SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 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, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Recreation Planner Bill Webster, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Principle Planner Rob Wilson, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 – Ceremonies: Crop Walk Day Proclamation
Chris Moran of the Interfaith Council thanked the Town of Chapel Hill for all the years of support and partnership with the Interfaith Council. He said he was present to seek the Town’s support for CROP (Communities Reaching Out to People) Day, on April 1, 2001. Mr. Moran said that the co-sponsors of the proclamation were Carrboro, the University, and Chapel Hill. He said the Walk was to call attention to hunger and poverty throughout the world. Mr. Moran presented the Mayor and Council members with CROP WALK T-shirts.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ENDORSE THE PROCLAMATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 2 – Public Hearing (none)
Item 3 – Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3.a.1. Petition from Rebecca Carnes and Dann Carnes, owners of Fireplace Editions in Carrboro
Mayor Waldorf presented the petition on behalf of the Carnes’. The petition explains:
· They have outgrown their building in Carrboro, which is in the process of being sold.
· They wish to remain in business in Chapel Hill, but the type of space they require is extremely rare.
· They have found a rental property in the Staples building, but in order to have the required ratio of space for retail and office, a modification of the Special Use Permit would need to be obtained and the Staples business was not willing to go through the slow process of the modification just for a rental.
Mayor Waldorf said she was acting as the Carnes’ advocate, and they were petitioning the Council to make a small amendment to the Development Ordinance to give the Manager more latitude in these situations.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3.a.2. Elaine Barney
Ms. Barney presented a position paper on the University’s and the Hospital’s growth on the south and west campuses, from three neighborhood associations—Greater Westwood, Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle, and Westside. She said the neighborhoods were comprised of owner-occupied homes and rental properties, including a population comprised of young families, long-term Town residents, single professionals, and students, many of whom had close ties with the University. Ms. Barney said, as neighbors, they wished to see the University succeed in its mission to provide academic excellence to its students and remain highly competitive as an institution, yet there were many unanswered questions and much apprehension about the specific aspects of the main campus build-out. She said their concerns focused on these issues:
· Lack of impact studies
· Protection of neighborhoods
· Consolidation of Health Affairs, UNC, and Horace Williams planning
· The Town’s control of growth
· Widening of South Columbia Street
· Transit corridors
· Surface water runoff
· Air quality
· Energy consumption
· Student housing
· Impact on Chapel Hill schools
· Tree protection
These issues were outlined in the nine-page position paper, and she said the groups would be happy to meet with the Council if they had questions.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE POSITION PAPER TO THE MANAGER, THE TOWN/GOWN COMMITTEE, AND THE COUNCIL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 – Consent Agenda
James Jollis addressed the Council on Agenda Item 4b - Response to a Petition Concerning Safety Issues Related to the Lower Booker Creek Greenway. He asked the Council to carefully consider adopting the parking ordinance recommended by the Manager. He pointed out the area under consideration on a topography map, pointing out the dangerous and hazardous area, with sharp turns and steep hills, and said the neighborhoods felt it was not a safe place to have a parking area. He asked the Council to reconsider this item.
Item 4b was pulled from the Consent Agenda for later discussion by Council Member Foy.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1, WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM 4B. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2001-03-26/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Adoption of Minutes for February 5, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26, and 28. |
|
c. |
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Capital Improvements Program: Potential Gymnasium at Meadowmont Elementary School (R-3). |
|
d. |
Calling a Public Hearing to consider purchase of land for Municipal Operations Facility (R-4). |
|
e. |
Bid for Purchase of 17 Buses with option to purchase 10 Additional 35-Foot advanced design Transit Coaches (R-5). |
|
f. |
Consideration of adding Bicycle Racks on Buses (R-6). |
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD AND THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR THE MEADOWMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING NECESSARY TO CONVERT THE MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM TO A GYMNASIUM (2001-03-26/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board has requested that the Council comment on any potential need for a gymnasium for the proposed elementary school to be located in the Meadowmont development; and
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners will set the funding for the Meadowmont Elementary School;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board include a gymnasium in the Meadowmont Elementary School.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the Orange County Commissioners increase the budget for the Meadowmont Elementary School to include the funding necessary to build a gymnasium suitable for community use.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 9 TO CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF LAND USING INSTALLMENT CONTRACT FINANCING (2001-03-26/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has contracted to purchase land to be used for a municipal operations facility, including the Public Works operations; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to consider the purchase of said land using installment financing as authorized by General Statues 160A-20 and proposes to file an application with the N. C. Local Government Commission for approval of such financing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby calls a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on April 9 to receive comments from citizens concerning such financing, and hereby authorizes the publication of a notice of this public hearing 10 days prior to the hearing.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF 17 35-FOOT ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACHES (2001-03-26/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by legal notice on October 4, 2000 in accordance with G.S. 143-129 for the purchase of 17 buses with an option for 10 additional 35-foot advanced design transit coaches; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the specifications and consideration of life cycle costs; and
WHEREAS, the following bid was received and opened on December 19, 2000:
|
Nova BUS, Incorporated |
||
|
Unit Price** |
Total |
|
|
Two (2) Advanced Design Transit Coaches (with the Cummins Engine) |
$263,381 |
$ 526,762 |
|
Fifteen (15) Advanced Design Transit Coaches (with the Detroit Diesel Engine) |
$266,295 |
$3,994,425 |
|
Bid – Total |
$4,521,187 |
|
|
Resident Inspections and Highway Use Tax |
$ 50,500 |
|
|
Project Total |
$4,571,687 |
|
**Includes $2,051 delivery charge per bus
|
Option - Up to 10 Additional 35’ Advanced Design Coaches within 180 days |
$266,295 |
$2,662,950 |
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that a contract for the purchase of 17 buses in an amount of $4,521,187 be awarded to NovaBUS, Incorporated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the expenditure of $50,500 for required Bus Line Inspections and associated costs for a project total of $4,571,687.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the award of an option for up to 10 additional buses on this bid, pending agreement for service expansion among the partners and securement of local matching funds to cover the needed 10% match.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO HAVE BICYCLE RACKS INSTALLED ON THE CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT BUS FLEET AND REQUIRE BICYCLE RACKS AS PART OF THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL PUBLIC TRANSIT BUSES (2001-03-26/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has determined that the availability of bicycle racks on Chapel Hill Transit buses may increase bicycle usage in the community and promote alternative modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, Chapel Hill Transit has implemented a limited Bikes on Buses program;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to purchase and install bicycle racks on all buses within the Chapel Hill Transit bus fleet;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that those buses to be replaced in 2002 not be outfitted with bicycle racks but that the replacement vehicles and all new buses purchased be equipped with bicycle racks.
This the 26th day of March 2001.
