PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 18, 1998 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman,
Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock (arrived at
7:05 p.m.), Lee Pavăo, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Town Attorney Ralph
Karpinos, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller,
Planning Director Roger Waldon, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, and
Deputy Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Council Member Flicka Bateman noted that Charlie
Deese, a part-time desk attendant at the Community Center, passed away on
Friday night. She noted that he was a
dedicated employee to the Town and will be missed.
Item #1 - Little Property Special Use Permit
Application
Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that this
application proposed to raze the existing vacated Lowe's Building at 1710 East
Franklin Street and to construct seven retail buildings with a total of
approximately 39,225 square feet of floor area. He noted the proposed development includes one large retail
tenant (24,600 square feet), three smaller retail buildings (3,000 square feet
each), and three smaller office buildings (1,875 square feet each). Mr. Waldon noted that a portion of the site
is also proposed to be utilized as an access to a potential park area adjacent
to Booker Creek, at the back of the property.
Mr. Waldon noted that points of access onto
Franklin Street was a key issue. He said
that the NC Department of Transportation has requested dedication of one
half-of a 200-foot right-of-way along this property's frontage, but the staff
believes the existing 100-foot right-of-way is adequate. Mr. Waldon added the dedication of additional
right-of-way for a 200-foot right-of-way is not needed or desirable in this
corridor.
Crowell Little, Jr., representing the property
owners, gave a brief summary of his family's history in Chapel Hill. He noted that he and his family were born
and raised here and wanted only the best for this piece of property. Mr. Little stated this property would be a
gateway to Chapel Hill, his home town.
Joe Hakan, speaking for the Little family, stated
they have looked at every aspect of the proposed development and met with the
necessary advisory boards, to come up with the best possible development of
this property. He indicated agreement
with Mr. Waldon's remarks regarding the additional right-of-way requested by
the NC Department of Transportation, adding that the additional right-of-way
was unnecessary. Mr. Hakan stated this
proposed development would have less impervious surface than now exists, due
mainly to the additional of the recreation area in the rear of the property. Mr. Hakan added they accept all of the
stipulations noted in the proposed resolution.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, stated
the Board had voted 5-2 to recommend approval of this Special Use Permit. Ms. Eddy noted that one stipulation had been
placed on approval, that the first bay of parking be removed and replaced with
a traditional Type "D" 30-foot buffer.
Chris Shaw, representing the Village Plaza
property owners, stated they believe that the proposed development would
enhance the area. He noted one concern
was the cost and convenience of consolidating the solid waste/dumpster area,
and agreed that the additional right-of-way requested by the NC Department of
Transportation was not necessary. Mr.
Shaw asked that attention be paid to controlling debris.
Council Member Brown said she understood they did
not want the curb cut proposed between the two property lines. Mr. Shaw said the curb cut was of some
concern, in that the cut may allow large trucks to enter directly onto Franklin
Street. He said there appeared to be
some advantages to the curb cut, but some of the tenants he represents had
expressed concern. Council Member Brown
asked if the Planning staff could address the elevation of the curb cut.
Dan McCauliff, President of the of Coker Hills
Neighborhood Association, stated they were pleased with the setback
requirements, but were concerned about traffic. He noted the NC Department of Transportation had predicted that
by 1999 this roadway would reach it service peak. Mr. McCauliff noted there is a nearby five-acre tract across the
street, and some consideration should be given to what affect this property may
have on traffic when developed.
Council Member Evans said she believed the
applicant had done a good job of planning for pedestrian traffic. She said the applicant is proposing some
sidewalks and internal connections, but noted it would be beneficial if
connections could be made to existing sidewalks. Mr. Hakan stated plans were in place to connect to existing sidewalks. Council Member Evans said she had noticed
that along the WellSpring Grocery site, the sidewalks are set back from the
street, and stated she would like to same kind of setback for the sidewalks in
and around the proposed development.
She asked if any thought had been given to making the proposed office
buildings more than one story, and making the upper floors residential. Mr. Hakan noted they had not considered
this.
