SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 at 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Acting Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant to the Town Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Current Development Planner Rob Wilson, Town Clerk Joyce Smith, and Acting Clerk Toni Pendergraph.
Assistant to the Town Manager Bill Stockard presented the staff report. He said the purpose of the evening’s public hearing was to address telephone issues affecting residents who live along the eastern border of the Town, and, after the hearing, it was the recommendation of the staff that the Council refer the public comments to the Manager and Attorney for a follow-up report with recommendations. Mr. Stockard reported that some of the issues addressed at a July 5, 2000 Council meeting by a citizens’ report included: (1) varying costs to nearby telephone numbers; (2) service problems; and (3) inconsistent telephone number listings in telephone listings and directory assistance. Mr. Stockard said citizens from the Silver Creek, Oaks Villas, and Chandler’s Green neighborhoods petitioned the Town on these issues and addressed the Council at that same meeting. He displayed a map showing the boundaries and where the telephone services split the neighborhoods, pointing out the BellSouth service area and the GTE service area. He said one option could be an extended area service plan that could provide unlimited, consistent, flat-rate calling plans between the local numbers, regardless of the calling plan. Mr. Stockard said this option addressed the cost issues but not the directories listings or service problems. He recognized representatives from BellSouth: Kathy Hawkins, Scott Beyer, and Andrew Shore; and, from Verizon Steve Toler, Joe Foster, and Jack McCameron. He reported that representatives from the North Carolina Utilities Commission were not able to attend the meeting.
Stephen Greenberg, on behalf of Silver Creek neighborhood residents, noted: several discussions with the Utilities Commission; the fact that a person cannot choose either BellSouth or Verizon if he lives in the other district; the difference in the costs of placing a local call between the two; the lack of agreement between the two companies, in spite of laws to the contrary; high-speed internet service and the various costs, some very expensive; costs of telephone books for the other service areas; and Extended Area Service (EAS) doesn’t change the cost, only the Town. Mr. Greenberg said he was requesting that the residents of Silver Creek be allowed to choose BellSouth as their local carrier.
Mayor Waldorf recognized Mr. Howard Lee, State Representative from the local district, who was attending the meeting at the Council’s invitation.
Nate Gallagher, a resident of Silver Creek, cited his problems with the GTE service, first being assigned a number which was not listed in the Chapel Hill telephone directory, then later, a 408 number, which still made calls to the BellSouth service area toll calls. He said both numbers were now listed in the Chapel Hill directory, but the old one was listed first. He said, as a resident of Chapel Hill, he would prefer to be served by BellSouth.
Ed Harrison, a resident of Newton Drive, a Durham elected official, pointed out that some residents needed to make calls to both Chapel Hill and Durham, without them being toll calls. He cited letters which had been written to elected officials as far back as nine years ago, and suggested that the Council was going to have to become political about the issues, and that they should explore all of the options for the benefit of the communities.
Chris Grace, Silver Creek, cited her experiences with GTE, especially with the use of the 911 emergency service number. She said she could call Butner without charge, but could not call across the street on Weaver Dairy Road without a charge. She said she wanted to be part of the Chapel Hill community, and would prefer BellSouth service, especially since it had a better plan for her needs.
Norm Fieleke, President of the Oaks Villas Homeowners’ Association, stressed that many of the residents of the association had expressed the same frustrations as had been heard by the Council before, and asked for the Council’s help in solving the problems.
Chip Bailin, President of the Chandler’s Green Homeowners’ Association, said the residents had experienced the same problems as had been reported by others this evening—the directory listings, the toll charges for calling neighbors, inability to get high-speed area access. He added that the phone service in their area was horrendous, with outdated equipment and bad service. He asked for the Council’s help.
Robert Reda said he has five telephone lines into his house, four for business, all Durham exchanges, and one for personal use, which is a 408 number. He said many times none of the lines worked. He read from some responses from a survey sent to the neighbors, all of which had complaints about the service. Mr. Reda said his neighborhood had the same other concerns voiced this evening from other neighborhoods, and asked the Council for its help in solving the problems.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Reda for copies of the surveys, and he agreed to supply copies to the Council after deleting the signatures on them.
