|
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Council members present: Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Staff members present: Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Solid Waste Administrator Gayle Wilson, Planning Long Range Coordinator Chris Berndt, Deputy Fire Chief Robert Bosworth, Current Development Planner Rob Wilson, Police Administrative Analyst Jane Cousins, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith. Special Consideration of a Petition from Ruby Sinreich Ruby Sinreich presented a petition to the Council for approval of a resolution in support of regional transit. She said that Carrboro and Durham County had approved the resolution, which called upon the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to cooperate. She said the resolution applied only to Phase I, which, when built, would be connected with Chapel Hill, when the Town has regional rail. James Coley agreed with Ms. Sinreichs’ comments. Mayor Waldorf said that this petition was time-sensitive, because April was the month when the TTA could continue its federal line of credit for the rail system. COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE THE PETITION AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, AND TO FORWARD IT TO THE GOVERNOR WITH A COVER LETTER FROM THE MAYOR. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REGIONAL TRANSIT (2000-03-20/R-0.1) WHEREAS, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) rail transit project is currently in danger of losing an opportunity to receive federal funding because of design and budgetary issues related to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and high speed inter-city rail; and WHEREAS, both rail transit and high-speed inter-city rail are worthy projects, and should both be accommodated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls upon the Governor to create the circumstances necessary to insure that the TTA and the NCDOT reach an agreement on these issues before it is too late to receive federal funding this year for the TTA rail transit system. This the 20th day of March, 2000. Item 1 – Resolution Continuing the Public Hearings on Providence Glen Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit Application to April 10, 2000 COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION CONTINUING A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR REZONING AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROVIDENCE GLEN CONDOMINIUMS (2000-03-20/R-1) WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has opened Public Hearings to consider applications for Rezoning and for a Special Use Permit for Providence Glen Condominiums; and WHEREAS, the hearings, last opened on February 28, 2000, were continued to March 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested continuation of the hearings to April 10; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill recesses these two Public Hearings, to be continued at 7:00 pm on April 10, 2000, in the Town Hall Council Chamber. This the 20th day of March, 2000. Item 2 – University Mall Redevelopment Application for a Special Use Permit Modification Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed the application for a Special Use Permit (SUP). He said this hearing was a continuation of the Public Hearing on February 20, 2000, where key issues were raised. Mr. Waldon said that one of the issues was the location of the new K&W building, and that the applicant had met with representatives of the Binkley Baptist Church and had prepared a revised site plan, shifting the location of the new building and adding pedestrian connections between the Mall and the church. He said the staff recommended that the Council include reference to this revision in its resolution, if it approved the application. Mr. Waldon said the staff was suggesting six stipulations to the application: 1. Authorizing reconfiguration of the Willow Drive entrance with the church entrance, if agreed upon. 2. Restricting times for servicing recycling container. 3. Requiring greenway easement across property owned by applicant, if the property is owned by the applicant. 4. Restricting construction traffic on Willow Drive. 5. Allowing Chapel Hill buses onto the site. 6. Allowing a shift in the location of the recycling center. Mr. Waldon indicated where the suggested locations for the recycling center would be and said that the staff recommended approval of the application, with the stipulations and with either of two locations suggested by the applicant for the recycling center. Council Member Bateman asked why the grade and elevation in the area would prevent location of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp off Willow Drive. Mr. Waldon said he would refer this question to the applicant. Council Member Brown asked what would happen to the greenway, if research proved that the property was not owned by the applicant. Mr. Waldon said if the applicant did not own the property, the applicant would not be required to provide this greenway. He said there was room for a sidewalk in the right-of-way. Mr. Waldon said the staff offered an alternative for the applicant to pay for one-half the cost of a sidewalk between the Community Center and Willow Drive, rather than paying one-half the cost of a paved sidewalk between the Community Center and Fordham Boulevard. Jimmy Smith of JS Architecture, mall planner, commented on Resolution A. He said he assumed that the condition on the Willow Drive Entrance would be on hold until the common drive was negotiated with Binkley Church. Mr. Horton said that was correct. Mr. Smith said stipulations numbers 5 and 6 in Resolution A should be deleted since the applicant had a new plan with the church and the K&W. Mr. Horton said they could be reworded. Mr. Waldon said that the new plan from the applicant would satisfy numbers 5 and 6. He said the Resolution referred to the new drawing, and 5 and 6 could be checked off as met or they could be deleted. The Council agreed to eliminate numbers 5 and 6. Mr. Smith noted that the applicant did not own the property in question for a greenway on Estes Drive. He asked if there was an alternate stipulation that the application would only have to pay 50% of the cost for the sidewalk between the Community Center and Willow Drive. Mr. Horton said it was on page 5 of the memorandum. Mr. Smith said the applicant had no objection to the alternate stipulation being included in the Resolution. Council Member Bateman asked about the grading for an ADA ramp off Willow Drive. Mr. Smith said the applicant would object to a ramp there because it was a steep grade, and the contractor estimated it would cost $15,000 to build a ramp, and an exact pedestrian crossing point at Willow Drive had not been established. Council Member Bateman asked how someone in a wheelchair could get to the Mall from Willow Drive. Mr. Smith said they would have to use the sidewalk on Estes Drive, where there was a pedestrian crossing. Council Member Bateman said she would like to see some kind of accommodation made. Council Member Ward said it was exactly because of the steep crossing that a ramp was needed, and a point for a pedestrian crossing could be identified in a way that would indicate an ADA accessible path would be created where that crossing was identified. Council Member Evans said a ramp could be located where the church would share the driveway with the Mall, because it was a flat area, and the driveway could be made wide enough to share with wheelchairs. Council Member Ward asked if there was a sidewalk envisioned for the driveway the Mall would share with Binkley Church. Mr. Smith said that could be discussed with the church representatives. Council Member Ward asked if the intent was to include in Resolution A, six bike racks at the entrances to the main mall building, and one additional rack near the main entrance of every new building on the site. Mr. Horton said that was the