Council Member McClintock noted the pedestrian
access appears to be well thought out, and asked Mr. Waldon to note them on the
map. Mr. Waldon noted the access points
on a site map. Council Member
McClintock said she thinks the vehicular connections are a good idea, but added
it would put more traffic into the Wellspring lot. She asked for a comparison of the amount of square feet that now
exists and what is being proposed, for a comparison of the amount of office as
opposed to retail, and a comparison of the number of cars possible on the
property now as opposed to the existing lot.
Council Member Brown asked about bike access to
and through the property. Mr. Hakan
stated that was discussed with the Parks and Recreation Commission, noting that
there were several areas with the site that provided bicycle access with bike
racks.
Council Member Brown asked about the elevation of
the driveway, and why does the staff think the access is in the appropriate
place as opposed to another location.
Mr. Waldon noted that because of the conflicting concerns between
external access to the site and internal circulation on the site and the
Village Plaza Shopping Center site, we believe that the proposed entrance
driveway utilizing the existing curb cut is an acceptable method by which to
provide access to this site. Council
Member Brown asked about pedestrian and bike access to the rear of the
property. Mr. Waldon noted this area is
intended for service vehicles and very little pedestrian activity would take
place in this area.
Council Member Foy asked what type of retail uses
are planned for this site? Mr. Hakan
noted possibly a video store, or ice cream shop, bagel shop, or other types of
uses. Council Member Foy asked for the
applicant’s response to the suggestion from the Planning Board regarding making
the entrance a two-way entrance. Mr.
Hakan responded that this change would destroy the continuity of the bay,
adding that there is truck access between the laundry and the theater. Council Member Foy asked if the entire front
corridor could be eliminated, moving the buffer between the two corridors. Mr. Hakan said anything is possible.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked who owns the
200-foot right-of-way on East Franklin Street?
Mr. Waldon answered the State.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said when this item comes back before the
Council, he would like to know the current amount of impervious surface and the
amount proposed. He noted he remembers a discussion of placing traffic islands
in the vicinity of this property several years ago. Mr. Waldon said that was discussed within the East Franklin
Corridor Study, adding an offer had been made to build a median by an applicant
who was proposing some construction in the area. Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if any traffic islands were proposed
in this area. Mr. Waldon said no. Mayor pro tem Capowski asked about left
turns into the site. Mr. Waldon noted a
turn lane already exists in front of the site, adding that this was acceptable
and that a traffic island would not improve access.
Council Member McClintock asked why the
Transportation Board had not reviewed this project. Mr. Waldon said their recommendation would be made prior to the
Council's June 8 meeting.
Council Member Foy asked if underground utilities
were proposed for this site. Mr. Hakan
said there were some underground utilities, a storm drain system, some sewer
connections, and some power lines. He
noted some of the power lines could not be buried because the power company had
no easements along this property.
Mayor Waldorf said Council Member Evans had
raised the question of having residential property added to additional stories
on top of the office buildings. She
asked if the Council had any interest in pursuing this?
Council Member Brown asked what would happen if
they were built, then over the long term they were turned into offices?
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Special Use Permit
could restrict that? Mr. Karpinos said
restrictions could be placed in the Special Use Permit to eliminate that
potential.
Council Member Foy said this would be a good idea
if the traffic impact could be addressed.
Council Member Evans
said she had raised this question because people who lived there would
potentially walk everywhere, eliminating the need for automobiles.
Council Member Brown
stated she liked the idea of placing residential units on top of the office
units, but was concerned about the isolation of these units from other
residential areas.
Council Member
Wiggins noted she would be in favor of residential units being added to the
site.
Council Member
McClintock asked if adding residential development would cause the process to be
started again. Mr. Horton noted it may
require readvertisement and another advisory board look.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JUNE 8TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
CEREMONY - Introduction of Visitor from Saratov.
Jane Luddington,
co-chair of Sister Cities International, introduced Olga C......, who is the
recent past present of the Saratov Sister City organization. She is currently the director of the
American Educational Advisory Center in Saratov, and is responsible for the
success of the programs which we have had with our sister city. Ms. ...... made a brief statement expressing
her appreciation to the Town for their support of the Sister City program.