Linda Convissor, a resident of the White Oak neighborhood, said she had lived in the neighborhood for 21 years and the service had gotten better - she no longer worried about 911 emergency calls. She said the cost was a large issue - $15-$20 a month for the Tri-Wide service. She said she lived in Durham County, her children attended Durham schools, and her elected officials were Durham, so it was critical to her that they be in a service area without an extra toll charge, and being with BellSouth would not be a solution for her. She hoped that all the neighborhood concerns could be discussed for the best solution for all concerned.
Stephen Greenberg responded that if his neighborhood was on BellSouth it would not be a toll call to Durham or Raleigh. He refuted the line drawn on the map dividing the services and said it was more of a gerrymander.
Joe Shelton commented that the only issue he felt was a valid issue was the 911 response issue. He said it was a matter of training the dispatcher to read a map. He commented that problems with the other issues were a matter of living with them.
Council Member Foy said he thought that the citizens who spoke this evening were remarkably congenial in discussing a difficult situation, which he also has encountered in his own office, which has a Durham telephone number, although in Chapel Hill. He felt the Council should do everything it could to try to address these problems.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the telephone company representatives were going to speak or just respond to questions. The representatives said they would be there to answer any questions.
Council Member Wiggins asked the representative from Verizon what the company was doing to address the concerns of the citizens living in the neighborhoods. Steve Toler, Verizon Telephone Service, said the main purpose of his presence this evening was to listen to the concerns of their customers, and to the issues which had grown as the two communities had grown. He said they have listened and responded in different ways, one being the Tri-Wide service, and, later, the 408 number for border residents.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Toler if he had heard concerns this evening that he was unaware of. Mr. Toler said some specific customer issues he was unaware of, but, generally speaking, they were issues that had been talked about for a while, such as the way that the franchise had evolved. He said specific issues were being addressed on an individual basis.
Council Member Wiggins asked if there was a policy on the upgrade of the equipment, and how would the company deal with the problem of broken or outdated equipment. Mr. Toler said the commitment was to provide outstanding service, and the problems were addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Council Member Wiggins asked if he was aware of any plans to upgrade and to address the problems in the neighborhoods complaining this evening. Mr. Toler said he had talked with Mr. Bailin to ask him to get specific phone numbers in order to look at the issues, and also, the issues concerning the citizens of Chandler’s Green.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Toler whether GTE and BellSouth had had conversations about changing the boundary line, since the North Carolina Utilities Commission said it was up to the two companies to have an agreement. Mr. Toler said he would have to get back to Council Member Foy. He said that the two companies would be happy to look into the issue and get back to the Council.
Council Member Foy asked if Mr. Toler’s company would be prepared to get together with BellSouth about giving consent to changing the boundary lines. Mr. Toler said he could not make that commitment.
Mayor Waldorf asked if Mr. Toler would make a commitment to discuss this issue with his superiors and give the Council the answer. Mr. Toler agreed.
Council Member Wiggins asked whether the BellSouth representative would do the same. Kathy Hawkins, BellSouth representative, said she would be willing to discuss the issues and get back to the Council with a response.
Council Member Evans said those were the questions she wanted answered, also.
Council Member Bateman encouraged the representatives to take very seriously the problems heard previously, together with those heard this evening, and try to address the problems. She also asked the representatives to look at the issues of the directories and directory assistance.
Council Member Brown asked the staff to address how the legislators could be brought in to help with this problem, since it was part of the staff recommendation. Acting Town Manager Miller said they were not sure, but they were asking the right questions and they needed to get some answers. Town Attorney Karpinos said he had no comment at this time.
Mr. Stockard said the staff would take the comments and do further studies, working with the telephone companies to try to resolve some of the issues, and solicit the Utilities Commission’s approval for implementation of extended service or something similar. He stated that it was recommended that there would be legislative support for this, also.
Senator Lee stated he would lend his help in any way possible.
Council Member Wiggins asked, if there was an agreement between the two companies to change the boundaries, how long the process would take. Mr. Stockard responded he hoped that the services issues with the telephone companies could be addressed immediately. He said the issues regarding extended area services would take some time, because studies would have to be conducted.
Council Member Evans offered to bring this issue to the Triangle J Council of Governments, to put it on a list of initiatives for the future, since this was becoming a wider area issue.
Council Member Ward asked if there was anyone from the BTI service in the audience, and he hoped that the message from tonight’s meeting would get to that service personnel loud and clear, about the concerns and problems. Mr. Stockard said all the information had been sent to BTI, but they were unable to attend this evening’s meeting, and he would be sure they received the information from this evening’s meeting.
