coordinate the activities of individuals and public or private agencies and organizations whose plans, activities, and programs bear on the appearance of the community;
4. To provide leadership and guidance in matters of community design and appearance to individuals and public or private agencies and organizations;
5. To make studies of the visual characteristics and problems of the community, including surveys and inventories of an appropriate nature, and to recommend standards and policies of design for the entire community or any portion or neighborhood thereof, or any project to be undertaken therein;
6. To prepare both general and specific plans for the improved appearance of the entire community or any portion thereof, including private as well as public property. Such plans shall set forth desirable standards and goals for the aesthetic enhancement of the community or any portion thereof, including public ways and areas, open spaces, and public and private buildings and projects;
7. To request from the proper officials of any public agency or body its plans for public buildings, facilities, or projects to be located within the Town's jurisdiction, and to review such plans and to make recommendations regarding their aesthetic suitability to the appropriate agency or body, or to the Council. The Commission shall review all such plans in a prompt and expeditious manner, and shall make all recommendations with regard to any public project in writing, and shall promptly transmit copies of the recommendation to the appropriate agency or body, and to the Council;
8. To formulate and recommend to the Planning Board and Council the adoption or amendment of ordinances that, in the opinion of the Commission, will serve to enhance the appearance of the community and/or strengthen design standards for development within the Town's jurisdiction;
9. To direct the attention of appropriate Town officials to needed enforcement of any ordinance that may affect the appearance of the community;
10. To seek voluntary adherence to the standards and policies of its plans;
11. To hear and decide applications for Certificates of Appropriateness in accord with Article 7 of this chapter;
12. To enter, at reasonable times, upon private lands and take examinations or surveys as necessary in the performance of its official duties;
13. To promote public interest in and understanding of its recommendations, studies, and plans, and to prepare, publish, and distribute to the public such studies and reports that, in the opinion of the Commission, will advance the cause of improved community appearance;
14. To conduct public meetings and hearings, giving reasonable notice to the public thereof;
15. To conduct an annual meeting at which the programs, problems, and policies of the Commission shall be presented, and at which the public at large shall be invited to express itself on matters relating to the appearance and adopted design standards of the community;
16. To recommend to the Council suitable arrangement for the procurement or provision of staff or technical services for the Commission;
17. To
establish an advisory council or other committees within its membership as it
may deem necessary; and
18. To accept funds from private agencies, foundations, organizations, individuals, the State or federal government, or any other source, and to disburse such funds for any purpose within the scope of its authority; and
19. To review all schematic
building designs for Special Use Permits or Special Use Permit Modifications,
and forward comments and recommendations for consideration at Council public
hearings.
25.5.6 Meetings
The Commission shall establish a regular meeting schedule, and shall meet at least quarterly and more often as it shall determine and require.
All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, and reasonable notice of the time and place thereof shall be given to the public, in accord with Chapter 143, Article 33C of the N.C. General Statutes.
The Commission shall keep a record of its meetings, including attendance of its members, and its resolutions, findings, recommendations, and actions.
25.5.7 Attendance at Meetings
Any member of the Commission who misses more than three (3) consecutive regular meetings or more than half the regular meetings in a calendar year shall lose his or her status as a member of the Commission, and shall be replaced or reappointed by the Council. Absence due to sickness, death, or other emergencies of like nature shall be recognized as excused absences, and shall not affect the member's status on the Commission, except that in the event of a long illness or other such cause for prolonged absence, the member shall be replaced.
25.5.8 Quorum and Voting
A quorum of the Commission, necessary to take any official action, shall consist of five (5) members.
The concurring vote of a simple majority of those members present shall be necessary to take any official action.
25.5.9 Annual Report and Meeting with the Council
The Commission shall jointly meet with the Council by March 1st of each year. An annual report shall be prepared and submitted to the Council at this annual meeting. Such report shall include a report of the Commission's activities and a statement of its expenditures.
SECTION V
DELETE Section 25.7 of the Chapel Hill
Development Ordinance.
SECTION VI
CHANGE all remaining references to the Appearance
Commission to the Community Design Commission in the Chapel Hill Development
Ordinance.
SECTION VII
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
SECTION VIII
That existing referrals to the Appearance
Commission regarding approval of Alternative Landscape Bufferyards shall be
referred to the Community Design Commission and existing referrals to the
Appearance Commission regarding approval of Landscape Plans shall be referred
to the Town staff.
