SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2001, 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, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Kevin Foy was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Senior Development Coordinator JB Culpepper, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 1 – Public Hearing: Development Ordinance Text Amendment –
Adequate Public School Facilities
Senior Development Coordinator JB Culpepper said that the Public Hearing had been scheduled for the Council to consider a Development Ordinance text amendment to create an Adequate Pubic Facilities Ordinance for the Chapel Hill portion of the schools in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools District. She said it was a regulatory tool to coordinate new residential developments with the availability of school facilities—to have growth match the availability of school facilities in accordance with the capital improvements plan for the city schools.
Ms. Culpepper said the proposed text amendment would:
· Include provisions in the Development Ordinance that require that applications for new residential development provide a Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities with the submittal. Applications requiring submittal of a Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities would include Major Subdivisions, Minor Subdivisions, Site Plan Approvals and Special Use Permits which propose residential development.
· Require that a Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities is to be requested from the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board.
· Allow a Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities to run with the land (it could not be transferred to another parcel).
· Require that a Certificate of Adequacy of Public School Facilities, once issued, shall expire unless the developer submits, and the Town accepts as complete, an application within 90 days and the developer receives the requested approval within two years of the date of the Certificate.
· Provide the Town Council with the authority to grant special exceptions.
· Provide the Town Council with the authority to review the denial of a Certificate request by the School District.
Ms. Culpepper said the staff was recommending that the Council adopt the Memorandum of Understanding and the ordinance regarding adequate public school facilities. She said that Assistant Superintendent Steve Scroggs was in the audience to answer any questions.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy reported that, while the Planning Board endorsed the objectives of the proposed agreement and the proposed ordinance, they did have a number of concerns:
· Definitions of terms.
· Projections regarding enrollment.
· Construction of future facilities and Capital Improvement.
· Issuance of certificate of developer.
· Ordinance should focus on growth management and not be an effort to stop development.
Ms. Eddy said that the Board voted 6-2 not to adopt the Memorandum of Understanding or the proposed Adequate Public Schools Facilities Ordinance until these concerns were addressed.
Michelle Ariotto read a letter signed by her and several other concerned parents, which detailed their support of the Adequate Public School Facilities Ordinance. She pointed out the overcrowding in schools, indicating that this had a negative impact on the student’s learning experience. She said there had been cuts in classes, students had to share books, and that crowding of the classrooms cut into the learning time in the schools.
Aaron Nelson, representing the University, read a Position Statement from the University that expressed concerns of how the proposed adequate public schools facilities would impact the University. He pointed out:
· That the University was committed to having adequate housing for the members of its community, including graduate students and married students.
· The adequate public school facilities ordinance would have an impact on cost and availability of housing, and for the anticipated research and medical functions.
· The Ordinance had the power to restrict or stop the construction of housing in Orange County, especially for affordable housing.
· The Ordinance would potentially increase the lengthy development process, which would be passed on to the consumers.
· The Ordinance could impact recruitment and retention of staff and faculty.
· The University would seek exemption to the Ordinance in order to address its needs.
· The University had concerns as to how the ordinance would be applied, in reference to projects never completed, but the reservation of school approval would prevent other necessary projects.
Chuck Welsh asked for a preliminary plan approval extension to be written into the Ordinance, under Article 16.7 (d). Mr. Horton said an answer to this question would come back to the Council when the issue was discussed at a future meeting, after the Public Hearing.
Council Member Evans asked the staff to bring back a recommendation that would include the pros and cons of the questions raised. She asked what would be the unintended consequences of this Ordinance.
Council Member Evans asked:
1. Documentation for the statement that this was needed due to the demand created by new development. She asked how much the increase in students in the schools was truly attributable to new development, and how much was due to existing development.
2. A definition of “rapid growth, or was this necessary, legally, to establish a nexus between new housing development and school growth, which is historically less than it was in the 60s and 70s, and this definition needed more documentation.
3. If all schools in the district need to meet the adequate level of service, and when is it projected to be true in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Schools, and when it is projected to be true in the County.
4. If the transfer of CAPS have time restrictions, and would the Manager and the Council no longer be able to issue time restrictions. She asked if this would result in requests for longer construction periods and longer periods of land being under construction.
5. Would the Town lose what it was trying to achieve in “mixed-use” developments.
6. What will the effect be on the community, if housing was pushed to the communities outside the boundaries of Town, causing increased sprawl, traffic, and higher prices for homes in the Town, higher rentals, and less affordable housing.