Council Member Bateman asked if the tape of the meeting when these matters had been discussed previously had been sent to BTI. Mr. Stockard said that had been done.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Stockard when he felt the report from the staff could come back to the Council. Mr. Stockard responded he hoped a progress report could be back to the Council by the end of October.
MAYOR WALDORF PROPOSED A MOTION THAT THE COUNCIL REFER THE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY FOR A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT THE COUNCIL ASK COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS TO TAKE THIS ISSUE TO THE TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND THAT THE COUNCIL REFER THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND THE PROCEEDINGS TONIGHT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN’S LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND THE DURHAM LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, AND THAT, AS PART OF THIS REFERRAL, THE COUNCIL IS ASSUMING THAT THE TOWN STAFF WILL AGGRESSIVELY FOLLOW UP ON SERVICE COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE COME TO THE COUNCIL’S ATTENTION IN THE COURSE OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Stockard to clarify what was meant by the phrase in the second paragraph on page 5 of the memo, “For example, a Meadowmont resident may still default to BellSouth telephone service as the ‘incumbent’ provider.” Mr. Stockard responded that through the Tele-Com Act of 1996, different companies can compete for local service, but the telephone companies are not required to provide service where another service is already in effect. He said that the residents in Meadowmont could request service from BellSouth.
Council Member Brown asked about the other communities. Mr. Stockard said it would depend upon where the boundary line was.
Ms. Miller said the staff would also include in their report any responses they have received when they present a progress report to the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ADOPT THE MAYOR’S PROPOSED MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that there were two applications: One for rezoning of the property, and one for a Special Use Permit (SUP). He said his presentation would cover both applications at the same time, but they were separate public hearings. He said the proposal for rezoning concerned nearly 18 acres located west of Airport Road and south of Homestead Road. Mr. Waldon displayed a chart of the existing zoning in the area and one for rezoning, adding this was a request for a conditional rezoning. Mr. Waldon said the staff report stated that there was, according to the Zoning Atlas Amendments, no evidence of manifest error, or that changed or changing conditions in this area justified the rezoning of the property. However, he stated, the staff thought there could be some arguments made on behalf of the finding that this zoning would achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Waldon stated that the memo showed that the northern portion of the site was designated for high density residential, 8-15 units per acre, and the lower portion of the site as medium density, 4-8 units per acre. He said the accompanying SUP was asking for 7-8 units per acre, noting that the area was designated as a “Development Opportunity” site in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Waldon said the proposal was for housing for students, in a medium area of density, which would achieve a number of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan by providing housing for students in a location where transit was readily accessible. He said this might help take some pressure off existing neighborhoods where students often ended up living because housing was in short supply.
Mr. Waldon said the Council had legislative power to say yes or no to the rezoning proposal. He said if the Council approved the rezoning, it would then be in a position to entertain the SUP. If denied, he said, the SUP proposal would become moot because it would not meet some of the requirements of the Development Ordinance.
Mr. Waldon turned to the SUP application, showing the area map and the existing conditions, photos from the website showing the roads entering the property, and a map showing the proposed development. He pointed out that one of the streets could become a connection to the Horace Williams property in the future.
Mr. Waldon said one of the staff recommendations was that a portion of the northern loop road be removed from the plans in order to reduce impervious surface on the site, thereby deleting a few parking spaces from the plan and preserving several significant trees on the site. He said there was some difference of opinion on this recommendation, and several advisory boards recommended that the road stay on the plan as it is.
Mr. Waldon said a second key area of differences of opinion among the advisory boards was the issue of parking. He stated the applicant proposed, and some of the boards approved, 565 parking spaces; the staff recommended removing 35 parking spaces; and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission recommended the minimum requirement of 318 parking spaces.
Mr. Waldon said stormwater management was a key issue on the site, both because of its nature and its location upstream from Lake Ellen and some very sensitive drainage areas. He said the staff was proposing some “extra special above and beyond” language for stormwater management for designing detention basins, to control for small frequent storms and, also, for a 50-year kind of storm.
Mr. Waldon highlighted the subject of pervious pavement, and said that all the recommendations from the various boards contained recommendations calling for permeable surfaces in locations where possible on the site. He said the staff’s preliminary recommendation was for approval of the rezoning, and if approved, for approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions outlined in Resolution A.