intent. Council Member Ward said he would like to advocate the need for bike racks at the other buildings already on the site. Mr. Horton said the stipulation would be included. Council Member Ward said he had recommended eliminating the proposal for additional lawn space at the Estes Drive side, and adding additional landscaped islands in the interior of the parking lot. Mr. Smith said the applicant felt the larger landscaping would have a more dramatic effect on the site, rather than spreading the landscaping throughout the site. Council Member Foy asked if the lighted bike rack canopies would be built or would they be located in existing places under cover. Mr. Smith said this would be in existing places wherever feasible. Council Member Foy asked if there was a serious expense involved in building separate covers for the bike racks. Mr. Smith said there was. Gary Bird, Ridgefield resident, asked if the hours of operation for the recycling center could be changed at a later date, as suggested in the stipulation. Mr. Horton said the hours should cover the length of the land use, but there could possibly be a future need for change, unanticipated at the present time, and that was why the stipulation was so stated. He said a future Manager could change the hours, but he would be wise to bring the matter before a future Council. Mr. Bird pointed out a typo on page 15, which stated that the collection from the recycling containers would be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m, and should read “7:00 a.m.” instead. He asked if the County would have to abide by these hours. Mr. Horton said they would, so long as it was in the stipulation. Mr. Bird asked that the time changes be implemented as soon as possible. Mr. Horton said the 8:00 a.m. time had already been experimented with. Rev. Jim Pike, pastor of the Olin T. Binkley Memorial Baptist Church, said he wanted to thank the Council for extending the Public Hearing and to thank Steve Brown and Jimmy Smith for working with the members of the church. He expressed approval by the church members of the plan as it now existed. He described the long pleasant relationship with the Mall. Council Member Wiggins asked who would be responsible for the construction of the recycling center. Mr. Horton said the applicant would carry out the construction and pay for the costs, which would be reimbursed over a ten-year period until it was repaid. Council Member Wiggins asked if the site near the entranceway to the Mall would require more screening and if this would be worked out with the applicant. Mr. Horton said it would, but it was the hope that Belk’s would approve the first site. Council Member Evans said it had not been her intent to expect the applicant to put in a sidewalk along the south side of Estes Drive from the Community Center to Fordham Boulevard. She hoped that the sidewalk could be planned between the Community Center and Willow Drive. Mr. Horton said it was a matter for the Council to decide. Council Member Bateman said she thought it was a good thing for the community to have the recycling center where it could be seen, to indicate that the Town was not trying to hide it, but wanted it to be visible to encourage use. Council Member Brown said the language in #8 had not been changed from “Fordham Boulevard” to “Willow Drive.” Mr. Horton said this could be changed easily. He added that the change in the Bicycle Parking could be changed by adding a clause at the end of the sentence to read “and at the public entrances to all other buildings on the site.” Mr. Horton said a sentence could be included as an additional stipulation regarding the ADA ramp, to read that the applicant install a ramp leading from Willow Drive into the mall site, constructed to meet the standards of the ADA, in a location to be approved by the Town Manager. Council Member Foy asked where the additional sidewalk would be constructed and its approximate length. Mr. Horton answered that the plan was to close a gap of a few hundred feet in the sidewalk, from the entranceway to the Community Center to the intersection of Estes Drive and Willow Drive. He said the applicant would pay the estimated 50% of the cost, to be kept in escrow, until built. Mr. Horton said it was a few hundred feet. COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2A WITH AMENDMENTS. Mayor Waldorf reiterated the changes: · Add ADA ramp from Willow Drive at a location to be determined by the Town Manager. · Add an additional clause to #10, to add bike racks to all building entranceways on the site. · Delete items #5 and #6 as they are presently stated. · Change #8 to read “Willow Drive,” deleting “Fordham Boulevard.” · Amend #34 to delete “7:00 a.m.” and substitute it with “8:00 a.m.” COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND LEAVE STIPULATION #8 AS IS, WITHOUT CHANGE. Council Member Wiggins asked if there was a sidewalk on the other side of Estes Drive to Fordham Boulevard. Council Member Strom said there was, but this was a very busy section of Estes Drive and it was hard to cross the street there. He felt that a sidewalk would be well used on both sides of the street. THE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 2-7, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN AND STROM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, FOY, WARD AND WIGGINS VOTING NAY. THE MAIN MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE UNIVERSITY MALL REDEVELOPMENT (2000-03-20/R-2a) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by JS Architecture, PLLC, on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 47, Block A, Lot 8, if developed according to the site plan dated December 7, 1999, and the Scheme A Revised Site Plan @ K&W Site Plan dated March 2, 2000, and conditions listed below, would: 1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; 2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations; 3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and 4. 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 Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications to the regulations satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree: 1. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of floor area on the site. 2. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of outdoor space on the site. 3. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of livability space on the site. 4. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed amount of parking lot shading on the site. 5. Modification of Subsection 14.12.6 of the Development Ordinance to allow the proposed perimeter landscape bufferyards. 6. Modification of Article 5 of the Development Ordinance to allow the existing and proposed construction within the Resource Conservation District. Said public purpose being to promote the ongoing economic viability of one of Chapel Hill’s key commercial centers. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these findings are conditioned on the following: Stipulations Specific to the Development 1. That construction begin by March 20, 2002 (two years from the date of Council approval) and be completed by March 20, 2005 (five years from the date of Council approval). 2. Land Use Intensity: That this Special Use Permit Modification authorizes construction of three new commercial buildings (for a total of eight buildings) and two small additions to the mall building, for a total of 420,748 square feet of floor area on the site. The Permit also authorizes relocation of the existing community recycling center, incorporation of landscaped islands into the parking lot design, and 1,791 parking spaces. Required Improvements 3. Possible Willow Drive Entrance Adjustment: That the developer shall reconfigure the Willow Drive driveway, in conjunction with the adjacent and parallel Binkley Church driveway, to combine the two driveways into one that provides access to both properties, if agreement is reached with the adjacent church regarding design, access and easements, and if the plans are approved by the Town Manager. 