Item 5 – Information Items
5b. Ann Hill addressed the Council on Item 5b, Response to Request regarding Springcrest Property. She said that the part of the site not cleaned up had been observed by Bill Webster early today, and he will decide what should be done with this site to clean it up. She said that on March 14, some of the neighbors had walked the property with two members of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and they had commented that it should be cleaned up before any development took place on the property. Ms. Hill said the petition had been signed by neighbors in several other neighborhoods as well.
Mr. Horton said the staff wished to defer Item 5b for further investigation.
Item 6 – Public Arts Commission Annual Report
Joan Page, Chairperson of the Public Arts Commission, gave a report on the Commission, a budget request, and a recommendation. She said the current activities included:
· Art exhibits at the Town Hall and the Town Library
· “Sculpture on the Green”—a two day sculpture exhibit held on the UNC-CH campus
· Summer Select Exhibit—approximately four to six artists will be invited and paid an honorarium to exhibit artworks at public sites in Town from April 23 to August 31, 2001
· Performing Arts Program—local high school and other musicians are being solicited for this program. A grant has been received to help fund this initiative
· Adopt A Planter
· Write grants and solicit private funds to help cover expenses
· Advise the Town Council on art related matters
· Provide administrative support for the Town’s first percent for art project, Chapel Hill Fire Station #5
· Provide venues for local artists
· Promote public appreciation and support of the arts
· Provide general information and referral services on art related matters
· Maintain a donor mailing list
· Currently setting up a 501(c)3 fundraising group
Ms. Barney said there were currently sixteen members on the Commission, who were very encouraged to hear that the Comprehensive Plan Work Group recommended that the Town develop and adopt a “Percent for Art” ordinance by December 31, 2001. She said the Commission recommended that the Town develop and adopt a “Percent for Art” ordinance and guidelines governing the manner and method of how to implement the program. An ordinance, she said, would ensure continuity, structure, public participation and funding for the program. Ms. Barney said the Commission had studied other city art ordinances and found that they all had very strong art programs. She presented the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission budget request for FY 2001-02, stating that the first fund allowed presentation of six art exhibits per year at the Town Hall, and since then the “Percent for Art” initiative has doubled. She said, in addition, they had added “Sculpture on the Green,” and the Performing Arts Series, very popular projects with both the public and the artists. She said the budget request would allow expansion of:
· Staff support from 10 hours to 25 hours per week
· Exhibits/receptions
· “Sculpture on the Green”
· Summer select exhibit awards
· Maintenance of Artworks
· Informational/Educational brochures
· Performing Arts Program
· Catalogue/document Artworks owned by the Town
Ms. Barnes thanked the Council for all its support and encouragement and the Commission hoped to make Chapel Hill one of the leading art centers in North Carolina.
Council Member Bateman thanked the Commission for all the work they had done. She said it was very uplifting.
Council Member Foy asked the Council to seriously consider a $30,000 allocation to the Public Arts Commission, because the impact of the Public Arts Commission went well beyond what the Council allocates, because of the quality of the volunteer work encompassing the Commission. He proposed that the “Percent for Arts” Ordinance be put onto an agenda for the Council to consider action.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE ITEM TO THE MANAGER FOR BUDGET CONSIDERATION.
Council Member Strom added his support for the hard work this group of citizen volunteers had performed, and he would work hard to make this budget request fit in with some of the forthcoming budget hearings, and he supported getting the “Percentage for Arts” Ordinance underway soon.
Council Member Foy asked when recommendations would be coming back to the Council, based on discussions at the Retreat. Ms. Loewenthal responded very soon.
Council Member Foy said he felt it was important to pass an ordinance to be effective beginning with the next budget, because it was linked.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7 – Recommendations for a Rental Licensing Program
Betsy Pringle, of the Rental Licensing Task Force, reviewed the background for the proposal for a Rental Licensing Program. She said it evolved as a solution to problems raised by neighborhoods at public hearings before the Council, the Historic District Commission, and the Planning Board, which generally involved trash, overcrowding, parking, and noise. Ms. Pringle said the Council authorized the Task Force last June to consider whether to establish a Rental Licensing Program, and to look at other towns and whether it was a good idea to recommend a plan for Chapel Hill. She said the Task Force included representatives and resident of the Historic Districts and the Northside neighborhood, student and administration representatives for the University, property owners and property managers, and Council Members Strom and Wiggins. Although the Task Force had a wide range of considerations, she added, they all came together in strong consensus in support of the proposal.
Ms. Pringle said there had been opportunities for public comment at the meetings. She said many landlords and renters were trying to run good properties and be good neighbors, but there still were problems. She said she believed this proposal would help all concerned, would enhance the existing Housing Code, and address several community issues in the Comprehensive Plan.
Lee Conner, member of the Task Force, thanked Council Members Strom and Wiggins for their leadership, and all the members of the Task Force for their hard work in accomplishing the proposal. He said the proposal boiled down to “accountability” and “communication,” which would not solve all the problems, but made significant positive steps in the right direction. Mr. Conner stated that the five recommendations by the Task Force were:
· Applicability—the Town of Chapel Hill should require the annual licensing of all persons meeting the Housing Code definition of “operator” and/or “owner/operator” who lease for consideration any dwelling, dwelling unit, and/or rooming house.
· Amendment to Housing Code—the Council amend the Housing Code as proposed in Attachment 3, page 8, in order to establish a Rental Licensing Ordinance.
· Creation of a database—which would increase the duties of the Building Inspector to include maintenance of a database for all properties that upon inspection do not meet the Town’s Minimum Housing Code, and to keep an electronic database record of all licensed rental units to include all information obtained from the rental licensing applications. Mr. Conner noted item c. under Article II of the proposed additions. He pointed out the form that would be used to keep the data, page 11, which could be accessed by anyone needing to reach a property manager.
· Application Form and Rental Duties Information Sheet—page 9, Article II, Section 9-17, item b. The application fee for the operator and/or owner/operator of these dwellings, dwelling units or rooming units to obtain a license is to be determined, and should be as low as possible to cover the costs of the program. This proposal does not ask for mandatory inspections, but the landlord has to sign a yearly Rental Duties Information Sheet form asserting that his/her property meets the Housing Code.
· Evaluation—the Task Force should reconvene every three years to evaluate the program.
· Appendix—issues that could not or should not be addressed in the proposed Rental Licensing Ordinance:
· Parking Issues—needed to be a public discourse.
· Creation of a Violations Database—monitor properties that are not in compliance with the Minimum Housing Code.
· Upkeep of Front Porches—would be referred to the Council to do as it sees fit.
· Occupancy Restrictions—not appropriate within this proposal, but would recommend it to the Council.
Ms. Pringle read a petition from the Task Force regarding the issue of parking, saying that amendments to the Town’s Housing Code did not form the appropriate vehicle, and the best method would be to apply Town-wide or all near-to-campus neighborhoods, the parking restrictions that exist in the Historic District.