Mayor Waldorf encouraged the applicant, in making his presentation, to include both the application for rezoning and the application for the SUP together to make things more coherent and to save time.
David Stockman, Development Coordinator for the applicant, introduced Paul Slayton, architect for the plan, and Robert Walpole, engineer project manager, and said his firm had been in the multi-family business for 24 years, recently in student housing and affordable housing.
Mr. Slayton: illustrated some of the projects which the firm had developed; the map of the site; the surroundings; an aerial photo of the site; outlined the several meetings with the Boards and the staff and how the project evolved; meetings with the neighbors in the area; and the current configuration of the site. He illustrated the proposed rezoning, schematic types of the units proposed, and more meetings with the neighbors.
Gay Eddy, Planning Board Chair, said that the Planning Board had met with the neighborhood residents and there was discussion about the open space, impervious surface, the loop road, saving the trees, and parking spaces. She said the Board decided to recommend keeping the loop road and allowing the proposed number of parking spaces, with porous paving. Ms. Eddy said in the stormwater and retention basin issue, the Board recommended stormwater management for a 50-year storm. She corrected the chart on page 15, and said the Board favored having the buses come through the property, or, at least, to have a pedestrian crossing at the bus stop near the property on Airport Road. Ms. Eddy said the Board voted 9-0 in favor of the rezoning and 7-2 to recommend approval of the SUP as proposed.
Robert Reda, Vice-Chair of the Planning Board, said he wanted to re-emphasize some issues. He said the Board favored getting bus transportation through the development to encourage the use of the buses, and/or it was important that a crosswalk for pedestrians be discussed with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Mr. Reda said the difference between the Planning Board’s recommendation of adoption of Resolution B, and the staff’s recommendation of Resolution A, was primarily the northern loop road. He said that there was not much to be gained by not building that road, that there was only one tree that might be saved by not building the road, and the number of parking spaces that would go along with the road would be eliminated along with the elimination of the road. Mr. Reda added that the 50-year storm plan was favored by the Board, and they felt that a 25-year storm plan was cutting it close. He recommended adoption of Resolution B as put forth by the Planning Board, which was close to the recommendations of the Design Commission.
Paul Wilson, Secretary of the Lake Ellen Homeowners’ Association, spoke from a letter provided earlier in the day and entered into the record. He displayed a graphic of the area on Airport Road and the access roads, and pointed out that the proposed access from Chapel Ridge and Brookstone would not be safe access to Airport Road. He pointed out that pedestrians crossing Airport Road, particularly at rush hour, would be endangered because there was no pedestrian light or pedestrian safety island in the center of the road. Mr. Wilson recommended that Northfield Drive should not go through to Airport Road, but that Taylor Street, further south, should go through to Northfield Road and connect to Gritz Street.
Council Member Bateman asked for further illustration of his recommendation. Mr. Wilson said the proposed road would go through the existing gas station. Council Member Bateman suggested that it was a good idea, but impractical. Mr. Wilson said that was the only alternative, because it provided a traffic light.
Mayor Waldorf said it was hard to get traffic light approval from the NCDOT.
Council Member Strom, referring to the letter from Mr. Wilson to the Planning Board, asked him how he came to a 50-year storm plan recommendation, and how he figured that would be adequate. Mr. Wilson said the Association wanted more than a 25-year storm plan and the 50-year storm plan was a compromise.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Waldon to address the letters received by the Council about the roadway access to Airport Road, when the staff reports back to Council.
Council Member Evans asked the applicant if the student housing they had build at East Carolina University had been acceptable, and was it fully occupied. Mr. Stockman responded that phase one was in the 89% range, phase two was probably three or four buildings short of completion and of the units completed about 75% of the unit were leased, and the East Carolina University bus does go through the property.
Council Member Evans asked if the owners would allow pets. Mr. Stockman said they would not, except fish.
Council Member Evans asked if the parking requirements were going to incorporate parking for sports utility vehicles. Mr. Stockman said he would get the figures for the Council.
Council Member Evans asked if the developer would be willing to chip up the trees that would be cut down, to use on the site . She asked if the developer would be willing to use tree aprons for watering the trees, in order to try to preserve the new tree plantings from dying and thus having to be replaced. Mr. Stockman said he could not see any difficulty and the landscaper who worked for the developer was very careful about the plantings.