Item #2 - South Columbia Street Condominiums
2a - Zoning Atlas Amendment Application
Mr. Horton stated
this is a piece of property that has been affected by the widening of Fordham
Boulevard.
Mr. Waldon noted this
application is for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone 3.7 acres at the northwest
corner of South Columbia Street and Highway 54 Bypass from Residential-2 to
Office/Institutional-2 Conditional. He
stated that along with the Zoning Atlas Amendment application the applicant has
submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for a multi-family
development. Mr. Waldon noted the
zoning designation of a property determines the range of land uses and
development intensities permitted on the property.
Council Member
McClintock asked if the entranceway plans were included in the materials
submitted for tonight's hearing. Mr.
Waldon answered the plans were not included with tonight's materials.
Roland Gammon,
speaking as the applicant, noted they had worked for several years on this
proposal, and believes it to be the most workable plan for this site. He noted the proposal for this site is very
similar to what they are currently building in Southern Village. Mr. Gammon noted they were proposing
multi-family housing because of the demand for this type of housing, adding it
helps to contain urban sprawl and was economically feasible. He stated it was heavily bicycle-oriented.
Scott Radway, speaking for the applicant, said that the NC Department of Transportation had condemned a portion of this tract, reducing it from over five acres to 3.7 acres. He stated that the site is isolated from its theoretically adjoining neighborhood by lack of access and faces two significant roadways, adding that the designation of the site for low density residential use is no longer appropriate
Gay Eddy, speaking for the Planning Board, noted
that Planning Board had voted 5-1 to approve the rezoning request.
Ed Carlstein, a neighbor of the property, said he
believed that this project would be packed with students, and did not believe
retirees would want to live this close to a ramp of the bypass.
Ann Chelminski, a neighbor of the property,
stated that the Town had previously expressed interest in keeping this area
scenic, and did not believe a four-story building would accomplish this. She added that the site would be quite
visible from her neighborhood, which had already been impacted by the widening
of the bypass. Ms. Chelminski asked
that the Council consider the impact on the neighbors of this site.
Brian Digre, a resident of Pine Bluff Trail,
stated he was not in favor of opening this area up to higher density and more
traffic.
Tim Bralower, a neighbor of this property, said
he believed that traffic was the most serious aspect of this proposed
development. He said the rezoning would
result in increased traffic, and if the road were widened then speed would
become even more of a problem.
Kimberly Brewer, a neighbor of the proposed
development, said it fails to meet the requirements for rezoning. She noted that traffic congestion has
increased dramatically on South Columbia Street, and that getting in and out of
this site may be dangerous. Ms. Brewer
said this site has steep topography, and has meadows with a park-like
setting. She said a four-story project
does not fit in with the area, nor would be an appropriate entranceway site for
the Town. Ms. Brewer said the scale of
site makes it appear to be a spot zoning, and it would set a precedent she did
not believe the Town wanted to set. She
asked the Town to work with the applicant to devise a development of
appropriate scale that would suit the Entranceway Plan and the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Aaron Nelson noted that in order for a student to
get an on-campus parking permit, they must live at least two miles from the
campus. He added that students who
might live there would not be eligible for a campus permit, because the
development would not be outside that two mile limit. Mr. Nelson also noted it was unfortunate that there was a
perception that students were not desirable neighbors.
Council Member McClintock noted that the Town had paid a substantial amount of money along a portion of East Franklin Street in order to preserve a small green entranceway area, adding that the Town was concerned about the entranceways into the Town.
Council Member Foy asked under the current
zoning, how many units could be placed on the site. Mr. Waldon said under the current zoning of Residential-2, 4
units per acre would be allowed. Council
Member Foy asked why were the applicants requesting 27 units on 3.7 acres. Mr. Radway said the
applicant is asking for essentially the same zoning and intensity as what
exists across the street, because of similar existing conditions.
