SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION OF THE
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1998 AT 6:00 P.M.
Mayor pro tem Joe Capowski called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m., noting that Mayor Waldorf was unable to attend this evening’s work session.
Council Members in attendance were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavão and Edith Wiggins. Staff members in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Assistant to the Manager Ruffin Hall, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Clerk Peter Richardson.
Item 1—Rescheduling of June 15th
and 22nd Meeting Starting Times
Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that there was a resolution before the Council this evening regarding the possible rescheduling of some items carried over from the June 8th regular business meeting. Council Member Bateman suggested the possibility of beginning the Council’s June 15th and 22nd meetings at 5:30 p.m., instead of 7:00 p.m. There was Council concurrence to include consideration of the following items on the June 15th agenda, beginning at 5:30 p.m.:
· Council petitions regarding Council communications, the McDade house, a comprehensive traffic study for the Town, stormwater management concerns in the northern section of the Town, and home rule matters.
· Agenda items regarding Bolinwood Drive parking regulations, flooding concerns at 509 Colony Woods Drive, a report on the status and scheduling of planning-related items, a report on advisory board comments on the proposed mixed-use development district and a review of pay plan discussions.
The Council also agreed to start the Monday, June 22nd business meeting at 5:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO RESCHEDULE THE STARTING TIME OF THE JUNE 15TH AND 22ND MEETINGS TO 5:30 P.M., ADDING THE ABOVE-NOTED ITEMS TO THE JUNE 15TH REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING (5:30 P.M.) AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNCIL’S MEETING CALENDAR (98-6-10/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby sets the starting time of the June 15th Special Meeting and the June 22nd Business Meeting to 5:30 p.m.
This the 10th day of June, 1998.
Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that the Council’s standing committee on Communications and Information Technology would hold its first meeting on Thursday, July 25th, and requested that the Council consult with citizens who might be interested in serving on this committee.
Council Member McClintock suggested that the Council place a near-term emphasis on completing evaluations of the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said he would apprise Mayor Waldorf to move ahead on this matter.
Planning Director Roger Waldon presented a brief overview of the proposed zoning district.
Council Member Foy inquired whether or not Town staff had been able to draft an example timeline for going through the proposed process. Mr. Waldon said he would draft a sample timeframe in the near future.
Council Member Brown inquired about the definition of the term “clustering” in Article 15.1. Mr. Waldon said that the Council could define this term as it desired.
Council Member Brown said she was concerned that the language “protect environmental sensitive lands” in Article 15.1b1 was fairly indefinite language. She suggested adding the words “preserving a large portion of the site in an undisturbed state.” Council Member Brown also suggested adding Articles 15.1b8 and 9 regarding the use of energy and use of natural resources.
Council Member Evans suggested the possibility of adding an Article 15.1e regarding economic sustainability factors.
Council Member Brown asked who would be responsible for providing the “adequate public facilities” referenced in Article 15.1c.
Council Member McClintock inquired whether or not the Horace Williams Zoning Work Group had discussed this matter. Mayor pro tem Capowski said the Work Group had concluded that the traditional service providers would continue to provide these same services.
Council Member Brown, noting the importance of insuring the adequacy of public facilities, suggested tying together the items regarding fiscal impacts and public facilities.
Council Member McClintock said that the Work Group had discussed the possibility of cost sharing for some public facility costs.
Council Member Foy suggested modifying Article 15.1c to read “Development will not continue until adequate public facilities are provided”.
Council Member McClintock said she was concerned that the 150-acre threshold referenced in Section 15.3 might be too small.
Council Member Foy said that the Work Group had wrestled with this matter and had concluded that a 150-acre minimum was appropriate.
Council Member McClintock inquired what would happen if the University chose to develop the 800-acre Horace Williams tract in 150-acre increments. Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that the Council would have to agree to such an arrangement. UNC Associate Vice-Chancellor Bruce Runberg noted that it was the University’s desire to only go through the master planning process once.
Council Member McClintock inquired whether or not there were other 150-acre tracts in the Town. Mr. Horton said it was possible that tracts in some parts of the Town could be combined to be 150 acres or more.
Council Member Brown asked what would happen if the Council did not approve the proposed new zoning for a development of 150 acres or more. Mr. Horton said that the Town’s normal development rules would apply in such a case.
Council Member Brown said, regarding Article 14.4.2c2, she was concerned that there was no assurance that environmentally sensitive areas would be preserved in the future. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that development agreements were the key to ensuring the preservation of such areas.
Council Member McClintock said she was concerned that the Town was on weak ground for negotiating development agreements. Mayor pro tem Capowski reiterated that the Council was not compelled to approve plans which were not to the Council’s satisfaction.
Council Member Foy inquired about the reference to Town-generated traffic analyses in Article 15.4.2c4. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that this referred to the fact that the Town had the option of doing its own traffic study, rather than using the applicant’s traffic analysis.
Council Member Brown inquired about the nature of the “ceiling” referenced in Article 15.4.2c4. Mayor pro tem Capowski said this matter could be negotiated in the context of the development agreement.
Council Member Bateman suggested adding the word “proposed” before “ceiling.”