Council Member Bateman said she would not be satisfied unless a pedestrian crossing or a blinking light could be guaranteed at the entrance road to the project. She asked what the developer was planning to do with the open space buffer, since there were not many trees standing there. Mr. Slayton said they had visited the site recently with the Town Forester, and they found that the trees, which had been blown down, were recovering nicely.
Council Member Bateman recommended that staff monitoring of the trees during the building process be built into the application, if it were approved. She asked how the Council would know that the buffer would remain permanent, since the R-2 zoning designation remained. Mr. Slayton said the developer had agreed to whatever wording was necessary to guarantee that the buffer would remain.
Council Member Strom asked how the developer came to the conclusion that the development of student housing would take the pressure off the downtown for student rentals. Mr. Stockman said research had been undertaken about two years ago which dealt with the issues of concern in the community and with the addition of several thousand more students to the University, and the issues and concerns would only become worse. He said these concerns were much the same in other university communities.
Council Member Strom asked the staff to address the character of the community, outlined strongly in the Comprehensive Plan, and address whether the population of the development would be coming from the potential downtown renters. He asked the staff for justification of what was happening in the water shed and why a 50-year plan was being recommended, and that the water shed could handle the 18 acres with the potential point of load out of the pond becoming impervious. Council Member Strom asked if the staff had had conversations with the developer about some of the housing needs. Mr. Waldon said with all routine requests for rezoning, the staff puts forth the Council’s policies and resolutions about affordable housing. He said the applicant’s response was that the housing being proposed would be affordable to the target they were aiming at and that would be affordable.
Council Member Brown said that this issue had been discussed before, as to whether building apartments within or outside of the downtown would take the movement of converting downtown properties away from converting to rental properties. She said she had questioned the staff justification of this idea, and she wondered if the issue should be revisited in the statements in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Brown asked Mr. Waldon to address the question from Council Member Strom about the justification of the proposal that the student housing would take the pressure off the downtown student rental issues. Mr. Waldon said that the Comprehensive Plan called for multi-family housing on the site and the point the staff made about housing for students was not based on survey, but based on the staff’s observation that, if part of the pressure on single-family houses near the campus was coming from the demands for student housing, then the creation of other places, called for by the Comprehensive Plan, would lessen the demand on the single-family housing in the downtown.
Council Member Foy wondered if there was a way to write into the Special Use Permit a requirement that, if the units were ever converted to non-rental units, then at least 15% of them would be transferred at what was considered affordable housing. Mr. Waldon said his initial thought was that whatever the form, whether rental or for sale, it was not a regulatory issue in general. He said in this case the applicant could voluntarily offer restrictions on use.
Council Member Foy asked the applicant to consider his comments and to come back to the Council with a response. He commented on the parking issue, saying that the Council was asking the University to restrict parking on the campus, and if the Council approved the full parking requested by the applicant, it would appear to be hypocritical. Council Member Foy said the Council was trying to urge people to use public transportation, which would not be a choice if a student had a car parked in the parking lot. He commented that the Council was still pursuing the MX-150 zone with the University for the Horace Williams property, and that zone was based on current traffic flows, not based on future traffic flows, which would increase with so many parking spaces permitted. Council Member Foy said that 318 parking spaces would be plenty.
Council Member Ward agreed with the remarks of Council Member Foy. He asked what the developer’s previous experience was with pervious surface and what the storage space under that surface would be, if it would be extra storage space beyond the 50-year basin on the northeastern corner of the property. Council Member Ward asked the developer to go much further beyond the proposed bioretention. He also felt that the addition of 565 more cars driving on Airport Road would make it even more dangerous than it already was, especially for those making left-hand turns into the development and to gas stations, and he was very concerned with the prospect.
Council Member Evans asked the staff, if the northern loop were removed, how much less impervious surface there would be. She asked if recycling containers could be screened so as not to be unsightly, or to make recycling pick-up more frequent. Council Member Evans said other student housing along Airport Road had inadequate parking, especially on weekends, when others parked in the parking lots. She remarked that it could be a safety concern if there was not sufficient parking. Council Member Evans said if the University banned parking on campus, the students would have to take transit, but they would still have their cars. She suggested that the way to make a left-hand turn onto Airport Road was to go to Homestead Road, where there was a traffic signal.
Council Member Bateman suggested that the developers refine and define the concept of affordability, and to look at the possibility of Single-Room Occupancy (SRO). She said it needed to be addressed and she would like to see it utilized with this project.