7. How would the income derived by the “impact fees” be replaced.
Council Member Evans asked the following questions:
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Scroggs why mobile classrooms were not part of the mix, and what their life-span was. Mr. Scroggs said there were 31 mobile classrooms, and 27 are used for regularly scheduled classes, scattered through most of the older schools, but the State did not allow them to be counted in their capacity total. He said they were used when the classrooms exceeded 100% capacity.
Council Member Ward asked for definitions on “best efforts” in Sections 6 and 7, page 6 of the memorandum, and, regarding dormitories, what did “permanent” mean. He asked if there was a way of “putting the brakes on” approval of residential development until the discussion was further developed.
Council Member Strom said he was supportive of the Ordinance, because it was very important to pace residential development to capacities in the schools. He said the wording had been crafted very carefully in order for it to stand up legally. He said he hoped that the staff recommendations would come back to the Council very quickly with a minimum of tinkering.
Council Member Wiggins said, on page 4 of the letter from County Commissioner Moses Carey’s letter, the next-to-the-last paragraph was very important, and she was glad it had been added, that school capacity would be determined by joint action of the school districts and the County Commissioners. She added that it might be well to check out other communities where this type of Ordinance was in force.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO REFER THE PROPOSAL TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
Mr. Horton said it would probably be the second meeting in April before the staff could bring back a recommendation, with all the data that had been requested.
Council Member Bateman asked when the school boards of Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Hillsborough were expected to vote on the Ordinance.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 2 – Special Use Permit Application for Eastwood Lake Project
Ms. Culpepper said the application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) had been filed by the Lake Forest Association, Inc. She said the application proposed the removal of sediment from Eastwood Lake, which is a 48-acre lake located in the Lake Forest Neighborhood between North Lakeshore and South Lakeshore Drives, and Booker Creek and Cedar Creek both flow into Eastwood Lake. Ms. Culpepper said the staff was recommending approval of revised Resolution A, which included several of the standard stipulations, as well as, several specific stipulations related to the sediment removal project. She said one specific stipulation was that a Construction Traffic Management Plan be approved by the Town Manager before the sediment could be taken out of the lakebed, and that Plan would include a Hauling Route Plan. Ms. Culpepper said in order to maintain the Town roads, the staff was recommending that the hauling route be to direct it to State-maintained public roads as quickly as possible, to avoid less use of Town roads.
John Steffens, Chair of the Lake Forest Association (LFA), introduced Don Brewer, Director of the Association and the Project Manager, Consulting Engineer Doug Jewell, and several members of the Association. He acknowledged the Council for passing a resolution for the LFA, Town Manager Cal Horton for his many hours of help, and Gayle Wilson, County Department of Solid Waste Management.
Mr. Brewer reviewed the Eastwood Lake Sediment Removal Project Application for a SUP:
· Recommendations: That the Council approve adoption of Resolution A, with the stipulations, and not add any additional stipulations.
· Definition of contiguous properties would benefit not only the adjacent neighborhoods but through the streams all the way to Lake Jordan.
· It is a different kind of project than the norm, and will be a maintenance project.
· It is being financed entirely by voluntarily contributions from members of the neighborhood community
· Four Findings.
· (1) Public Health, Safety, and Welfare will benefit in many ways,
· (2) Will be complying with the Town’s Standards and Regulations in R-1 zoning,
· (3) Property values benefited, and
· (4) Complying with the Town’s Development Ordinance.
· Nature of the Sediment is mostly eroded top soil and sub-soil, without organic materials, and test analysis were well within the range of concern for toxicity.
· Transportation of the Sediment will be done after the sedimentation has dried enough to be piled, after sitting in the drained lake for some time. The material will go to the landfill if an agreement can be worked out with the County for waste material. Selection of the truck removal route will be designated by the Town Manager.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy said that the Planning Board had voted 8-0 to approve the application for the SUP with the conditions.
Council Member Bateman asked what the timing would be for the Town bridge replacement. Mr. Horton said it was possible that there might be some conflict and the bridge may be under construction at a portion of the time that the lake sedimentation work was going on. The trucks would have an alternative route, and having both projects going on at once could not be avoided.
Council Member Ward asked if there would be a reduction of the lake surface so the lake front would have to be filled in. Mr. Brewer said if that happened, it would be insignificant.
Council Member Ward asked if there might be a conflict with the Noise Ordinance with work beginning at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Horton said he did not think there would be a conflict, but would report back to the Council.
Council Member Ward encouraged the staff to notify the schools, if the truck route was to pass by their schools. He said cushioning the roots of the white oak tree with crushed rocks was not possible. Mr. Brewer said the crushed rock would be spread to cushion the impact of the truck tires. He added that they would do everything they could to protect the tree.