Council Member Wiggins thanked the members of the Task Force and Council Member Strom, and, particularly, Loryn Barnes of the Planning Staff, Attorney Ralph Karpinos Darrell Wall of the Inspections Department, Police Chief Jarvies, other staff members, and Attorney Dorothy Bernholtz.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT THE PARKING PETITION BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO THE MANAGER.
Council Member Ward said many of the older neighborhoods that had properties being converted into rental properties were experiencing the parking problem, and he would prefer the petition include Town-wide parking restrictions.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Strom said it was a diverse group of citizens and Town staff who gave their time to moving a rich and controversial issue forward. He said the proposal was complaint-driven focusing on good information, and an efficient approach to a festering problem.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PROPOSAL TO THE MANAGER, FOR THE STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
Council Member Evans said one issue was the cost for staff work for this proposal. She asked if a one- or two-unit rental property in an owner-occupied home be included in the licensing.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the database could be abused and used in a destructive way. She asked how many of the issues could be addressed by enforcing the Housing Code or additions to it. Council Member Evans said that 50% of the dwelling units in Chapel Hill were rental units and asked if the Task Force had looked at that factor as well as the rental licensing issue. She asked if the licensing could be done every five years, rather than on an annual basis, since many of the units were rented on a yearly basis. She added that the application on page 10 did not appear to cover people who rented out a room with kitchen privileges.
Council Member Bateman asked how an owner would be notified to fill out an application for a license form initially.
Council Member Strom said it would be a Town Ordinance and it would take a considerable education effort, especially to educate renters, and the staff would need to address this issue when the proposal came back to the Council.
Council Member Wiggins addressed some of the questions asked by Council Member Evans:
· Cost of the program—the plan was that the fee would cover the program, which would determine what the fee would be.
· The program would give students protection against some of the owner-occupied dwellings, where there were many problems.
· The database—improving technologies for plugging the data.
· Violations—a single complaint would not put a landlord on the list, and only after the person had been notified and an inspection determined that the complaint was valid and a certain length of time was given to correct the problem.
· All of the information was public information.
· The Committee would want to reconvene in three years to evaluate the program.
Council Member Ward asked what kind of teeth the penalty has or would have. Mr. Karpinos said that would be developed in the staff report, but it was the feeling of the Committee that if a person did not have a license required by the ordinance, then that would be a violation of the ordinance and would be a misdemeanor. He said as part of the education process it would be to get a permit in order to have a license rental property.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7.1 – Draft Response to University Regarding Development Issues
Mayor Waldorf briefly discussed the background to the discussion of the issues between the University and the Town of Chapel Hill. She said the proposed response being discussed this evening was in response to Chancellor Moeser’s letter of March 7, 2001. She said starting last fall the Town and the University had agreed to have discussions regarding an array of Town/Gown issues, chiefly the University Master Plan and the University growth in general, and how and whether Town Development Ordinances might be adjusted to deal with the growth.
Mayor Waldorf said that she and the Chancellor have created a committee, which has met twice, and will meet again soon. She said that she, the Manager, the Director of Planning, the Town Attorney, and the Town Committee had worked hard to prepare a response to the Chancellor’s letter, and she hoped that the Council would endorse the response they had developed, and permit her to submit it to the University. She said the issues were large and complex, and many people were concerned. Mayor Waldorf added that Council Members Foy, Pavăo, and Strom were members of the Committee, and she believed that it was important that the Town be responsive, and to recognize that the University had support for development projects given by the Bond Issue, which must be executed within a certain range of time. She said the Committee had tried to focus on these proposals, recognizing that there was a time frame to be met.
Mayor Waldorf emphasized that the proposals being discussed were part of the negotiating process, and the Town could not amend the Development Ordinance without public hearings and public comment, and a recommendation from the Planning Board. Mayor Waldorf emphasized that there was a definite linkage between an amendment to the Development Ordinance and a new paradigm for cost sharing. She pointed out that there were two requests from the University that the proposals addressed but did not directly respond to:
· A modification to the Smith Center Special Use Permit (SUP), which can only be amended by proper process, and the University needed to apply for a modification to the SUP and to present evidence to be weighed, pro and con.
· A second access road off of Highway 15-501, which the proposals do not address. To build a new road in the State there must be an agreement between the NCDOT and the local jurisdiction (a town or county). Decisions to build new roads must be based on traffic data and good information. Information from the University regarding traffic data has been received, but it has not yet been evaluated.
Mr. Horton said the staff had prepared a list of over 30 specific requests to be presented to the University, because the size of the proposals for the development on the main campus and the Horace Williams Tract made it imperative that a new agreement be reached between the Town and the University to fairly address the costs and mitigate the adverse impact that would come with this development. He said the University had to recognize and address problems and costs imposed on the community by its present operations. He said that some of the measures would have long-term affects; others were details of community life. He said there has been a long history of some funding from the University, starting back to the 1920s, when the University paid half the costs of the fire truck, to the present, when the University helped the Town buy a fire truck. Mr. Horton said the State and the University make an appropriation of $850,000 each year to pay for fire protection services. He added that the State and University provide services such as refuse collection and on-campus police service, and charge the Town $1.00 per year for the location of the Town’s Public Works and Transit facilities on the Horace Williams site.
Mr. Horton detailed some of the Town requests of the University:
· That the University pay the costs of off-sites infrastructure improvements, principally necessitated by development on the University campus.
· Cause any private development or commercial operation on any part of the campus to pay taxes customarily paid for the support of the local government and schools, as it would occur in the development of private property, or to pay an equivalent amount in lieu of taxes.
· Adopt a schedule to restore off-campus properties to the tax base with the sale of these properties.
· Join with the Town and cooperate in the development of employer/employee housing on suitable University or Town land.
· Earmark funds, through the University’s Endowment campaign, for development of additional affordable housing.
· The University construct 1,000 additional units for student housing on all the campuses, in addition to the number of units needed to provide for a bed for every additional undergraduate head.
· Extend the lease at the Horace Williams Tract for an additional ten years to give the Town adequate time for planning and funding of a replacement location for the Public Works facility and the Transit facility.
· Provide sites for construction of an elementary and middle school on the Horace Williams Tract or at other University properties.
· Pay its fair share of fire protection based on the value of University properties as a proportion of the total values of all properties within the Town limits, based on year-to-year evaluation.
· Pay the net local costs of present and future transit services provided principally for the transport of University students, faculty, staff, and visitors, to and from park and ride lots to the campus and to and from other University facilities.
· Pay the local share of costs for development and maintenance of local park and ride facilities.
· Join with the Town in creation of a Stormwater Management Utility and agree to pay its own way in the participation in it, as would a private developer.
· Provide refuse collection service, maintenance of on-campus streets, and portions of the traffic signal system on campus.