Council Member Foy asked about the applicant's
proposed restriction of no more than two persons over the age of 18 unrelated
by blood or marriage residing in any single unit for more than 30 consecutive
days in any one calendar year. He asked
if this was enforceable. Mr. Karpinos
said it would be up to other persons who own property and are members of the
homeowners’ association to enforce this provision. Council Member Foy asked if they could enforce it? Mr. Karpinos said he had seen similar
language in other homeowner documents, but it would be up to the court system
to decide.
Council Member Evans said if the homeowners’
association addressed this issue to the mortgage company that holds the
mortgage on the property, they would normally insist that all covenants be
adhered to.
Mr. Gammon said this was common language that had
been used many times.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr.Gammon when the
property was purchased. Mr. Gammon
answered he believed it was purchased in 1989.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked when the NC Department of Transportation
had seized a portion of the property.
Mr. Gammon said about two years after his purchase.
Council Member McClintock called the Council's
attention to the August 25, 1997 memo, which gave several options for the
Council's consideration. She noted she
believed those options were still viable.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JUNE 8.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
2b -
Special Use Permit Application
Mr. Waldon stated the application is for a
Special Use Permit to allow a multi-family development consisting of one
building with 27 dwelling units on approximately 3.7 acres on the northwest
corner of South Columbia Street and Highway 54 Bypass. He noted the site is currently zoned
Residential-2, and the accompanying application requests a rezoning to
Office-Institutional-2-Conditional. Mr.
Waldon noted that if the rezoning request is granted, then this Special Use
Permit application may be considered.
Mr. Waldon noted that the applicant was proposing
to provide 6,000 square feet of recreation area, but the Development Ordinance
required 7,426 square feet. He stated
that a stipulation had been added in the proposed resolution requiring the
7,426 square feet of recreation area.
Mr. Waldon noted that access and circulation was a key issue, and that
the staff recommended that the application improve Monroe Street to Town
standards for a distance of approximately 157 feet from the South Columbia
Street right-of-way and that the applicant construct a standard driveway
entrance to the site which intersects Monroe Street at a 90 degree angle.
Mr. Gammon said he was surprised by the
neighbors’ concerns about the potential student population. He said the development plan before the
Council provided buffer for the surrounding neighborhood.
Scott Radway noted they were proposing buffers
than exceeded the requirements for this site. Using the buffer/landscape plan
map, Mr. Radway pointed out the
vehicular access to the site, and well as the location of the buffers. He also pointed out the elevation as compared
to adjacent structures, and the site distance along property line. Mr. Radway used photographs to show the
location of nearby properties and the location of the proposed driveway access,
as well as wooded areas.
Council Member McClintock asked Mr. Radway if any
of the buffer would have to be cleared during construction of the
development. Mr. Radway said about a
third of the existing buffer would be clear-cut.
Mr. Radway said that about one-fourth of this
site would remain covered with vegetation.
He said that a traffic analysis was included in the Council's materials,
and agreed with the stipulations placed in the resolution. Mr. Radway said the applicant did have some
question regarding the requirement that the entrance to this project on Monroe
Street be brought up to Town standards.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, noted
the Planning Board had voted 4-2 to deny the application. She stated that concern was expressed that
this development would become undergraduate student housing, and would
therefore result in the associated problems including parking, number of
residents, and noise.
Council Member Brown asked about the requirement
regarding no more than two persons over eighteen who are unrelated residing at
this property, and why they might need three bedrooms. Mr. Gammon indicated they had envisioned
young couples occupying these units, not unrelated students. He added that many times a third bedroom is
used as an office, sewing room, or the uses.
Mr. Gammon stated that the homeowners’ association could place any
covenants on the site it wishes, and the mortgage company could enforce them
through foreclosure if necessary. He
said the conditions listed are standard, and no different from other
developments.
Council Member Evans asked about the original 3-3
vote of the Planning Board, and asked how that could be considered a "no
vote". Mr. Karpinos noted he would
get that information for the Council.
Council Member Evans said she believed it would
be an appropriate stipulation that a part of the recreation area be designated
as a tot lot. She added that the
improvements to South Columbia Street, notably sidewalks and bikelanes, could
be addressed by the applicant. Mr.