Council Member Brown asked if there was an exit onto Homestead Road from the project. Mr. Waldon said it would be through the Brookstone neighborhood. He said any traffic coming out of the development heading south would come out on Northfield Drive, and he anticipated that the majority of the traffic would be heading south. Mr. Waldon said he would look at the traffic impact studies to determine the statistics of how many cars would be heading south or north.
Council Member Ward asked the staff and developer to look at another way to capture stormwater, which was off the roof, to use for restroom treatment.
Council Member Wiggins asked Council Member Bateman if she would like to see a redesign of the units to include one-room units. Council Member Bateman said she would like to see 15%.
Council Member Wiggins asked, then, how the one-room units would be rented to non-students.
Mayor Waldorf asked if Council Member Bateman was proposing one-room units which would be utilizing federal monies, or just units that the developer would build and rent. Council Member Bateman said she meant for the developer to develop and rent 15% of the units as one-room units.
Council Member Strom said the SRO approach was a good way for the Council to meet its 15% goal of affordability and asked the staff to discuss this with the applicant.
Council Member Foy supported the idea put forth by Council Member Bateman.
Council Member Evans asked if Council Member Bateman was asking the applicant to build a one-room unit, with a bathroom down the hall. Council Member Bateman said she meant a one-room unit which would include a kitchenette and a bathroom.
Mayor Waldorf asked the applicant if he would make a brief statement regarding the proposed conditions of approval, with regard to the material already printed, not what had been addressed during the evening.
Mr. Slayton said that the applicant would prefer that the Council adopt Resolution B with a few modifications. He said there was a typo in Resolution B, #3 Recycling Facilities; Stipulation # 34 should read “Stipulation #35.” He had questions which the applicant would discuss with the staff: Item #5 Specialty Paving, Item #6 Bus Stops, Item #11 Northern Panhandle, Item #23 Slopes in Buffer Areas, Item #29 Preservation of Southern Open Space, Item #39 Stormwater Management Plan, Item #40 Certification of Storage Capacity, and Item #43 Certificates of Occupancy.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1, DETERMINING 1,000 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CHAPEL RIDGE (2000-09-18-R-1)
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 Chapel Ridge, 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 within 1,000 feet of the site.
This the 18th day of September, 2000.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER 23, 2000, AND TO REFER IT TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 – Shaping Orange County’s Future – Provisional Report
Ellen Ironside, Co-chair of Shaping Orange County’s Future (SOCF) Task Force, said the 24-member Task Force had been working on the project for four years and they were grateful for the many comments and suggestions they had received. She said it had been a tremendous job and they felt a real sense of community achievement. She described the following:
The Project Structure:
· Adopted 15 Step Process
· 26-member appointed Task Force including Council Members Foy and Ward
· Steering Committee of elected officials, with advisor from UNC, chaired by Council Member Brown.
· Staffed by Orange County, a Joint Staff Committee, and a Facilitator from the Dispute Settlement Center
· Funding provided by three different jurisdictions.
Project Goals:
· Create a quality growth strategy for the County to the year 2030
· Develop a community building component to the strategy
Project Achievements:
· Values Statement
· Baseline Scenario—trends projected to 2030
· Shaping Orange County ‘s Future for 2030
· Citizen Committees and Reports
Provisional Report:
10 Critical Areas:
· Community Building
· Water Supply Protection
· County-Wide Planning
· Diverse Economy
· Land Use Patterns
· Affordable Housing
· Natural Areas, Farmland and Open Space
· Human Services
· Transportation
· K-12 Education
Ms. Ironside discussed the critical areas:
1. Community-Building
· Address community-building issues through ongoing dialogue between urban and rural residents
· Develop options for making the BOCC more representative of rural citizens
2. County-Wide Cooperation and Planning
· Create a countywide joint land use plan to focus 2/3 of future growth into towns and transition areas
· Create an inter-governmental “Growth Management Board:” to develop fair formulas for managing and accommodating growth. Develop growth targets/budgets based on realistic “carrying capacity” estimates
· Strategies for Growth Management:
· Zoning (including performance based)
· Water and sewer boundaries
· Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
· Voluntary Purchase of Development Rights
· Transfer of Development Rights
· Infill and redevelopment
· Incentives to build in targeted areas
3. Land Use Patterns
· In and around towns promote “compact mixed use” development
· Require a mixture of housing values, sizes and densities
· In transition areas, create “village” style development oriented towards pedestrians and public transit
Peggy Pollitzer, member of the Task Force, continued:
4. Conserve Natural Areas, Open Space, and Farmland
· Use the County’s Lands Legacy program to develop a County-wide natural areas and open space conservation plant that:
· Integrates land protection efforts to maintain a viable ecosystem, corridors critical for animal migration, critical habitats, an agricultural landscape, and outdoor recreation opportunities
· Fund efforts through a variety of means
5. Environmentally Sustainable Transportation
· Reduce the use of the private automobile
· Expand availability and use of public transportation
· Create auto-limited zones in areas of high traffic density, e.g. UNC campus
· Add bikeways and sidewalks
· Take additional measures to improve air quality:
· Promote use of low emission motor vehicles
· Institute hourly monitoring of air quality in central districts of towns
· Develop a local ozone action plan
6. Water Supply Protection and Pollution Prevention
· Guide growth away from supply watersheds
· Aggressively promote water conservation
· Develop water reclamation programs
· Promote environmentally-friendly building and site design
· Reduce solid and hazardous waste
7. Support a Diverse Economy
· Adopt criteria for supporting and recruiting businesses that support sustainability goals
· Create a public/private task force to actively support and recruit businesses that meet the criteria
· Support maintenance and start-up of businesses through a variety of means
· Make development regulations more flexible to accommodate desired businesses
8. Affordable Housing
· Encourage public and private initiatives to develop a wide range of affordable housing options
· Work with legislative delegation to pass legislation on impact taxes, inclusionary zoning, and a real estate transfer tax
· Control regulatory process to produce affordable housing
· Examine means for promoting construction of affordable housing that will remain affordable long term
· Develop a dedicated source of revenue
9. Human Services Priorities
· Ensure quality child care is available to all
· Focus health and mental health intervention on prevention, education, and treatment
· Meet the care needs of seniors
10. K-12 Education
· Enhance cooperation between the school systems and consider appropriateness of school merger
· Streamline/combine services as appropriate
· Have schools be part of multi-use community centers
The Task Force is recommending a Citizen’s Roundtable:
Purpose:
· Provide citizens from throughout the county with a place for informal discussion of ideas of concern to them and the community
· Review progress on the SOCF recommendations, make annual progress reports and any needed course corrections
Ms. Pollitzer recognized the other members of the Task Force present this evening: Norm Gustaveson, Carl Shy, Eddie Williams, and Kathy Buck.
Norm Gustaveson, member of the Task Force, thanked the Council for supporting the Task Force through the four years. He said he hoped the recommendations would be kept alive and implemented in the future. Mr. Gustaveson remarked that all the recommendations were inter-related and the report was a consensus report. He said growth projections should not be based on the past 30 years, but in the future 30 years because two-thirds of the growth would take place in the already developed areas. Mr. Gustaveson pointed out that the recommendations were a work in progress, and would be a large challenge.
Carl Shy expressed concern regarding the increase anticipated in traffic, and said the public transportation system should be augmented and expanded, such as park and ride lots and shuttle buses.
Sarah Bruce, speaking on behalf of the Village Project whose members are also members of the Sierra Club, read a statement commenting that the group wished to prevent urban sprawl by supporting traditional patterns of land use and transportation, called transit oriented or transit supportive development. She said the Group commended the environment and land use section of the Task Force Report and supported its call. Ms. Bruce said the Group was asking the Town and the Task Force to consider the North Carolina Railroad as an alternative transportation corridor to support the expected growth, and supporting recommended rural villages. She thanked the Task Force for its diligent work. Ms. Bruce gave a copy of her remarks to the Council, to be passed on to the Task Force for consideration.
Council Member Evans asked how further concerns and issues could be directed to the Task Force. Ms. Pollitzer said they should be sent to David Stancil in Orange County. She said the Task Force would continue to receive comments.
Council Member Ward said he would like the Task Force Report, the comments by the staff and the County Commissioners, be given to the consultants working on the Development Ordinance, to incorporate some of the comments into their work. He thanked the Task Force, and said it was a great learning experience for him to be part of the group.
Council Member Bateman said, as a member of the Orange County Partnership for Young Children, that the biggest impediment to providing quality day care in Orange County was to find space. She wondered if the Task Force had addressed this problem. Ms. Pollitzer said she would like to have this comment passed along to the Task Force.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE REPORT TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.