· Provide for the cost and some help for basketball victory celebrations. Mr. Horton noted that the Town welcomed the openness of Chancellor Moeser and Vice Chancellor Suttenfield in helping with these celebrations.
· Issues remain for football games, parking meter controls, on-street parking regulations, storage of student cars, regulations of student vehicles, and hotel/motel occupancy taxes.
Mr. Horton said that all of these proposals could make a very substantial difference in making the community able to withstand the difficulties that will come from additional development and mitigate the problems that will come with it.
Mr. Waldon said that the current Office-Institutional-3 (OI-3) placed a cap on development on the University’s main campus that would not permit construction of the facilities that the University has proposed to build over the next 7-10 years. He said that what the Town was proposing would not simply lift the floor-area ratio, but create a new zoning district named OI-4.
Mr. Waldon said it was suggested that there be a development plan that the University would propose to the Town Council, and, if approved, would set up a context so that the University would not need to obtain any further Town approval for development of individual buildings contemplated in the development plan, as long as they were in the interior of the campus. He said the proposal suggested a perimeter area, 200 feet around the campus where the campus abuts residential zones, where there would be building-by-building review by the Planning Board. Mr. Waldon added that areas for development outside of the coverage of the development plan would be subject to the normal SUP planning process and would occur building by building. He said that if the Town Council approved the areas covered by the proposal, no further Town approvals would be needed.
Dan Coleman said he had three points to comment upon:
· Why the urgency for the proposal? The timing should take into consideration the importance of the Council and the Town being able to digest the proposal.
· How standards for zoning are adopted and handled. A lot can happen in five years. Standards need a periodic and consequential review, performance standards as well as the standards themselves.
· The perimeter sub-zone should not only be reviewed by the Planning Board, but by the Council, which is sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhoods.
Claire Horne, resident of the Westwood neighborhood, asked the Council to consider delaying endorsement of the Mayor’s draft response to the University regarding development issues. She said there were good points in the Mayor’s response, but there were questions raised regarding the nature of the agreement that would be reached on the University’s development plan. She said she and her neighbors would like to have more time to review the proposals.
Diana Steele, who has lived and operated a pre-school on the southern edge of the UNC central campus for 31 years, said that there were many things about the University’s Master Plan to be admired. She wondered how much the student increase had to be at the main campus; would the growth be proportional throughout the UNC system; was the fact that the Chapel Hill campus received more money from student tuition the reason for the proposed growth; and, what has happened to the concept of education as opposed to more research, which is a money maker. Ms. Steele said she was hoping that the Town/Gown meetings would offer a forum where the University and the Town could reconcile some of the problems, but was disappointed that upcoming Town/Gown meeting was cancelled. She added that she was pleased to see the draft response addressing the disconnection between UNC’s request to wipe out the Mason Farm Road neighborhood buffer and the plans to build new housing on Beatty Hill. She urged the Mayor and the Council to continue to insist on the existing and future neighborhood buffers.
Joe Capowski, former Council Member and UNC neighborhood resident, urged that the neighbors be allowed to have more time to study the documents. He asked for a delay of two weeks so that the media would be able to cover the issues and people could react. Mr. Capowski said the neighborhood would bear the burden of the increased traffic, and they would like to have time to study the traffic analyses. He said decisions could not be reached without full knowledge of the data. Mr. Capowski said he was in full agreement with the fiscal impacts outlined in Mr. Horton’s discussion. He said the Town needed to know the impact of the growth before making a decision. Mr. Capowski suggested that it was important to separate hospital patients and visitors from employees with regard to traffic analyses.
Mr. Capowski noted that there were three growth projects: the University main campus, the Horace Williams tract growth, and the hospital’s growth, and they should all be considered cumulatively. He asked if the University would need to expand for energy needs; and, what would be the quantitative impacts on the school system. Mr. Capowski said he could not understand the University’s plans to purchase homes near the campus and yet attempt to protect the neighborhoods.
Mr. Capowski said the OI-3 zoning had failed along South Columbia Street. He asked what the transition zone would mean to the neighborhoods, and said the proposed 200-foot transition zone should recognize topography. Mr. Capowski said, generally, the proposal was very good, with the proviso that agreement could be reached on matters dealing with community impacts and fiscal issues related to growth. He urged the Council to give the citizens more time to study the data and to remember that it represented the citizens in Chapel Hill.
Ruby Sinreich stated that to a large degree she agreed with the Mayor’s response, but she disagreed with the assumption that the campus must grow. She said there was room on other campuses for growth. Ms. Sinreich said she was not really sure that the University‘s planners were operating in good faith, especially the inconsistencies with the Horace Williams tract plans. She said none of the Chancellor’s requests would benefit the Town community, and urged the Council to take time and give the citizens time to study the proposal.
Julie McClintock, a former Council member, thanked the Council for its good effort and for representing the interests of Chapel Hill. She said this was the most difficult challenge which the Council had faced. Ms. McClintock said the University plans affected all parts of the Town, and it was in danger of losing its good quality of life. She cited environmental issues and the air quality as being affected, that schools will be overcrowded, and the neighborhoods will be affected as well.
Ms. McClintock said that the University’s mission had evolved from education to collaboration with business. She said this expansion was not based on an increase in students. Ms. McClintock said the Council had been very collaborative with the University over the past several years, but had not received very much in return. She agreed that the trust factor was in question. Ms. McClintock urged the Council to get the facts, and develop the measures to mitigate the impacts, which must be done collaboratively with the University. She said the Town needed to stick with the measures.
Jonathan Howes, representing the University, commended Mr. Horton and his staff for pulling together the list of issues that could be addressed as part of the process in moving forward. He said the Town/Gown committee seemed to be the right venue for addressing these issues, and in strategic terms. Mr. Howes said he regretted the cancellation of the meeting planned for Thursday, and the University would make every effort to reschedule the meeting very soon.
Leah Cole, fourth-year graduate student at the University, said she worked on the south side of the campus and had to cross a four-lane highway every day in order to get to the library. She said that the Master Plan was a way to correct the mistake that was made in the design of the south campus. Ms. Cole said that although she sympathized with the people who were afraid to lose their property, a person’s life was more important, since the road was a danger to cross, and a student had been killed on this road.
Council Member Foy said he appreciated the comments made by those in attendance, and said that the Mayor’s response to the Chancellor’s letter was that it be done in a timely fashion. He said that the Mayor’s response reiterated the Town’s primary and unique responsibility in the discussion to represent the interest of citizens, and the document stated that the Town was not backing off from its regulatory authority.
Council Member Foy said what the Mayor had suggested was a way to mitigate the impacts of growth, and that the document was conservative, by permitting growth in a slow way. He said the document would permit 2 million square feet, and the Town would have significant input as to how it would get down. He said the document pointed out that south campus was not an isolated place, but part of the Town of Chapel Hill, along with Horace Williams and Mason Farm Road, and what happened on south campus had an impact on the Town just as the other campus areas. Council Member Foy said he felt the document was very progressive in regards to how the Town and University could work together.