Radway stated they had proposed 6,000 square feet of on-site recreation area,
but were attempting to provide the 7,426 square feet required.
Council Member McClintock said that in the
Planning Staff Report, the staff had commented on what a four-story building
would look like, namely it would look like a two-story building from South
Columbia Street. She asked that if the
rezoning were not approved, is it possible that a smaller building would not be
seen at all. Mr. Waldon indicated that
without the rezoning, the project could not be built.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said if the rezoning were
not approved, the property could still be developed to some other density. Mr. Waldon said if the rezoning were not
approved, then the property would most likely be developed as a cluster
subdivision. Mayor pro tem Capowski
said then it would be possible to build at the R-2 density. He asked for the staff to comment on what
could be built on the site with the current R-2 zoning.
Council Member Foy asked why a wider buffer was
proposed to be provided between the site and the bypass. Mr. Waldon indicated that a wider buffer was
desirable. Council Member Foy asked
about the improvements to Monroe Street.
Mr. Waldon said if the property to the north were developed, then Monroe
Street developed as a right-of-way would be advantageous. Council Member Foy
asked Mr. Radway if the utility lines would be buried. Mr. Radway said those details had not been
worked out, but every effort would be made to have them underground.
Council Member Brown asked for the price range of
these units. Mr. Gammon said the
three-bedroom units were expected to be priced at around $170,000, and the
one-bedroom units at just over $100,000.
Council Member McClintock asked about the
stipulation regarding the stormwater retention pond. She indicated she would like to encourage more stringent language
so that these ponds would not eventually become the Town's responsibility.
Mayor Waldorf asked staff to report on what would
be the acceptable number of units for this property.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 8., THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item #3 - University Cogeneration Facility
Special Use
Permit Application
Mr. Waldon indicated this application was to
modify a Special Use Permit to install a new back-up boiler unit at the UNC
Cogeneration Facility. He noted the
facility is located on the south side of Cameron Avenue, between Merritt Mill
Road and the Cameron Glen subdivision.
Mr. Waldon indicated several key issues were noted, one of which that
the existing conditions do not meet the current requirements of the Development
Ordinance, and therefore modifications to the Development Ordinance provisions
for floor area and livability space are necessary.
Mr. Waldon stated another key issue was the
height of the boiler unit. He noted
that the application does involve enclosure of a large fan within the boiler
unit structure for purposes of noise abatements, which would increase the height
of the structure by 18 feet.
John Masson, Project Manager of the Cogeneration
Facility, used a site map to give a brief overview of the site. He noted that a penthouse unit would be
located on top of the existing structure to house a fan. Mr. Masson also indicated, using site maps,
the areas where new equipment would be located and some small brick structures
would be added. He noted that
significant noise abatement methods would be used. Mr. Masson stated the project is currently in the final stages of
plan review, and hoped that with approval of the Special User Permit
Modification, bids would be let this fall with construction beginning soon
after. He noted construction would take
approximately two years.
Gay Eddy, speaking for the Planning Board, noted
the Board had voted 5-1 for approval of the project.
Council Member McClintock said she was interested
in the fact that the new boiler would use fuel oil rather than coal. Mr. Masson said the new boiler was a back-up
boiler, and the investment to make it a coal burning facility was not
feasible. Council Member McClintock
asked had the issue of construction noise been address. She also asked about methods used to control
the ash. Council Member McClintock asked what would happen if the University
changed their method of disposing of the ash.
Mr. Horton stated the stipulation of disposing of the ash would not be
dropped from the requirements. He said
that in regard to construction noise, dust and traffic, the University would be
asked to address that. Council Member
McClintock asked if the neighbors would have input. Mr. Horton said yes.
Council Member McClintock said she hoped that the University would at
some point not try to produce its own energy, but would purchase it. She noted that pollution would also be a
concern of this facility.