4. Willow Drive Entrance: That the following improvements shall be made to the site entrance off Willow Drive, closest to the Binkley Baptist Church property: ¨ The curb radii shall be increased as much as possible within the restraints of existing conditions, ¨ The broken pavement in this area shall be replaced, and ¨ The cracked sidewalk in this area shall be replaced. 5. Landscaped Island Adjustment: That the landscaped island on the west side of the new recycling center shall be shortened enough to accommodate the transit vehicles’ turning movements through this area. 6. Estes Drive Sidewalk Construction: That the University Mall developer shall provide 50% of the cost of construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Estes Drive, between the Chapel Hill Community Center and Willow Drive. The amount of this pavement shall be determined by the Town Manager during the Final Plans stage of the development and shall be based on costs at this time, and the payment shall be provided to the Town and placed in an escrow account prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 7. Pervious Pavement: That some or all of the drive aisles, parking spaces, and/or sidewalks may be constructed of pervious pavement if the material, construction and design are approved by the Town Manager. 8. Bicycle Parking: That one bicycle rack (accommodating eight bicycles) shall be installed near each of the six main entrances to the Mall building and at all other buildings on the site. 9. Pedestrian Crossing Signage: That signage indicating a pedestrian crossing shall be installed at each of the mall entrances, marking the path taken by pedestrians between the parking lot and the Mall’s entrance doors. 10. ADA Ramp: That the applicant install a ramp that leads from Willow Drive into the mall site, constructed to meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in a location to be approved by the Town Manager. Stipulations Related to Buffers and Landscaping 11. Landscape Plan Approval: That a detailed Landscape Plan, including landscape maintenance schedule, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 12. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 13. Shade Trees: That the majority of new shade trees on the site shall not be willow oak trees. 14. Retaining Wall and Fence: That the low timber retaining wall adjacent to the Binkley Baptist Church property shall be repaired; and that the existing fence between Building A and Fordham Boulevard shall be repaired or replaced. Stipulations Related to Fire Safety 15. Fire Sprinkler Systems: That fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in Buildings A and B, and that the Fire Department connections to the systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 16. Fire Hydrant Spacing: That the spacing between fire hydrants on the site shall not exceed 500 feet. 17. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Stipulations Related to Solid Waste Management 18. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Plan shall include provisions for cardboard recycling, grease recycling, and measures for managing and minimizing construction debris. 19. Cardboard Recycling: That cardboard recycling capacity shall be provided at the waste area to be constructed behind the Harris Teeter building. 20. Food Waste: That facilities for segregated food waste collection shall be provided at Building A and in the waste area to be constructed behind the Harris Teeter building. 21. Recycling Center: That no demolition or construction shall be allowed in the area of the existing recycling center until such time as the new community recycling center is complete and accepted by the Town. Stipulations Related to Storm Drainage 22. Storm Drainage Facilities: That the Town Manager shall approve Final Plans for the proposed storm drainage and bio-retention facilities. 23. Stormwater Runoff in Recycling Center Area: That the Final Plans for the proposed community recycling center shall indicate that stormwater runoff will not pool in the staging and collection area. 24. Storm Drainage Pipe Relocation: That the storm drainage pipe under the new dumpster pad behind the Harris Teeter building shall be relocated. Alternatively, a note shall be added to the plans indicating that the Town will not be held responsible for any damage that may be caused by service vehicles. Miscellaneous Stipulations 25. Transportation Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the Town Manager shall approve a Transportation Management Plan for the development. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include: ¨ Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator; ¨ Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager; ¨ Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives; ¨ Ridesharing incentives; and ¨ Public transit incentives. The property owner shall include details of this stipulation in the sale or division of property on the site. The owner shall also be required to include language in all tenant agreements, detailing the requirement to cooperate in the annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report. 26. Heavy-Duty Pavement: That the drive aisles used by transit vehicles (as indicated on sheet C1.2 of the approved plans) shall be constructed with heavy-duty pavement. 27. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power Company, Public Service Company, BellSouth and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 28. Community Design Commission: That the Community Design Commission shall approve the building elevations and site lighting plan (including lighting for the community recycling center) prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 29. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, and landscape plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans shall conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual. 30. Erosion Control: That, if necessary, a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, and that a copy of the approval be provided to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 31. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways. 32. 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. 33. Collection Times at Recycling Center: That servicing of recycling containers on this site shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 pm and 8:00 am, or other hours as specified by the Town Manager. 34. Greenway Easement: That a pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle easement shall be granted over any land that this property owner owns between Bolin Creek and Estes Drive. 35. Construction Traffic: That construction traffic related to this site be prohibited on Willow Drive, for the segment between Estes Drive and the mall entrance closes is Binkley Baptist Church. 36. That Chapel Hill transit vehicles be permitted to enter and traverse the site along the route indicated on plan page C1.2, or such other route that may be proposed by the property owner and approved by the Town Manager, to provide transit service for both regular routes and special events. 37. That the location of the new recycling center may be shifted so as to be placed directly west of the existing service Continued station, if plans for that location are approved by the Town Manager. 38. Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above. 39. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit Modification for the University Mall Redevelopment. This the 20th day of March, 2000. Item 3 – Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Application for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro YMCA Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, acting in the capacity of Town Manager, said that Town Manager Horton had excused himself because he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro YMCA, and had refrained from playing any role in the Town’s staff review of the YMCA’s application for a modification of its Special Use Permit, and had not participated in any routine staff review or final decisions regarding the staff’s recommendations. Planning Director Roger Waldon said the YMCA was seeking approval of a Special Use Permit Modification to allow construction of 27,899 square feet of additional floor area to its facility, with the addition of an expanded gym and indoor track, a new swimming pool, a new youth center, and new playing fields and additional parking. He said the Town had a need for additional community facilities. Mr. Waldon said the most critical issue of the site plan was access and circulation, which at peak hours could be difficult. He said one proposal was for widening the entranceway to have two left-hand turn lanes. Mr. Waldon said the staff felt there was a need for a second point of access off of Estes Drive. He said the staff recommendation for a second access was based on the additional activity expected with expansion. Mr. Waldon said the Planning Board and the Transportation Board both suggested that the second point of access be completed at the time of construction of the second phase of the construction. He reminded the Council that they would need to define “contiguous property” in its deliberations. Mr. Waldon said that, based on the staff’s evaluation of the application, it concluded that the application complied with standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance. Dr. A.G. Bevin, President of the Board of Directors of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro YMCA, said that the increase in use of the YMCA would go up markedly with the development of the youth center, which would be part of the second phase. He said that nationally the programs for young people had increased considerably, and ten million youths were expected to be enrolled in the programs by the year 2001. Dr. Bevin said the plans had been developed over the last few years, raising money and complying with the regulatory agencies. He encouraged the Council to approve the project. Allan Stutts, an employee of the YMCA, said he supported the project, and he urged the Council to make sure that the expansion project adhered to the requirements of the ADA. Bob Reda, representing the Planning Board, said one of the recommendations of the Board was to put off building a second access road until completion of the second phase of construction. He said the other recommendation was that all new construction and major renovation meet the requirements of the ADA. Dr. John Turner said he urged support by the Council of the land use plan for the YMCA. He said the expansion should have occurred years ago, and that it was crowded with no space for the participants. Dr. Turner said that youth and seniors used the facility, as well as people from all segments of the community. Dr. Turner suggested addition of programs, such as those provided by the University. Edwina Zagami, YMCA Board Member and a parent of children participants at the YMCA, said she was very comfortable with her children coming to the facility after school. She said there was a need for expansion for youth activities, and urged the Council to support the expansion project. Michael Hining, architect for the proposed facility, said the new facilities would be fully ADA compliant. He urged the Council to pass Resolution B, in order to allow the first phase to be built without the second access road, and to allow the access road to be built at the completion of the second phase. Mr. Hining said all the stipulations in Resolution A were acceptable, but asked that the construction of the new gym facility be allowed without the requirement of the access road. Council Member Bateman asked if the access road would be needed for phase one. Mr. Hining said the road, if built, would be used for construction vehicles, but could be used for patrons as an exit onto Estes Drive. He said the ball fields were an extension of the existing ones. Council Member Bateman asked what the target date would be for completion of phase one and phase two. Mr. Hining said they would like to get started on phase one as soon as they could get approval of a Zoning Compliance Permit, but it would take time to raise money for phase two, so it could be several years until completion. Council Member Foy asked if getting the access was a question of money or negotiations with property owners, or something else. Ken Bagwell said there was no legal second access to the property, and negotiations for a roadway easement through the Amity Methodist Church were unsuccessful as the church did not want to break up the property. He said if they did sell, the price was more than the YMCA could pay. Mr. Bagwell said since then it has been determined that the YMCA owned a portion of a 20-foot wide roadway running along the edge of the Duke Power Company easement and the church owned the land continuing along that line. He said the church had responded positively to allowing an easement along that area of its property, but no decision had been made. Council Member Brown asked if there were buildings on lots 6, 7, and 8 on the maps in the Council packet. Mr. Bagwell said #6 and #8 were undeveloped and #7 had a residence on it and the residents had been using the roadway as a driveway for several years. Council Member Foy asked if the roadway access would be one-way or two-way. Mr. Bagwell said it would depend on how much footage they were able to obtain, depending on the Town standards. Council Member Strom asked how long it would take to determine the access road issue. Mr. Bagwell said a month, if they could move quickly. Hana Crume, member of the YMCA and the swim team for ten years, said she spent a lot of time at the facility. She said she was a co-president of the Leaders Club, which was a group of ten teenagers who do service work in the community. Ms. Crume said they held two programs, one for middle school children and one for younger children, every other Friday night. She felt a youth center would be very valuable to the teenagers in the community. Council Member Brown asked why there was no consideration of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendations on contrasting pavement and warning signs. Mr. Waldon said the warning signs would be internal and not required by the Town. He added the contrasting pavement would not be required by the Town. Council Member Brown asked if there was some reason for not specifying the number of bike racks required. Mr. Waldon said the Town did not have requirements for the number of bicycle racks, but the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board was working on a numerical standard. He said the Town would be working with the applicant during the completion of the project to determine how many bike racks there should be. Council Member Foy asked how the number of parking spaces was determined, and why the applicant had applied for 90 additional spaces. Mr. Waldon said there were special events, such as swim meets and youth basketball leagues, in which the present parking was inadequate, and parking spilled over into the church parking lot, or elsewhere. He said the staff felt this was a reasonable number to request. Mr. Hining said most of the additional parking spaces were in the back, to be developed in phase two. He said when the soccer fields were completed, parents would need places to park to watch their children play soccer. Mr. Hining said the church also shared the YMCA’s parking space when they needed it, but did not want a formal arrangement for shared parking. Mayor Waldorf said her personal observations were that at any time during the week and on weekends the parking, as well as the facility, were totally inadequate, and there were cars parked in the driveway and on the grassy areas. Council Member Ward said that at least sixteen bike parking spaces would be needed at the facility. He said he