Council Member Brown said there were some very excellent parts to the document, and noted the fiscal equity comments, adding that the Mayor and Council committee members had done excellent work. She said she had concerns about the process, since the Council had not received notification until Friday, and many of the citizens did not have notification. Council Member Brown said she did not understand the sense of urgency, especially the proposed new zoning ordinance, and she hoped that the Council would listen to the citizens who had asked for a delay, and postpone any decision at least until the Council’s next meeting to give the Council and the staff a chance to examine the transportation information.
Council Member Brown said she agreed that the Council should go forward in a thoughtful and considered way in dealing with the needs of the University, and also with the Town’s and citizens’ needs, without pitting the needs of one against the other. She said the Council needed to consider the urgency related to the bond issue, and that some buildings in the first phase of the Master Plan implementation were not covered by the bond issue, such as the student housing on Beatty Hill.
Council Member Ward asked about the construction planned over the next ten years. Mr. Waldon replied that the staff had looked at a chart provided by the University to outline the 7-10-year building program and the construction needs. He said when he was figuring the floor ratios, it was to determine what would be allowed in those buildings to be constructed.
Council Member Ward asked how this dealt with the non-bond-funded projects that needed to be done in a timely fashion. Mr. Horton said the list on page 34 of the materials was the list of all projects that the University would expect to be built within this time period. He said it included student housing and some parking facilities funded in a self-liquidating program financing. Mr. Horton noted they were not all bond projects, but projects the University wished to have built within this time period.
Council Member Ward asked what areas the regulations applied to. Mr. Waldon said the assumption was to look at just the main campus as being the most urgently needed. He said other areas would have a mix of these regulations.
Council Member Strom agreed with much of what was said by Council Member Foy, adding that he was comfortable with holding off the decision until the next meeting, in order to make a strong and Town-oriented response to the University. He pointed out that what the Council was asking for was a specific development plan that would take all of the guess work out of the development, and would address the main concerns put on the table. Council Member Strom said that only after agreement was made on quantity, location, form, and infrastructure mitigation of negative impacts, would the Town be obliged to enter into the OI-4 zoning agreement. He agreed with the comments that Council review after Planning Board review was very important, and he would like to use the next two weeks to discuss this. Council Member Strom said the standards were very important, and he was comfortable with fine tuning the document and proceeding from this point.
Council Member Bateman asked about the chart on page 34, and asked if the numbers under floor area were equivalent to square footages, and if so, would everything on the chart come before the Council because they were over 20,000 square feet. Mr. Horton said under what was proposed the Council would consider a development project that included all of the projects.
Council Member Brown asked for an explanation of the words “negotiation” and “decision” as the Council went through the process, and how to involve the whole Council and how the public would be involved.
Mayor Waldorf said the cover memo stated that putting before a proposal for a new zoning category was just a proposal, and the Town was engaged in discussions through the Town/Gown committee. She said that what she had hoped for was that the Council would allow the committee to go forward with the proposal. Mayor Waldorf said the Zoning Ordinance could not be amended or added to without an official public hearing.
Council Member Brown said she felt that this proposal needed some added work. In the section of the Highlights, she asked what sort of mechanism would be put into place to indicate all of the natural systems and the public facilities were able to sustain the impacts of the University’s growth. She felt this should be incorporated in the proposals and she would like the Council to consider this when it discussed it again.
Council Member Brown asked how the proposed OI-4 would be different from the current OI-3 to guarantee that the adjacent neighborhoods would not be adversely affected. She said that the present OI-3 has not necessarily protected the adjacent neighborhoods. Council Member Brown asked the Council to think of what its perimeter was, with the University, and what would prevent violation in the future. Council Member Brown asked how the standards in exempting student housing would be different.
Council Member Foy responded that the Town wanted the University to build more student housing on campus for undergraduates, graduate student, faculty and staff, and it wanted to give the University the incentive so it would not count against the current cap. He said this would accommodate the additional people expected with the construction of new buildings, so there would not have to be an additional parking deck at the Friday Center for people coming in to the University from outside of Chapel Hill.
Council Member Brown said she felt that the impacts of these buildings needed to be counted as well.
Council Member Strom responded to Council Member Brown’s question of what was the difference between OI-3 and OI-4, and said there was a significant difference in that OI-4 would contain a specific development plan that would give the Town the chance to take out any uncertainty of the scale, form, scopes and locations of the specific buildings and have a chance to deal system-wide with the stormwater and other impacts and conflicts with neighborhoods. He said OI-3 did not do that, and OI-4 gave the Town the chance to meet the University halfway. Council Member Strom said a specific plan would come before the Council and the public, and the Council had not had this opportunity in the past.
Council Member Brown said she still thought that her questions and concerns were legitimate and valid.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that the Mayor’s response made it very clear that the committee was advisory and not decision-making, and whatever the committee decided upon would have to come back to the Council for approval. He said there had to be something put on the table for discussion, and that Council Member Brown’s comments were valid and would be taken into consideration.
Council Member Brown pointed out that the Council did agree to a list of issues that had been put forth to the University, but there had not yet been a response. She said fiscal equity needed to be put forth for negotiation.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT THE PROPOSAL BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said the list was out there and the Council continued to request additional information. He said the Council committee had received response to the list and continued to make more requests.
Council Member Brown asked how the Council could make a development plan without knowing what the extent of that development was going to be, and without knowing what the impacts on the Town were going to be.
Council Member Evans said she was not on the committee, but the document drawn up by the Mayor was an effort to make the Council involved in what the issues were as part of the negotiations. She asked if the committee did not have a start to negotiations, how could it go into negotiations. Council Member Evans said there would probably be other issues that the negotiating team would add to the list as ideas evolved. She said the response was a great starting place, and the agreement would come later.
Council Member Foy said in order to go forward with negotiation with the University there had to be a place from which to go forward, and the University could reject the requests, just as the Town had rejected one of the University’s—not to remove the floor-area ratio, and not to relinquish regulatory control. He said the Mayor’s response was trying to establish a framework, not an attempt to answer all of Council Member Brown’s questions. Council Member Foy said it did not have to be fully formed yet, and would probably come back to the Council from the University to be reshaped. He felt the Council needed to settle on the broad outlines that all could live with.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the Mayor had any idea when the meeting of the Town/Gown committee would be rescheduled. Mayor Waldorf said there was not a definite date for a rescheduled meeting, but may be rescheduled for the week after next. She said she was disappointed that the meeting for March 29 had been cancelled, because the staff and Council members had worked very hard to have a response for the Chancellor, approved by the Council this evening, because of the sense of urgency that the University seemed to have.
Council Member Wiggins asked if there was time on next week’s meeting agenda to continue the discussion. She wondered if there would be time for more comments before the next Town/Gown meeting.