SECTION IX
That these amendments shall become April 1, 1998.
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO AMEND THE COUNCIL’S PROCEDURES MANUAL TO ADD THE LANGUAGE “TWO YEARS OF SERVICE” AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NO.
Item 9 Performance Motors Special Use Permit Modification
Previously unsworn parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn by the Town Clerk.
Mr. Waldon presented a brief review of outstanding issues including drainage and tree related matters.
John McFall told the Council that he was in the process of purchasing property from Henry Whitfield and that in his opinion the western drainage solution was the best one for the proposed project. He requested that the Town expedite the plan as a Public Works project to defray some of the cost for drainage pipe which the applicant had offered to provide.
Tim Smith, representing Phil Post and Associates, agreed with the provision to choose either the eastern or western drainage option. Mr. Smith said that the applicant’s major concern regarding Mr. Whitfield’s western plan was expediency.
Council Member Capowski asked Mr. Waldon to outline Town costs for each of the two plans. Mr. Waldon replied that there would be no Town cost for the eastern plan while the western plan would involve some Town costs for labor and construction. Council Member Capowski asked if the proposed project would demonstrate a sufficient public purpose to justify the amount of public funds being expended. Mr. Horton said that there would be a sufficient public purpose for the Town to expend several thousand dollars for Public Works staff to install the drainage pipes.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Planning Director Waldon read the proposed wording in stipulation 5 which called for the eastern approach to the drainage problem.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION A, SUBSTITUTING THE PROPOSED WORDING FOR STIPULATION FIVE AND REMOVING THE FIRST FOUR WORDS IN STIPULATION NUMBER SIX. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR PERFORMANCE MOTORS (File Number 27.C.3)
(97-11-13/R-8a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application, proposed by the Hendrick Automotive Group to expand and amend the existing Special Use Permit on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block C, Lot 3, to include property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27A, Block C, Lot 10, if developed according to the site plan dated October 17, 1997, and the conditions listed below:
1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, and
4. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modification to the regulations satisfies public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree because this use represents the functional equivalent of a parking lot as an accessory to a use permitted in this zoning district:
Modification to Section 12.3 of the Development Ordinance, Schedule of Use Regulations, which stipulates that off-street parking is allowed as an accessory use in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district, to:
· permit off-street parking as a primary use for this lot on the south side of Old Durham/Chapel Hill Road, located in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit Modification of the Special Use Permit Modification for Performance Motors recorded in Deed Book 705, page 338 of the Orange County Register of Deeds in accordance with the plans listed above and with the additional conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin by November 13, 1999 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by November 13, 2000 (three years from the date of Council approval).
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit Modification approves an expansion of the boundary of the Special Use Permit to allow a 78-car employee parking lot on a 40,497 square foot parcel of land, with Open Space of 40.497 square feet; and Livability Space of 17,841 square feet.
3. Use of Parking Lot: That the parking lot shall only be used as an employee parking lot. Any use of the parking lot other than employee parking shall be prohibited, including but not limited to the following uses: sale or storage of new cars, used cars, rental cars, body shop cars; or any repair or sales activities.
4. Site Access: That the applicant proposes to eliminate two existing gravel entrances to the site and provide a single improved entrance off of Cooper Street.
5. Stormwater Management: That the applicant shall be required to provide stormwater drainage from the site in accordance with the plans revised on October 17, 1997 (through the middle of the neighboring southern parcel) or through an alternative route along the western border of the neighboring southern parcel. The final route for stormwater drainage shall be approved by the Town Manager; and, the applicant shall be required to provide a copy of a recorded stormwater easement agreement for the selected stormwater drainage route.
In addition, under either stormwater drainage alternative, the applicant shall be required to (a) increase the size of the existing 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe under Legion Road to a size appropriate to handle the 10-year storm event, or (b) detain additional stormwater on the applicant’s site in a manner approved by the Town Manager.
6. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan, using the Town's HYDROS model, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Required Improvements
7. Right-of-Way Improvement: That the applicant dedicate ˝ of a 90-foot right-of-way along the entire length of the southern parcel that fronts Old Durham/Chapel Hill Road prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
8. Road Improvements: That the applicant shall improve Old Durham/ Chapel Hill Road to ˝ of a 51-foot cross-section, including a five-foot wide bike lane and curb and gutter along the southern parcel’s frontage. In addition, the applicant shall provide curb and gutter along the property’s Cooper Street frontage.