also endorsed the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board for warning signs, which he believed were recommended for the perimeter of the site. Council Member Strom said that grading and utility plan that there was a stormwater drainage pipe on the church property, which carried water down into a pond, and it looked like a lot of water would come down from the church property onto the YMCA site. He said it looked like the stormwater drainage plan was only done for phase one, and not the phase two site. Council Member Strom noted that the staff mentioned it might recommend that the owner include a bio-retention basin in this location, which would filter the water but not prevent it from draining into the site. He asked if these were the final plans. Mr. Waldon said the final plans would have more details, but he could provide more information if the Council wished. Mr. Hining said all the engineering had to be done for the Zoning Ccompliance Permit. He said the pond was an old farm pond which only drained from the church, and the applicant wished to clean it out and make it safer. Mr. Hining said it basically was a dry pond, which did not retain much water. He said the bio-retention basin suggestion had come after the project was started, and it would also need to meet the Town engineering requirements. Council Member Foy asked if the stormwater management plan would indicate how much water would not drain off the site. Mr. Hining said, based on the formula for stormwater retention, the drainage from the site would be an improvement. Mayor Waldorf suggested that “contiguous property” in this case be defined as property touched by the site property. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT “CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY” BE DEFINED AS THAT PROPERTY TOUCHING THE SITE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER, AND RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 4 – Public Hearings on Proposed Annexation Areas a. Public Hearing on Proposed Annexation Area 1 Long Range Coordinator Chris Berndt reviewed the staff report on the proposed annexation area I, the Englewood Subdivision and the process up to this Public Hearing: · January 10, 2000, Council had a Resolution of Intent adopted to consider annexing this area. · January 31, 2000, the Council adopted a Service Report explaining the various services and revenues and cost which would result from the annexation. · March 1, 2000, a Public Information meeting. · March 20, 2000, a Public Hearing on the proposal. Ms. Berndt said the Service Report explained that the Town would provide public services on the same basis and in the same manner as it provided to the rest of the Town. She said the staff had provided estimates of revenues and expenditures for the annexation: · estimated revenues of about $96,000, · estimated costs of about $18,000. Ms. Berndt said the staff had qualified the area for annexation, based on the population density of at least 2.3 persons per acre, which in this area was 2.9 persons per acre. She said the area met all the provisions of General Statute 160A-48, concerning the annexation standards. Ms. Berndt said the proposed effective date was June 30, 2000, and the area was currently in the Town’s planning jurisdiction. She said the staff’s preliminary recommendation was that the Council consider adopting an annexation ordinance for the area, effective June 30, 2000. Ms. Berndt said this issue would come back to the Council at its April 10, 2000 Council meeting. Bruce Fenn, resident of the Englewood Subdivision, spoke of some of the concerns of the residents: 1. The first responder for fire protection would be the New Hope Fire Department rather than the Chapel Hill Fire Department, with the difference between the response at about 7 minutes for New Hope and about 45 seconds for Chapel Hill. 2. Police protection—how often would patrol cars go through, and how often would they patrol the area for speeding cars. 3. Street and storm sewer drainage—areas that need attention for water accumulation. 4. Traffic control at the intersection of Highway 15-501 and Erwin Road. Deputy Fire Chief Robert Bosworth responded that the “first responder” verbiage came from the State law, and when the annexation occurred the subdivision would benefit from response from both fire departments, for five years. Council Member Brown asked why the response was designed that way. Chief Bosworth said it was State law, which protected the volunteer fire departments from losing revenues from the fire tax when areas were annexed. Mr. Horton added that it was provided to protect the volunteer fire departments from lost revenue, and gave them five years to make up for any lost revenues. He said the Town would still be providing fire protection as usual. Public Works Director Bruce Heflin said the service plan for the neighborhood would provide the same level of service provided in all areas of the Town. He said there was a system of storm sewers and an open channel in the neighborhood, and it was flowing well. Mr. Heflin said the catch basins all had six inch openings, and, on occasion, a lid was added with a lip for runoff. He said he would be glad to look at the neighborhood concerns regarding these catch basins. Mr. Heflin said the drainageway on the cul de sac was partly on private property, and were not usually maintained by the Town, but the Engineering Department would be able to look at them if the neighborhoods desired. Mr. Fenn asked why the maintenance would be done upstream on the right-of-way, but not downstream. Mr. Heflin said the Town did maintain drainageways that lie within the public rights-of-way, but there were easements that would not necessarily be maintained by the Town, and it was not his understanding that the stream under discussion would be an easement area maintained by the Town. Mr. Horton said the Town could maintain the public areas, but, by State law, the Town would be in violation if it maintained private land. Police Administrative Analyst Jane Cousins said the Department would be serving this neighborhood just as it served all Town neighborhoods, but there would be more presence in the neighborhood initially. She said emergency response, slightly over four minutes, would be provided, as in all neighborhoods. Ms. Cousins said the amount of patrol would be whatever the neighborhood required, such as the need to prevent vandalism. She said that Erwin Road was part of the Department’s regular patrol, and this traffic enforcement plan would be continued. Council Member Ward asked if the annexation would give the Town the ability to change the speed limit and, if so, he would like to have it looked at. Mr. Horton said it would, and the staff would look at the issue and bring back a report at the next consideration. Council Member Foy suggested signs indicating when the road enters into the Town of Chapel Hill, to indicate a slower speed limit. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER AREA I ANNEXATION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). b. Public Hearing on Proposed Annexation Area 2 Long Range Coordinator Chris Berndt reviewed the staff report on the proposed annexation area II, located southeast of the present Town limits in Durham County, consisting of University of North Carolina property. · January 10, 2000, Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to consider annexing this area. · January 31, 2000, the Council adopted a Service Report explaining the various services and revenues and cost which would result from the annexation. · March 1, 2000, a Public Information meeting was held. · March 20, 2000, a Public Hearing on the proposal was held. Ms. Berndt said the Service Report detailed key points for the annexation, the chief one being that public services would be provided on the same basis and manner as the rest of Town. She said the costs would be about $500 per year, but no revenues because the property was tax exempt. Ms. Berndt said the area qualified for annexation based on its institutional use and met all the provisions of General Statute 160A-48. She said the staff was proposing to amend one page of the Service Report, which was included in the memorandum in the Council’s packet. Ms. Berndt said the effective date for the annexation would be June 30, 2000. She said the area was presently zoned by Durham County, but it was in the Town’s service area in the Comprehensive Plan, due to a consent order in 1986 between Durham and Chapel Hill establishing a future annexation boundary line. Ms. Berndt said the Town of Chapel Hill’s zoning must be adopted within 60 days of the annexation and if the Council adopted the Ordinance for annexation on April 10, 2000, a date could be set for a public hearing regarding zoning for June 19, 2000. She said the preliminary recommendation of the staff was for the Council to adopt the annexation ordinance. Aaron Nelson, representing the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, read a letter from the University in opposition to the annexation. Council Member Bateman asked if there was water and sewer service at The Farm. Mr. Horton said there was water and sewer service in the area, but did not know if The Farm used it. Council Member Bateman asked what plans the University had for the developable portion of the area in its Long Range Planning. Mr. Nelson said he was not aware of any plans. Council Member Ward asked what kinds of services would be provided that was not being provided by Durham County. Mr. Horton said there would be no different services, but annexation would give the Town the opportunity to zone the area for land use. Council Member Ward asked would the Parkwood Fire Department be utilized on the same 5-year plan as a volunteer service, as that of the Area I annexation. Chief Bosworth said he had contacted the Parkwood Fire Department to affirm whether they wanted to take the first responder agreement, but had not received an answer as yet. Council Member Ward asked what the cost implication to the Town would be if the Parkwood Fire Department became the first responder. Chief Bosworth said it was very small—a few hundred dollars. Mr. Horton said there was a question of whether there had been any revenue gain, since the area was tax exempt. Council Member Evans asked if the cost of providing transit to the site had been calculated. Mr. Horton said transit services would be provided as they were throughout the Town. Ms. Berndt said the staff was not anticipating any additional transit costs and the nearest fixed route was at the Friday Center on Highway 54. Mr. Horton added the riders would call upon the Shared-Ride Service, but the Town typically did not provide a rider service for a school or a camp. Council Member Foy asked what the current zoning was of the land parcel. Ms. Berndt said it was a Durham County zoning, probably rural residential. Council Member Foy asked what the response was to the sign within the Town limits which stated “Welcome to the City of Durham.” Mr. Horton said he would investigate. COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE PROPOSAL TO THE MANAGER TO BE RETURNED TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 10, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 5 – Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Application for the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity House Current Development Planner Rob Wilson said the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) Fraternity House was seeking approval of a Special Use Permit. He said the site was located at the northwest corner of the intersection of South Columbia Street and Cameron Avenue, across from the Carolina Inn and bordered on the north by two fraternity houses and on the west by another fraternity house. He said the site was .64 acres and was located in the Office/Institutional-1 zoning district and the Cameron/McCauley Historic District. Mr. Wilson said the applicant was proposing a 1,720 square foot addition, which would include two enclosed stair towers, and a new entry addition on the south side of the house. He said there was a paved terrace proposed on the front lawn area, along with a brick sidewalk connecting to a new point of entry on South Columbia Street. Mr. Wilson said the renovations would include the addition of a fire sprinkler system, the entrance drive off of South Columbia Street would be widened, and the entrance drive off Cameron Avenue would be widened and relocated to provide better circulation. Mr. Wilson said the applicant proposed to re-stripe the parking lot and to reduce the number of parking spaces from 25 to 20 spaces. Mr. Wilson said the application had been evaluated regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Development Ordinance, and the application had been sent to four advisory boards for review and comments, which were included in the Council’s packet. Since the Fraternity House was built in 1970, prior to the adoption of the Town’s Development Ordinance, he said the applicant was requesting modifications to the regulations regarding (1) permitted floor area on the site, (2) required landscape bufferyards on the northern and western edges of the site, and (3) required landscape strips between parking facilities and the exterior walls of the building. Mr. Wilson said the staff’s preliminary recommendation was for adoption of Resolution A. Dan Jewell, landscape architect with Coulter Jewell Thames, said the proposed addition to the floor space was for space on the site that already had impervious surface. He said they were not proposing any new bedrooms, so were able to reduce the number of parking spaces on the site, and, with the addition of a brick patio and landscaping, the impervious surface would be reduced. He said the exterior would visually improve the view from Cameron Street. Mr. Jewell reiterated that the advisory boards—Planning Board, Transportation Board, Historic District Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board—had all unanimously approved the application. Bob Reda, speaking for the Planning Board, said the Board had met on March 7, 2000, and fully recommended the adoption of Resolution A with one concern, that being that the Manager’s recommendation should be clarified to permit occupancy of the building, if appropriate, with the approval of an acceptable phasing plan. He said the nonconforming items should not be an issue, because the overall look and safety issues were being addressed and were all to the good of the project. Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Jewell to convey her wishes that the gentlemen of the fraternity might do some community service work by helping to clear the greenways. She also asked that they provide a kennel for their dog, who was usually tied up in the back yard. Council Member Ward asked if the traffic pattern in the driveway was one way, and if it had clarification from the Town traffic engineers as to left and right turns at the exit. Mr. Jewell said it had not been restricted, but the reason it had been made one way was that it would be easier to exit onto Columbia Street. Council Member Ward said he would like to be sure that the traffic engineers had looked at the turning situations. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 4 DEFINING “CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY” AS “ADJACENT TO”. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE DELTA KAPPA EPSILON (DKE) FRATERNITY HOUSE (2000-03-29/R-4) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit for the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) Fraternity House, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows: All properties adjacent to the site. This the 20th day of March, 2000. COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REFER IT TO THE MANAGER FOR THE APRIL 10, 2000 MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). Item 6 – Public Hearing on a Development Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding Mixed Housing Planning Director Roger Waldon said the Council had requested the staff put together in the form of Chapel Hill’s Development Regulations the concept employed by the Town of Carrboro regarding the requirement of a mix of housing sizes in new subdivisions, which stated that 25% of new buildings in subdivision must be size-restricted. He said the regulations stated that, after a year, these buildings could be expanded. Mr. Waldon said the staff had prepared a regulation as requested by the Council, and had suggested deletion of the option on expansion. Bob Reda, speaking for the Planning Board, said that the Board met on March 7, 2000, and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the Council not adopt the wording that was put into the Text Amendment at the present time. He said none of the Board was really sure what the full intent of the Text Amendment was. Mr. Reda said that the Board thought the Text Amendment was not workable, especially if it was trying to encourage affordable housing, since smaller did not necessarily mean cheaper. He said that the Board was fully in support of affordable housing, but this amendment was not the right mechanism for accomplishing this. John Ryan, Chair of TaxWatch, a citizens’ watch-dog group, expressed his feelings why the proposal should be rejected: · There was not actually a problem—mean value and medium income are entirely different, and the definition of “affordable housing” was bizarre. The idea that someone had to cross a border to get to work might appeal to “heart” but not to “brain.” · The proposal would be detrimental to the interests of citizens of Chapel Hill. The proposal would mean more school-aged children in Chapel Hill, meaning more schools. · Those wanting to build larger homes would have to build outside of Chapel Hill. · He assumed that the proponents of these regulations must have an unspoken agenda. · There was very little land left in Chapel Hill for development, so the matter may be a non-issue. Peter Tompkins, representing the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said that the Chamber recognized that the lack of affordable housing was an issue in Chapel Hill, from the Shelter to the need for single-family houses in the $150,000 to $200,000 range. He said many members of the Chamber, including financial lenders, builders and engineers, shared in the partnering with the housing non-profits in the community for affordable housing for low income citizens in the 80% and less medium income category. Mr. Tompkins said there were many people in the category of 81-100% medium income who struggled to find housing in the Town, and they did not qualify for the subsidized housing by the housing non-profits. He said, with the cooperation of the Council, the Chamber members felt they could address the needs for people in this bracket, through market-based incentive. Phil Post, Chamber of Commerce member, said the ordinance for size regulation failed in the fact that sights were not being set high enough. He said affordable neighborhoods would be better than trying to sprinkle affordable houses throughout the subdivisions. Mr. Post stated that there had been affordable units built in Carrboro based on density, rather than under the mandate of square footage. He noted the existing zoning for “cottage” housing wasn’t being used enough to achieve affordable housing. Mr. Post said the Council could set its sights higher by inviting quality, affordable projects into the Town. He felt that developers would respond to this kind of project. Anne Stoddard, Chair of the Government Relations Committee of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said, as a commercial property developer, she felt if the ordinance was adopted it would lower the profit potentials of the subdivisions, which would decrease the possibility that a developer would be likely to spend time on these subdivisions. She said the risk factor of time could be diminished by adopting an amendment that if a developer brought to the Town a proposal which met the mixed housing or other affordable goals that the Council set out, the Council should make a commitment to complete the review of that proposal and provide all of the necessary permits within a six-month goal deadline that a developer could count on. Alex Zaffron, Carrboro Alderman, said the Carrboro Ordinance was adopted in June of 1999, and as yet no permits had been requested. He said the theory behind the Ordinance was that it couldn’t guarantee affordable housing strictly within the guidelines, but it could guarantee that there would be a diversity of housing types, styles and costs. Mr. Zaffron said the Ordinance was basically a market control, in order to provide an even playing field between the two communities. Tom Heffner, Chapel Hill real estate developer, said the developers in the Town recognized the importance that the Town placed on affordable housing, and any proposal for development without an affordable housing component in it probably would not receive favorable consideration by the Council. He said the proposed ordinance limited the developer’s approach to affordable housing, giving just one option. Mr. Heffner said the fact that there had been no proposals in Carrboro since the Ordinance was adopted indicated that there were problems with it from an economic standpoint, even though there was a great demand for development. He said the other houses in a development must share in the profit loss, due to the small house requirements, because if density were not increased, then the small houses would be built on the same size lot as the larger houses. Mr. Heffner cited Southern Village as an example of diversity of housing, but that was accomplished by allowing density credits. Robert Dowling, Orange Community Housing, said he supported the size-limited ordinance as a tool, modified as written in Carrboro. He said in Montgomery County, Maryland, where inclusionary zoning was allowed, ten thousand units of affordable housing have been developed since 1976. Mr. Dowling recommended starting at 20-25 units, instead of 12, to spread the costs over more units. He suggested 15 percent of units, instead of 25 percent, which might be more workable. Mr. Dowling said the Ordinance could be a part of a more comprehensive Ordinance which could include the issues wanted by the private sector. Richard Leber, volunteer and President of the Board of the Orange County Habitat for Humanity Affiliate, said the Affiliate complimented the Council for considering any actions to increase the stock of affordable homes in Chapel Hill. He said that volunteers for the Affiliate recently completed its 75th home, and the homes run from 1,000 to 1,100 square feet, detached homes with 3 bedrooms and 1˝ baths. Mr. Leber said the 11 homes recently completed on Rogers Road were appraised for $135,000, which under normal provisions would be affordable for a family with an income of $55,000, but, because Habitat was able to subsidize mortgages, the homes could be sold to families making $25-30,000 per year. He said in the future the homes could be built on much smaller lots, reducing the appraised values of these homes and making them more affordable. Mr. Leber noted the Affiliate would welcome the opportunity to work with members of the public and private sector to build more affordable homes. He said they were currently working on 10 approved lots, and were seeking approval for 34 additional affordable lots in the County. Council Member Bateman read a letter into the record: “Dear Ms. Bateman: Thank you again for your efforts regarding affordable housing and specifically, looking into ways municipalities can help using prudent planning. As I mentioned to you, my experience as a current Habitat Family Committee member and former Habitat board member is that house size is a wonderful tool for maintaining house affordability. Habitat has a history of using house design as such a tool. I offer my support in development of the idea of house size as a way of increasing home affordability and community economic diversity. The Habitat houses primarily range from 1,080 square feet (for a 3 bedroom) to 1,315 square feet (for a 4 bedroom). Habitat only builds 3 or more bedroom homes, the size depends on the family size, i.e. only two people to a room and only same sex children in a room. Homes have 1,1.5 or 2 bathrooms. In an effort to maintain affordability, the homes could be built on lots small enough to prevent additions or expansions. As a professional real estate appraiser and habitat volunteer, I can tell you that these homes are both functional and marketable. What they are not, is most profitable, as indicated by local developers’ tendencies to build mostly large and higher priced homes. As you know, the above comments are my personal opinions and I’m not speaking on behalf of the Habitat organization. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, Joseph P. Saponara” Mayor Waldorf said the proposal was moving in the right direction, but she had a couple of points to offer the Council: 1. The Council will soon adopt a policy statement saying that any developer coming before the Council with a residential development proposal involving rezoning, would need to have an affordable housing component in order to have a favorable consideration. For those proposals, this might be a more fruitful approach. 2. This proposal did not go far enough. The Council should think of reasonable density proposals, or zero lot line techniques. Council Member Foy asked the staff to bring back a report as to whether the Town foreclosed its ability to use other methods where negotiating might be possible. He said this might be a tool, but might not lead to affordability. Mr. Horton said generally the Council might be imposing some limits on itself, and this should be investigated more thoroughly. Council Member Foy asked whether it would be an option for a builder, if the lot sizes were reduced, to build smaller homes on smaller lots and larger homes on larger lots. Mr. Horton said the staff would bring a report. Council Member Strom agreed that this was moving in the right direction, and he would like to see a more Comprehensive Ordinance with several options, including size or affordability. Council Member Evans said before any action was taken, the Council would need legal direction. She asked if all the ideas could be referred to the consultant who would be helping to develop the Development Ordinance, and how these ideas could be incorporated into the Development Ordinance. Council Member Evans said there were covenants in many neighborhoods requiring houses to be of a certain size, and she said legal advice would be needed in order to ascertain whether those covenants would become invalid. Council Member Wiggins said she liked the distinction made by Mr. Dowling between affordable housing and less expensive housing, and the wording in the Ordinance might not get affordable housing, but might get less expensive housing, which was also needed. She hoped the Council would look at a number of tools, bringing in ideas from the private sector as well. Council Member Wiggins said, because of supply and demand, there was always going to be a demand for housing and the desire of people to live in Chapel Hill, and, unless the property was in the Land Trust, there would be no way to control the price of housing. Council Member Brown said she was glad that people were taking an interest in this issue, which had been an issue for many years, and she felt that there was finally something concrete. She said the goals that she and Council Member Bateman had developed were what they had been talking about this evening. Council Member Brown asked the staff what limitations they saw which prompted this particular ordinance proposal. She also asked the staff to address the density bonus and how much more encompassing the goals to be achieved would be in a more comprehensive ordinance than what had been proposed this evening by the staff. Council Member Bateman asked if Council Member Strom had any ideas about making this ordinance into a more comprehensive ordinance. Mayor Waldorf said with the rezoning the Town had a lot of latitude in granting the zoning. She asked if it were possible to give options in the ordinance that an applicant or the Council might want to employ. Mayor Waldorf said she did not agree with Council Member Evans that the Council should wait until the Development Ordinance was rewritten. Council Member Brown said she also would like to see the Council move forward. She added this issue had been discussed for a long time, and she hoped when it came back it would be a small step forward. Council Member Strom agreed that the Council should move ahead, and it would be good to have a menu of options and some incentives. Council Member Wiggins asked the staff if a plan had been proposed using the “cottage” zoning. Mr. Horton said plans were being considered near the Johnson family property. Council Member Bateman asked Council Member Brown if she wanted to go ahead with the ordinance as written, or wanted to wait for the development of a menu of options. Council Member Brown said this was what they were limited to, but she would like to see some of the other ideas incorporated in the report which the staff would bring back to the Council, and to go forward as soon as possible. Mr. Horton said this ordinance was what the Council had instructed the staff to bring to it. He said the staff would study and report other options, within the limits of the law. Mr. Horton said this could not be done in a couple of weeks, and, if the Council wished other options, it would take some time. Mr. Karpinos said the options would require another public hearing. Council Member Wiggins reminded the Council that this had been one of its goals at the Council’s retreat, to work with the private sector in providing incentives toward affordable housing as well as less expensive housing. She noted she felt it was a very important tool. Council Member Ward said he felt it was important to give the staff enough time to develop a fuller package with all the options for the Council to consider. Council Member Evans said they had not discussed some of the incentives the Council would give developers, and this needed to be investigated also. Council Member Strom said he would like to see a deadline included in a motion, preferably before the Council had its summer break. Mayor Waldorf said the Council would like the staff to come back with a more extended version of the draft Text Amendment that would outline options and incentives for encouraging housing diversity and affordability within subdivisions. Council Member Brown said it also needed to include development housing. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE MANAGER, WITH A REPORT BACK FOR THE COUNCIL BEFORE THE SUMMER BREAK.
Council Member Foy asked what was wrong with the Davis, California Ordinance, which was included in the packet on page 13, attachment C, and why the Council couldn’t use this as a model. Mr. Horton said the staff would report back. Council Member Bateman said the Council needed to get something done on this issue before its summer break. She said the Council had been talking about it for too long, and it was time to try something. Mr. Horton said he could have a report for the Council’s April 10, 2000 meeting. Council Member Brown said the people in the neighborhoods needed to know what the Council was discussing . Council Member Wiggins said there was no way that this affordability could be accomplished without density, and it would be an issue with the neighborhoods. She said it would have to be done if the Town was going to achieve this goal. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). The public hearing was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. |