Mayor Waldorf said other comments were welcome, but she asked how exhaustive did the process need to be before the Council could go forward with a proposal for the committee to work on for discussion.
Council Member Ward said he thought it was important that the process be perceived as having had adequate Council and citizen input, and he felt that there was not that perception at this point. He felt that the Town/Gown meeting would have to take place some time after the Council’s April 9, 2001 meeting, in order to give people adequate opportunity for discussion.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD SECONDED COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN’S MOTION.
Council Member Brown said she believed that the process should go forward, but there should be time for citizens to read and comment on the documents. She said she was very impressed by the three-neighborhood document and hoped that Council members would read the document carefully and consider it.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN ADDED TO HER MOTION THAT CITIZENS COMMENTS BE INCORPORATED IN THE DISCUSSION AT THE APRIL 9th COUNCIL MEETING. COUNCIL MEMBER WARD AGREED.
Council Member Evans asked if any comments from citizens would be discussed. Council Member Brown said all citizen comments should be heard.
Council Member Ward added that consideration should be given to any comments, written or oral, received this evening, as well as any received between this evening’s meeting and April 9.
Mayor Waldorf again reiterated that the response was only a proposal and not final, but just for discussion.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7.2 – Discussion of University’s Proposed Development Plan
at the Horace Williams Tract
Dan Coleman said he was part of the committee that developed the MX-150 zone, and his premise of the process was that the major growth of the University was going to take place at the Horace Williams tract. He said that the University Master Plan and the discussion in the previous agenda item really radically changed that and changed the assumptions underlying the MX-150 zone and the previous discussions of what the scale of development at Horace Williams might be. Mr. Coleman said he hoped the Council would take that into account. He said it was telling that the University opposed the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and wondered how much the University intended to take leadership on this concern. He added that there needed to be some consideration of the whole question of limits from the prospective of the Town. Mr. Coleman said the University’s plans should be looked at holistically and the total impact of them. He expressed concerned about the increase of traffic between the two campuses. Mr. Coleman suggested that the Council look at the increased volume of traffic, with the development of this tract, as a public health question, beyond other important questions concerning the issue of traffic.
Jonathan Howes reminded the Council that the presentation the University presented to the Council in February was a work in progress, and there was no actual plan for the Horace Williams tract yet. He said there had been several other presentations made and planned, to the towns, the County, the neighborhoods, and other groups. Mr. Howes said a final presentation to the Board of Trustees of the University had not yet been scheduled, and said there was a long way to go in the planning.
Council Member Strom said, although he realized that the Plan was a work in progress, he felt it was good for the Council to see it and to have discussions on it. He had several points of concern for the Town:
· The plans for Horace Williams tract have to be tied to the plans for the main campus, and there is a specific linkage between the two. He said he sees some give and take between the square footage between the sites.
· The open space is being dangled as a carrot, and the Council needs to determine how to permanently preserve that open space, and not allow it to be space for potential development in future years.
· The policies for the airport need to be laid out front and center on the table.
· A transit corridor calls for a careful, Town-wide traffic impact analysis.
· Need to define what is sustainable, what the impact of 8 million square feet of development is in terms of environmental, stormwater, air quality, traffic trips, schools, and other impacts.
· Question of what this would do to the discharge permit at the OWASA plant.
· How this could be a binding document which could withstand any reluctance to proceed with it.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that what the Council might want to do was to have the staff bring back what might be called a draft statement of interest and questions for the Council to look at.
Council Member Foy stated that it was important to say what the Council did like about the plans, and there did seem to be a big concern about open space, and the compact way the University was planning to use the 1,000 acres at the Horace Williams tract. He said the Town and the school system would be getting the equivalent tax revenues from the private businesses. Council Member Foy said there was a limit to what the Town could sustain and remain a town that would be recognizable to any of the community, and the Town had to figure out what that would be. He added that the Town needed to look at the development of the campus holistically, combining the two separate campuses as one, with the possibility of transferring some of the proposals for growth at Horace Williams to the main campus.
Council Member Bateman agreed with Council Members Strom and Foy, adding that the growth in the campus should be considered in tandem. She said she wanted the issue of schools to be a major factor in the discussions. Council Member Bateman said she hoped that the Town’s request for extension for ten years of the rent on the property it leased from the University could be extended very quickly, since the Horace Williams tract plan would not ready for presentation for some time.
Council Member Brown said the point she had made was what sort of mechanism would be put into place to indicate where all of the Town’s natural systems and its public facilities were unable to sustain the impacts of the University’s growth. She said that fiscal equity was only one measure. Council Member Brown said all of the University’s growth should to be considered comprehensively.
Council Member Ward asked for clarity on the status of groundwater contamination from the abandoned landfill. He asked how the Town would, if at some point in the future the airport were relocated, have the ability to absorb use of that property for development. Council Member Ward said he would get some data of standards from Washington State to the staff to see how that would overlay with safety plans for airports and general aviation.
Mayor Waldorf said the buildings on the plan seemed very close to the airport and she agreed that there should be a set of standards. She said it was necessary to reiterate the Town’s policy with regard to the airport, that there not be any increase in level or type of use. Mayor Waldorf said she would like to revisit the MX-150 zoning requirements to see if that would be a good way to approach the plan. She said the Town should have the number of employees projected in the plans, how they will get to their jobs and where they would live—how many car trips, and how many parking spaces.
Council Member Evans agreed, but asked if it was even remotely possible that the development of the Horace Williams tract would create the numbers of employees already at the University and the Hospital. She said she did not think so.
Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Karpinos to comment on what extent agreements by the Town and the University made at the present time would be commitments for future chancellors and Boards of Trustees. Mr. Karpinos responded that one of the proposals discussed concerning the MX-150 zoning and the Horace Williams tract was a legislative action that would have authorized certain things that were not now authorized under the law. He said he would prepare a more detailed answer to Council Member Wiggins’ question.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO THE MANAGER, WITH A REQUEST TO RETURN TO THE COUNCIL WITH A DRAFT STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS AND INTERESTS.
Council Member Foy asked what floor area would be permitted under the MX-150 zoning.
Council Member Wiggins said when the University made its presentation it was asked to report back to the Council on the status of the chemicals located at the Horace Williams site. She said she did not think it should take so long to receive a response. Mr. Howes responded that the University would address that as soon as possible.
Council Member Bateman said she would like to review the minutes of the previous University presentation meeting to review the questions asked by a citizen, for which he had still received no response. She said those questions could be included in the comments the staff would be drafting.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 8 – Development Ordinance Text Amendment:
Signage in Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
Principle Planner Rob Wilson said that, after the Council received a petition from the developers of Meadowmont for a change in the sign regulations in February, a Public Hearing was held. He said the memo contained three ordinance choices and the Manager’s recommendation was Ordinance A.