Council Member Brown said she was under the
impression that the use of natural gas was not feasible for this facility. James Mergner, of UNC’s Facilities Services,
said this facility was constructed to use coal, and this would continue. He said when looking into the future needs
for steam on campus, they had noted that during exceptionally high demand they
would need additional resources to meet that demand. Mr. Mergner stated that in providing a back-up unit, natural gas
was the most likely method to provide that back-up. Council Member Brown noted that they were providing noise
abatement for this project, and asked if natural gas was less noisy then
coal. Mr. Mergner said the fuel itself
was not noisy, but the procedure for handling each one was certainly
different. Council Member Brown asked
had this type of noise abatement been successfully used elsewhere. Mr. Mergner stated that an integral part of
the design was to make the noise produced by this development be less than the
maximum guidelines as stated by the Town.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked about the amount of
steam required by the campus. Mr.
Mergner stated that the growth of the campus would continue to be served with
steam by the Cogeneration Facility through underground pipes.
Council Member Foy said he did not understand the
answer regarding noise abatement. Mr.
Mergner said part of the design process was to design a structural system to
incorporate noise abatement so that an acceptable facility would result. He added that there was not one particular
technology, but a combining of many technologies to produce the necessary noise
abatement.
Council Member Foy asked the Manager if the
Construction Management Plan was something that was routinely required. Mr. Horton said no, it was in fact unusual.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if it were true that
the Council was being asked to approve the Special Use Permit because this was
considered a public necessity. Mr.
Karpinos stated that was correct.
Mayor Waldorf noted she was disappointed that the
entire project was expected to take up to four years, adding that was a long
time for the neighbors to have to put up with construction activity. Mr. Mergner noted that much of that activity
would take place within the facility.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JUNE 8.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item #4 - Proposed Development Ordinance Text
Amendment re
Definition of Contiguous Property
Mr. Waldon noted this hearing had been called for
consideration of a Development Ordinance Text Amendment which would add a
definition for the term "contiguous property."
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, stated
the Board had voted 4-3 to approve a change in the Development Ordinance which
would delete reference to "contiguous property" and replace it would
the language "adjoining, neighboring and nearby" property.
Council Member McClintock asked if the minutes of
the Planning Board were available. Mr.
Horton said a summary was available.
Council Member McClintock indicated she was in favor of option #4.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO JUNE 8.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item #5 - Consideration of Proposed Development
Agreement Legislation
Mayor Waldorf noted the resolution before the
Council would request the Legislative Delegation to submit the proposed
Development Amendment bill for consideration by the General Assembly in this
year's short session.
Mr. Karpinos said this bill was drafted initially
after looking at the Horace Williams Work Group’s proposal and various pieces
of legislation elsewhere in the country.
He said the it is not necessary to have the certification of the final
language before the bill goes in, but the language must be drafted by May 20th
and submitted by May 27th in order for it to be considered during
the short session.
Mr. Karpinos noted that the changes in the
language requested by the University to the initial draft of the proposed
legislation are mostly editorial in nature and do not represent any substantive
change from the initial draft. He noted
that Sec. 160A-400.17(c) and (d) in the initial draft would provide that the
parties to a development agreement can agree that no subsequently adopted
changes to development regulations would alter the rights of an owner which are
established by the original agreement.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked about air pollution
standards of developments, say that if in the year 2010 the Town changes the
air standards, would those new standards be required of the University, or
would they be exempted? Mr. Karpinos
stated that the stipulations in effect at the time of the agreement would be in
effect, and changes ten years later would not apply.
Mayor Waldorf asked if this conflicted with other
requirements? She said there has to be
a method for reasonable change, or this legislation is unacceptable. Mr. Karpinos said once the rules are
established, they could not be unilaterally changed.
Council Member Evans said if the State or federal
government mandated a change in standards, would the University then have to
comply? Mr. Karpinos said if we were
remanded by the State, then we would not be acting under our ordinance.
Council Member Foy said he was not sure why it is
that this language was put into the statute, rather than leaving it up to the
parties involved, adding he does not understand why we would want to put this
in the statutes.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said we could not predict
what might happen in ten or fifteen years.