Council Member Brown suggested that Article 15.4.2c6 contain a reference to renewable energy, referring to orienting buildings and roadways in a certain way. There was Council concurrence on this point.
Council Member Brown suggested requiring an independent analysis of off-site public facilities.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that applicants were required to provide such independent analyses as part of the application process.
Council Member Foy inquired, regarding 15.4.2e, whether or not it was unreasonable to require a staff report within twenty-five working days. Mayor pro tem Capowski said this was a reasonable period for Town staff to determine the adequacy of the applicant’s submittal. Mr. Horton said that was correct.
Council Member McClintock inquired about the possibility of notifying citizens more than 1,000 feet from proposed major development sites—tracts greater than 150 acres. Mr. Waldon suggested that administrative standards be established when the proposed ordinance was adopted.
Council Member McClintock reiterated her suggestion that the Council consider having a different development notification standard for large-scale projects. Mr. Horton also suggested that administrative standards be established once the applicable ordinance was in place. He added that the Council could change the ordinance at any time.
Council Member Brown, regarding Article 15.4.2i, requested that the Council receive the Planning Board’s analysis, rather than just the Board’s recommendations. There was Council concurrence to add the words “analysis and” to Article 15.4.2i.
Council Member Foy expressed concern that there was too much detail about how the Council would conduct public hearings. There was Council concurrence on this point.
Council Member Brown asked whether or not there were any limitations relative to the mix of uses and housing types in proposed development agreements.
Council Member Bateman suggested adding the word “provides” to Article 15.4.3b3. There was Council concurrence on this point.
Council Member McClintock inquired about the mechanics of 15.4.3b4. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that tracts could be developed to a greater density as long as traffic did not exceed a certain threshold.
Council Member McClintock inquired how the 0.4 floor area ratio standard had been established. Mayor pro tem Capowski said this was a proposed threshold. Mr. Horton said the 0.4 floor area ratio was an estimate by University officials, excluding the University’s south campus area.
Mayor pro tem Capowski requested that Town staff provide a map showing the University’s existing floor area ratios. Mr. Horton said Town staff would do so.
Council Member Foy said that the University could put a variety of pedestrian and housing uses on the Horace Williams tract in order to minimize traffic impacts.
Council Member Foy inquired about the proposal in Article 15.4.3b5 to restrict structures to no more than 75 feet tall. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Work Group had long discussions about the desirability of not having buildings exceed the height of the existing tree canopy. He noted that the School of Social Work on the University’s main campus was seventy-five feet tall with a flat roof. Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that the Council would see a computer-generated or physical scale model of proposed buildings on the Horace Williams tract.
Council Member Pavão said that it was desirable to have denser uses located proximate to the proposed rail line on the Horace Williams tract.
Council Member McClintock inquired what standards would be used to determine major and minor changes. Mr. Horton said that Council-established criteria would be used to differentiate between major and minor changes.
Council Member Brown suggested allowing greater flexibility for traffic-related landscaping buffering standards. She suggested that Town staff provide alternate wording regarding impacts on cultural, historical and natural site features for Article 15.4.3c. Council Member Brown suggested that developers be allowed less flexibility. Mr. Horton said that Town staff could provide language options to the Council.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said he preferred to use the term “surrounding properties” rather than “contiguous property” throughout the proposed document.
Council Member Foy inquired about the “potential” related to off-site road systems in Article 15.4.3eii. Mayor pro tem Capowski said this referred to the system’s potential capacity.
Council Member McClintock suggested that the term “amendment” be referenced, rather than “extension” in Article 15.4.5.
Council Member Bateman suggested having a development agreement term of “up to a maximum” of twenty-five years in Article 15.4.6.
Council Member Foy inquired why it might take up to six months to record agreement-related documentation. Mr. Horton said this time was allowed because of the precision involved in recording such detailed documents.
Council Member McClintock suggested, regarding Article 15.4.9, that the Council ought to be involved as much possible regarding “minor changes.” She also emphasized the importance of having sufficient opportunities for the public to comment on the potential impacts of minor changes.
Council Member Brown suggested that the Manager could give the Council reports about proposed changes. Mr. Horton said that Town staff had made similar reports and recommendations in the past and could continue to do so.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Work Group had discussed the matter in depth and had concluded that some modifications to the proposed general development agreement would not require Council review.
Council Member Foy said the burden should be upon the Council about what constituted a major modification of the general development plan.
Council Member Wiggins said that the long-term success of the general development plan and related matters would come down to the level of respect and good will between the Council, Town Manager and University officials. Noting that the University community had strong sway in the General Assembly, she suggested that the Council be supportive of the University where possible.
Council Member Brown inquired about the meaning of language in Article 15.5 regarding precinct development plans. Mr. Horton said that the Town Attorney could review this matter and report back to the Council.
Council Member Foy inquired why there was language referring to modification of special use permits. Mr. Horton said that this was an inadvertent error.
Council Member Brown inquired about the nature of proposed development parameters for individual precinct development plans in Article 15.5.3. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Work Group recommended the use of floor area ratios of between 0.2 and 0.25.
Council Member Brown emphasized the importance of implementing strategies to reduce the number of vehicle trips.