Smedes York, of York Properties, said that the applicant was satisfied with the Manager’s recommendation and made three points: that it was important that the Main Street anchor tenant have some identification; they are not asking for an increase in the size of the sign; and, if the anchor tenant were a theatre, that a super market better served the community.
Weezie Oldenburg, Chair of the Design Commission, reported that on February 7, 2001, the Community Design Commission voted 7-1 for the adoption of Ordinance C, which would make no changes to the development identification signs permitted in Mixed Use zoning districts, but would allow seasonal banners in parking lots in Mixed Use zoning districts.
Council Member Evans asked if the history of the changes in sign regulations had been taken into consideration by the Commission. Ms. Oldenburg said the history had not been discussed, but there had been several recommendations, which had evolved into recommendation of an Ordinance C. She said there was discussion of the fact that the development was off the main thoroughfare and the addition of the tenant’s name on the development sign, since it was off the beaten path, but there was overwhelming objection to having the tenant’s name on the development sign.
Stephen Manton, member of the Community Design Commission and a local realtor, said the worst thing the Town could do would be to change the sign ordinance to accommodate tenants in areas of mixed use. He felt that most of the prospective customers of the businesses would be from within the area of the development itself. He supported the use of banners.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE C.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked if there was any road sign proposed for the road where the sign was being proposed. Mr. Wilson said the staff had received and was in the process of reviewing the application for the main Meadowmont identification sign, at the intersection of Highway 54 and Meadowmont Lane, which would have the name “Meadowmont” embedded in a stone wall. He noted that this sign was included in the infrastructure permit, within the bounds of the SUP.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked how this would be applied if an ordinance was changed to accommodate the applicant.
Mayor Waldorf asked where the particular sign under discussion would be located. Mr. Wilson said the petitioner was requesting changes to the signs along Meadowmont Lane at the entrances to the Meadowmont Village Center development, which are separate from the “Meadowmont” identification sign as part of the infrastructure permit.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said the sign would then be inside of the development and not on the highway. Mr. Wilson said that was correct and that Ordinance C would not permit this. He said that Ordinance A would permit signs within the development at the Meadowmont Village Center, but not on Highway 54.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo requested a visual to indicate exactly where the sign would be that was under discussion. Mr. Wilson pointed out where the three signs would be placed along the main entrances to the Meadowmont Village Center on Meadowmont Lane. He said that Ordinance B would also permit a sign, on Meadowmont property, but nearer to the highway and not at a principle place of access, which was what the applicant was requesting. Mr. Wilson pointed out the sign locations that would be permitted with the adoption of Ordinance A.
Council Member Ward asked whether a sign would be permitted on Barbee Chapel Road. Mr. Wilson said the applicant had not requested such a sign, but that would be permitted under an existing ordinance.
Council Member Wiggins asked why this type of sign, indicating tenants, would be allowed on a major thoroughfare such as Airport Road, but not in an area inside of a development. Mr. Wilson said the Midtown Market Development on Airport Road was located in a community commercial zoning district that was handled by a separate portion of the development ordinance.
Council Member Wiggins said she didn’t understand the difference. Mr. Horton indicated that he did not believe there was a difference.
Council Member Bateman said she did not think the request was outlandish, and that she would not support the motion. She said she felt the request was reasonable.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo agreed that it was a minimal request, and asked, since those signs were permitted, could the words “Meadowmont” be dropped and only the words “Harris Teeter” be used. Mr. Wilson said the ordinance presently requires that the name of the development be placed on the ground sign. Mr. Horton said that the option would be for the developer to call the place where the Harris Teeter will be built the “Harris Teeter Center.” Mayor pro tem Pavăo said he could not then support the motion on the floor.
Council Member Ward said he would not support the motion, adding that since the signs would be off Highway 54, he did not feel that it would be visual pollution, and it showed how this type of mixed use development could have a viable, thriving anchor. He said there would be other customers, outside of the development, for the Harris Teeter store, and this was a reasonable request to help the market be successful.
Council Member Foy said he supported the motion, and the Community Design Commission’s recommendation was correct. He said this would be a change to the ordinance, not a change to just one development, and there would be an impact with such change.
Council Member Strom reminded the Council that in the Comprehensive Plan, the planners were unanimous that the Town’s Sign Ordinance was effective and worthwhile. He asked, if the Council did change the ordinance, would it give other tenants in other areas of Town the right to change their existing signage. Mr. Wilson said this change would apply to all developments in an area under mixed use ordinance.
Council Member Ward asked if the signage were to be changed in other developments would that be only for the anchor tenant, and who would be the anchor tenant at the Meadowmont office complex. Mr. Wilson said it was written so that the anchor tenant could apply to make a sign change. He said the anchor tenant for the office complex was CCB.
Council Member Wiggins said she would not support the motion, and she felt it was a reasonable request, since there were signs doing the same thing in other places in Town, and she felt that as long as the sign was well designed it was not a pollutant.
Mayor Waldorf said she would not support the motion.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo called the question.
THE MOTION FAILED WITH A VOTE OF 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, FOY AND STROM VOTING AYE, AND MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 6-3, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, FOY, AND STROM VOTING NAY.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING SIGNAGE IN THE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS (2001-03-26/O-2a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the proposed amendment to the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance to adjust signage regulations in the Mixed Use Zoning Districts, and finds that the amendment is appropriate due to changed or changing conditions in a particular area and achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Article 14, Section 14.13.12 of the Development Ordinance for the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby amended to read as follows:
“14.13.12 Signs in the Mixed Use OI-1 or Mixed Use R-1 Zoning Districts for approved developments complying with the mixed use thresholds
The owner(s) of the mixed use development shall establish a unified sign plan.
No sign that can be read from outside a Mixed Use Zoning District development or from public streets within the development shall be permitted within such development except as allowed under Subsection 14.13.4 or as provided below:
a) Development
identification signs shall be containing the name and trademark
of the Mixed Use Zoning District development, provided such signs are
limited to one (1) ground sign (with no more than two (2) display areas) at
each principal point of access to the development, forty (40) square feet
in display area and a maximum height of eight (8) feet. In addition, the
ground signs shall comply with the following requirements:
· The development identification signs shall contain the name and trademark of the Mixed Use Zoning District development, and may also include the name and trademark for one (1) anchor tenant.
· The letters and/or registered logo for the anchor tenant shall not exceed 50% of the size of the letters or logo for the name of the Mixed Use Zoning District development.