Council Member Foy said in this statute, we could
set out certain procedural requirements for amendment, so if we want to have
the ability to amend this contract, why don't we just negotiate the terms of
the contract rather than having a law that would govern it?
Council Member Bateman noted she does not agree
with the proposal made by the University, because it limits the Council's
ability to act.
Council Member Brown said her memory is that when
meeting with our legislative delegation, they said that in order for a bill to
be non-controversial, the Council had to reach a unanimous decision.
Council Member McClintock said she believed the
changes made in Sec. 160A-400-18, number 4, 6 and 8, were substantive in
nature, and would move us in the wrong direction. Mr. Karpinos said he believed the proposed changes were not
substantive in nature, and were basically editorial in nature.
Council Member Brown asked what would be the harm
in leaving the language the way it was originally, if the changes are editorial
and not substantive? Mr. Karpinos said
this was the language suggested by the University and had not be negotiated.
Council Member Brown asked if we can't reach an
agreement, then it would be considered controversial? Mr. Horton stated that was correct.
Council Member Bateman said she believed the
language referring to "public health, safety, or welfare" remain in,
and that the section ending with the language "development of the large
tract of land." become the end of
the sentence, with the remainder of the original sentence deleted.
Mr. Karpinos noted the most significant change
was under Sec. 160A-400.20 and was substantive in nature. He said that his original language included
"other uses", but the University's substitute language deleted this
phrase.
Mayor Waldorf said she believed the University
was pursuing conservative wording so that this legislation would apply only to
the Horace Williams track and not other large tracts of land.
Council Member Evans asked who was the Council of
State. Mr. Karpinos stated it was made
up of the Governor and other officials.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said if the Council's goal
was to regular non-building uses, is Mr. Karpinos recommending that this be negotiated with the University? Mr. Karpinos stated that the University may
at some point in the future argue the point that the development agreement did
not apply to non-building uses, and could then do whatever they wanted with the
land. Mr. Karpinos said he believed the
way to protect the Town would be to build conditions into the development
agreement so that the Town would have some redress. He said there were ways to negotiate and protect the Town's
interest, even if the Council approves the language suggested by the
University.
Council Member Brown said she believed there was
enough discomfort among the Council to have this further investigated.
Mayor Waldorf noted we would have to do it very
soon because of the legislative deadline.
Jonathan Howes, speaking for the University,
stated the next step should be that Mr. Karpinos met with the University's
Counsel to discover exactly why particular language was suggested for inclusion
in the draft legislation.
Mr. Karpinos asked for clarification of exactly
what the Council wanted.
Mayor pro tem Capowski stated that some of the
buildings on campus are built by real estate foundations or others. He asked if those foundations would be
covered by this legislation? Mr.
Karpinos said the development agreement would state to what piece of property
it applies, including other foundations.
Council Member Brown asked why the University had
made that change in the draft legislation?
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the Town was well
protected against the University's ability to acquire peripheral property. Mr. Karpinos stated he was not aware that
was an issue, and it had not been previously discussed. Mayor pro tem Capowski said his concern was
that the University would at some future point create a new access to the Horace
Williams tract using peripheral property.
He noted it had recently been done on the campus. Mr. Horton commented he did not believe the
Legislature would agree to that type of restriction, but it may be able to be
done through a negotiated agreement with the University. Mayor pro tem Capowski said he would like to
know how the University feels about this issue.
Council Member McClintock said locking the
regulations in for twenty five years disturbs her.
Mayor Waldorf said she believes there was a lot
of sentiment that the original draft language was more appropriate than the
University's suggested language.
Mr. Karpinos asked for clarification on what the
Council wanted negotiated. Mayor
Waldorf said 400.17(c) and (d), in particular the twenty-five year limit, as
well as 400.18(a)(8), the deletion of "the public health, safety or
welfare." Also, in Sec.
160A-400-20, Mayor Waldorf indicated the original language was more acceptable.
Council Member Wiggins noted it was important
that both parties be comfortable.
THE HEARING WAS RECESSED BY CONSENSUS OF THE
COUNCIL.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER PAVĂO TO MOVED INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PROPERTY ACQUISITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m.