9. Sidewalks: That the applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk along both the parcel’s Old Durham/Chapel Hill Road and Cooper Street frontage.
Stipulations Related to State and Federal Governments Approvals
10. Approval of Encroachment Agreements: That any required State permits or encroachment agreements be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements
11. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed Landscape Plan, Landscape Maintenance Plan, and Lighting Plan be approved by the Appearance Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
12.
Landscape Protection Plan: That a Landscape Protection Plan be approved
by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and that
the Plan show the critical root zones of the significant trees on the site.
13.
Landscape
Buffers: That the following landscape buffers be
provided:
|
Side of Lot |
Required Buffer Type |
Alternate Buffer Proposed |
|
North |
“A” Type |
No |
|
East |
“C” Type |
Yes |
|
South |
“C” Type |
No |
|
West |
“C” Type |
No |
If alternative
buffers are proposed along any property line, or portion thereof, the
Appearance Commission must review and approve the alternative buffer plans
prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
15.
Buffer
Plantings: Existing vegetation may be used to wholly or
partially fulfill the buffer planting requirements. The Town Manager shall determine the extent to which existing
vegetation may count towards the requirements.
All buffer plantings shall respect sight triangle easements.
Stipulations Related to Building Elevations
16. Utility Lines: That all overhead utility lines (except three-phase electric power distribution lines) shall be installed underground or the lines shall be abandoned and removed.
17. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
18. Transportation Management Plan: That a detailed transportation management plan be submitted for approval, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
19. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and a plan for managing and minimizing construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
20. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), which shows the method(s) of conveying the storm water around the building site, and a landscape plan and landscape management plan be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.
21. Erosion Control: That a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
22. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
23. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
24. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
25. Non-severability: If any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for Performance Motors in accordance with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 13th day of November, 1997.
Item 10 Presentation of Annual Audit Report
Arnie Thompson, representing the accounting firm of McGladrey and Pullen announced that the Town’s Certified Annual Financial Report (CAFR) met the highest standards in financial accounting and governmental reporting for the year ending June 30, 1997.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE ANNUAL REPORT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Evans commended the Finance Department staff for its usual level of excellence relative to the annual audit report.
Item 4.1h Proposed Hearing Regarding Closure of Carolina Avenue Right-of-Way
Council Member Franck requested clarification of the proposal to close the right of way at the end of Carolina Avenue. He asked whether the owner of the property objected to closing of the right of way because the parcel would then become landlocked. Town Engineer George Small explained that there was a sixty-foot easement for other access to the property. He stated that the major concern regarding access to utility services. Mr. Small also noted that closing the right-of-way would not land lock the property.
Council Member Franck stated that it did not make sense to keep the right-of-way open. Mr. Small responded that a public hearing has been scheduled for January 21, 1998 to consider public concerns.
T.P. Crigler said that the petition was not seeking to close 390 feet but rather an area 40 feet wide by 135 feet long adjacent to the Stroud Hill Condominiums and his property. Mr. Crigler said that when he purchased his lot from the gentleman who owned the property at the far end of Carolina Avenue, he was told that the sale included the right-of-way. Mr. Crigler also said he was given a quit-claim deed, signed by the heirs to the estate, to verify ownership. He also pointed out that there was already a utility line running down one side of his property. Mr. Crigler also said that no one was going tear up existing lines or preclude new ones from being buried along side them. Mr. Crigler also said that there were not eight people with abutments to the property in question, just two. Mr. Crigler concluded his remarks by saying that he certainly would approve of a public hearing on January 21, if not sooner, to resolve this matter.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CLOSURE OF AN
UNOPENED SECTION OF THE CAROLINA AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY
(97-11-13/R-7)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby declares its intent to consider closing part of the Carolina Avenue right-of-way as shown on Orange County Tax Map 7.57, Block B, which said right-of-way is approximately 40 feet wide and 390 feet long, and calls a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 21, 1998 in the Council Chamber at Town Hall, 306 N. Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC to receive comments on the proposed closing of said right-of-way.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is hereby directed to arrange publication, mailing, and posting of notices of the public hearing as required by law.
This the 133h day of November, 1997.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m.