Council Member McClintock said that it would be helpful to see a summary of transit-related matters/provisions tied to the proposed zoning district. She also inquired about the meaning of the term “parcel performance criteria” in Article 15.5.5. Mr. Waldon said he believed that the project consultant had intended to use the term “precinct performance criteria,” including suggestions for reducing the number of vehicle trips.
Council Member McClintock inquired, regarding Article 15.5.8 and 9, how neighborhood and housing analysis would occur in the proposed process. Mr. Horton said that both the Planning Board and the Council would review these matters.
Council Member McClintock said, referencing Article 15.5.3, that while the general development (master) plan appeared to be very general in detail, the precinct development plans provided a greater level of specificity. Mr. Horton said that applicants would need to meet specific standards, established by the Council, throughout the process. Mayor pro tem Capowski noted that applicants would be required to provide physical or computer-generated models of individual precincts.
Council Member Brown inquired about the nature of proposed standards regarding noise matters in Article 15.5.a4i. Mr. Horton said that Town staff could draft language, possibly using language pertaining to the University’s power plant as a standard.
Council Member McClintock suggested adding an item regarding safety matters. Mayor pro tem Capowski and Council Member Brown said this was a good idea.
Council Member McClintock inquired about the proposed performance criteria for traffic in Article 15.5c1. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the proposed cap was off-site traffic volume, as referenced in the general development plan agreement. Mr. Horton noted that this was also referenced in Section 15.5.3A2 of the agreement.
Council Member McClintock inquired what constituted a “minor” change in 15.5.7. She suggested that the Manager could provide the Council with any necessary reports about such matters. Council Member McClintock inquired whether or not the Council was willing to entertain having a “safety valve” at the special use/precinct plan stage to receive public comments about larger scale changes.
Council Member Wiggins stated that the Manager and staff leaned strongly toward bringing such items to the Council’s attention.
Council Member Brown said she preferred to have some specific safeguards in the proposed language. Stating that it was important to have parking-related goals, she suggested that goals related to general planning principles could possibly be added in the future.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that although the Work Group had long discussions about parking matters, they did not reach any specific conclusions.
Council Member Brown urged the Council to consider incorporating parking goals.
Council Member Evans said it was important to keep in mind the future need for park and ride lots.
Council Member Bateman said that including parking goals did not preclude the need for future park and ride lots.
Council Member Foy inquired why the Work Group recommended notification of residents living within one thousand feet. Mayor pro tem Capowski said that after extensive discussion, the Committee had concluded that one thousand feet was an appropriate notification area.
Council Member McClintock suggested the possibility of using some sort of safety valve measure.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the majority of the Work Group felt that this was not needed.
Council Member McClintock noted that the Work Group’s recommendation was a super majority vote of the Council—seven or more affirmative votes—to trigger supplementary notifications.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Work Group was interested in receiving suggestions for a better name than “MX-150” for the proposed new zoning district. He also inquired whether or not there were any provisions to limit the University’s use of its right of eminent domain relative to properties adjoining or close to existing University properties. Mr. Horton reported that there was nothing to preclude the University from using its powers of eminent domain.
Council Member McClintock inquired how this concern might be addressed. Mayor pro tem Capowski said this matter could be negotiated as part of the proposed development agreement.
Aaron Nelson inquired about the proposed process for Council follow-up on this matter.
Mayor pro tem Capowski inquired whether or not the item could be considered at the Council’s June 15th public hearing. Mr. Horton said that there was not sufficient time for Town staff to gather comments and report to the Council on June 15th.
Council Member McClintock inquired whether or not this meant that the public hearing would be postponed until September 14th.
Council Member Pavão said it was important for the Council to receive public input on the proposed document.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said that the Committee could further pursue any matters desired by the Council.
Mr. Horton said that Town staff could prepare a follow-up report for the Council’s July 6th meeting.
Council Member Bateman suggested postponing the June 15th public hearing in order to provide an opportunity for interested persons to read and review the materials regarding the proposed zoning district and related matters. She also suggested that the Work Group review the Council’s concerns during the summer.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked whether or not the University had any objection to postponing the public hearing on this matter. Mr. Nelson said he was not aware of any such objections.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said he liked the idea of waiting to consider the matter until today’s comments were written down for further citizen and Council review.
Council Member McClintock suggested holding the public hearing at the earliest possible time, with Town and University officials meeting in the future to discuss possible changes to the proposed agreement and related documents.
Council Member Bateman, noting that the Work Group had the applicable history on this matter, suggested that the Work Group was the best conduit for considering any possible changes.
Council Member Evans noted that the University would have the opportunity to comment on any possible changes at the public hearing.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said he hoped that other interested parties would also comment at the public hearing.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO CANCEL THE JUNE 15TH PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER AND RESCHEDULE THE HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 14TH, WITH THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSING THE COUNCIL’S COMMENTS OVER THE SUMMER BREAK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNCIL’S MEETING CALENDAR (98-6-10/R-2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby cancels the June 15th Public Hearing on the Draft Mixed Use Development (MX-150) Zoning District and reschedules this issue for September 14, 1998.
This the 10th day of June, 1998.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.