Council Member Ward said the University was putting down fabric, six inches of bark mulch, and twelve-foot square pallets for the trucks to go over, and suggested that the applicant look into this.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MARCH 5, AND TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 3 – Development Ordinance Text Amendment for
Signage in Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Planning Director Roger Waldon reported on a letter from Craig Davis of Craig Davis Properties requesting a modification to the Chapel Hill Sign Ordinance in the Meadowmont Village Center in order to make additional types of signage in the Town’s Mixed Use-Residential-1 zoning district. Mr. Waldon said that the staff believed that Mr. Davis’ request should be categorized and addressed as four separate issues, and that the staff had identified two that the Town could sanction.
He reviewed the issues:
1. Content of development identification ground signs. The staff recommended allowing this with the restriction that the secondary sign be part of the anchor sign, but under the anchor sign signage and in smaller letters.
2. Design of development identification ground signs. The staff does not recommend that change, because the Ordinance had worked well in Chapel Hill.
3. Location of development identification ground signs. The staff does not recommend that change, because the Ordinance had worked well in Chapel Hill.
4. Creation of new regulations to allow banners on private light poles. The staff recommends changing the regulations, because it could be an attractive addition to this and other mixed-use developments, but should be seasonal in nature.
Mr. Waldon said the staff recommended that changes be made for numbers 1 and 4.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy corrected the recommendation from the written recommendation saying that the Planning Board’s recommendation was to allow banners in the center of the village but not in the parking lot. She said the Board voted 6-2 in favor of the changes recommended by the Manager. She said the two who voted against the resolution were opposed to any changes in the current ordinance.
Smedes York, partner in the Meadowmont Development, commented that the applicant concurred in the recommendations by the Manager and the Planning Board, especially since the Harris Teeter would be a distance from the center of the village. He said that there had been consideration of putting a theatre on the property, but it was more important that the grocery store be identified.
Council Member Evans said she supported the resolution, because the new mixed-use developments were different from the traditional developments, and the Town should encourage amenities within these villages, and should be flexible in allowing the signage in order to encourage their usage.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. York if the Harris Teeter grocery store would be a regular sized Harris Teeter, or a Harris Teeter Express. Mr. York said it would be a regular size, less than 40,000 square feet.
Council Member Bateman asked if it was the Design Commission or the Planning Board that formulated the regulations for the signs. Mr. Horton said the staff made the regulations, and the Design Commission no longer made any regulations regarding signs.
Mayor Waldorf asked if a national theatre chain moved into the village could it be listed on the sign. Mr. Horton said there was a provision written about ten years ago that would allow a movie to be noted on the principle sign for a mixed-use development and the ordinance was still in effect.
Council Member Bateman asked if the concern was to let people know there was a grocery store in the village, not to have it on the road. Mr. Horton said that was the intent of the request, but he felt that some portion of the grocery store would be visible from the road.
Council Member Strom asked that the Community Design Commission’s recommendations be clearly explained to the Council when the issue came back for consideration, because the recommendations were opposite those of the Planning Board. He said he was not comfortable that the Town should change its effective sign ordinance in this situation. Mr. Horton said the chair of the Design Commission would be invited to the meeting to explain the Commission’s report.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4 – Closing a Section of Cottage Lane Right-of-Way
Engineering Director George Small reported a petition was received to close a section of Cottage Lane right-of-way from a property owner on the lane. He said that a State law permits the Town to close this right-of-way providing a public hearing is held with prior notice to the adjacent property owners, and that the closing is not contrary to the public interest, and that no individual property owner would be deprived of a reasonable means of ingress and egress to his property. Mr. Small said there was no objection to the closing by any property owners on the land, and ownership of the property would revert to the two adjacent property owners, and would be recorded with the Registrar of Deeds as a closed segment.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Mr. Karpinos said it was permissible to reopen the Public Hearing.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHAT IS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO SET CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 500 FEET.
Council Member Ward asked if the property owners along the corridor where the sediment would be hauled should be notified. Mr. Karpinos said this was not a notification issue, but what was the applicant’s burden of proof. Mr. Horton said the notices went out to property owners within 1,000 feet of the lake.
Council Member Wiggins asked if 500 feet would include all of the Association members. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said they had already been notified.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN TO SUBSTITUTE THE MOTION, THAT CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY BE DEFINED AS PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE LAKE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
THE MAIN MOTION WAS CHANGED TO READ “CONTIGUOUS MEANS CONTIGUOUS.” THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR EASTWOOD LAKE PROJECT (2001-02-19/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 the Eastwood Lake Project, 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 contiguous to the site.
This the 19th day of February, 2001.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.