A single development identification sign at one principal point of vehicular access per perimeter roadway frontage of a development may be increased in size to 80 square feet with a maximum height of eight (8) feet if the development contains a cinema. This development identification sign may include the name and trademark of the cinema and may include a changeable listing of movie titles in addition to the name and trademark of the Mixed Use Zoning District development. If internally illuminated the sign shall have light letters on a dark background. The maximum size for such an internally illuminated sign shall be one-half (1/2) of 80 square feet.
b) Building identification signs containing only the name of a building or building complex and the nature of the establishments therein, provided such signs are limited to one wall sign per building with a display area not exceeding five percent (5%) of the area of the building facade to which it is attached.
c) Identification signs for individual establishments containing the name(s) and trademark(s) of the establishments, provided such signs are limited to wall signs with a maximum display area limitation of five percent (5%) of facade coverage. Wall signs overall (combination of building identification and individual establishment identification) are limited to a maximum display area not to exceed five percent (5%) of the area of the building facade.
For a cinema, a marquee, as a permanent canopy projecting over an entrance to a building, may be erected and displayed with the following limitations:
1)A marquee may identify the name and trademark of the cinema and may include a changeable listing of movie titles;
2)A marquee shall not extend more than ten (10) feet from the building nor be less than nine (9) feet above the ground or sidewalk at the lowest point;
3)The maximum display surface for the marquee shall be 100 square feet; and
4)The marquee shall front on interior drives and streets, not on streets external to the development.
d) Seasonal non-illuminated parking lot identification banners that will be hung from private street lights, and will not be displayed for more than 90 days, are permitted with the approval of the Town Manager and the Community Design Commission. Each parking lot identification banner shall not exceed four (4) square feet in display area, and shall be limited to the name and/or trademark of the Mixed Use Zoning District development. One (1) or two (2) banners may be approved for display from each street light. The color(s), shape, materials, appearance and duration of display for such banners shall be approved by the Town Manager and the Community Design Commission prior to display.
If internally illuminated, these signs shall have light letters on a dark background. The maximum size for such an internally illuminated sign shall be one-half (1/2) the maximum area per display surface listed above.”
Section 2. That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
Item 9 – Consideration of Estimated Costs for
Construction of Dog Parks in Chapel Hill
Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz said that the potential Meadowmont Dog Park costs have yet to be determined, but the other proposed parks were listed in the memorandum. She pointed out that the Community Center and Cedar Falls Park had no source of funds identified other than the Capital Improvements Program budget.
Council Member Brown said she had received an email from a citizen on the committee of Southern Community Park, asking the Council not to go forward because the area there was so limited. Ms. Spatz said there had been a miscommunication, and the site identified in the memorandum at Southern Community Park would be a temporary site.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo added that the email had questioned the logic of having something put there as temporary, and later relocated.
Council Member Strom said that Resolution A directed the Conceptual Plan Committee to include a dog park of at least 1 acre in size in its final recommendations for the proposed Southern Community Park.
Council Member Evans said she was not comfortable in using the term “direct” in the Resolution, and would rather use the word “consider,” to indicate to the Committee that it was a suggestion. She felt the Committee would lose some of its flexibility in planning.
Council Member Wiggins said she felt that the Committee would include all the other park amenities in planning a dog park.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7A.
Council Member Ward asked if the 1-acre area was the necessary area space needed for a dog park. Council Member Strom said that the Committee felt that one acre was for a new park, with flexibility, but he said he was going to move Resolution 7b and that was for one-half acre, because it was in a developed setting where there was no more land. He said in a new plan he would like to see at least one acre, or two or three acres if possible.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked how high the fence would be, and were six- or eight-foot fences necessary. Council Member Bateman said the Committee had said that was not needed, but the staff felt six foot-fences were necessary. Mayor pro tem Pavăo said he thought four-foot fences were ample.
Council Member Brown said she was concerned about the costs and maintenance of the Southern Community Park, compared to the others, and asked if there was any way to bring the costs down. Ms. Spatz said the two least expensive sites were already cleared so the start-up costs would be relatively cheap, and Southern Community Park was not yet there, so whatever goes there would require maintenance. Mr. Horton added that it would also be larger.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo called the question.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, BROWN, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE A DOG PARK OF AT LEAST 1 ACRE IN SIZE IN ITS FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (2001-03-26/R-7a)
WHEREAS, the Council has appointed a Dog Park Committee to study the possibility of building dog parks in the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that the Council consider 5 potential sites; and
WHEREAS, one of the proposed sites is the proposed Southern Community Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council that the Southern Community Park Conceptual Plan Committee is directed to include a dog park of at least 1 acre in size in its final recommendations for the proposed Southern Community Park
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 7B.
Ms. Spatz said there was a fund of money reserved to finish the rest of the park, and the staff felt that there would be sufficient money from that fund to pay for this dog park.
Council Member Evans said she was bothered by the fact that the Council was now talking about spending $56,700 on dog parks. She said that maybe a dog park could be constructed in the buffer zone.
Council Member Bateman said the Council was not talking about spending this money in the next fiscal year, but building a series of dog parks over the next several years.
Council Member Ward asked whether the proposed site for a dog park at Homestead Park would conflict with the siting of the Aquatic Center. Ms. Spatz said it would not.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, FOY, EVANS, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO CONSTRUCT A DOG PARK AT HOMESTEAD PARK (2001-03-26/R-7b)
WHEREAS, the Council has appointed a Dog Park Committee to study the possibility of building dog parks in the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that the Council consider 5 potential sites; and
WHEREAS, one of the proposed sites is Homestead Park; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds remain in the Homestead Park project budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council that the Manager is authorized to build a dog park of approximately 20,000 square feet at Homestead Park utilized existing 1996 Parks bonds allocated for the Homestead Park project.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
Item 10 – Revisions to 2025 Housing and Employment Projections
Transportation Planner David Bonk said that the Council had approved, in 1998, projections of housing and employment prepared in conjunction with the development of a Regional Transportation Plan for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area. He said the work on the projections began in late 1998, but had been suspended for a time in 1999. Mr. Bonk said that since that time the regional staff had been reviewing the various alternative scenarios for transportation improvements, recognized that there have been changes to land use plans and anticipated development patterns, and had asked the jurisdictions to make any revisions to their land use projections since the original projections. Mr. Bonk said projections had changed and the areas for change projected by the University, especially, changed for potential growth. He said the staff was recommending that the projections adopted be revised to add approximately 7,000 jobs on the main campus of the University, and another 7,000 jobs at the Horace Williams tract. Mr. Bonk said if the majority of expansion on the University occurred within the next 25 years, using the ratio applied in the usual projections for the main campus, the numbers would go to 11,000 jobs, as opposed to the original projection of 4,000 jobs. He said the same process was used for the Horace Williams campus, to project an additional 7,422 jobs within the next 25 years. Mr. Bonk said the third area looked at was the Gateway Area at Highway 15-501, and the staff did not believe the projections should be changed at this time.
Council Member Bateman asked what the staff knew about the growth at Horace Williams tract being faster than anticipated. Mr. Bonk said the reference was what they knew three years ago, which was for little growth and growth would be far in the future.
Council Member Foy asked if the numbers were used to plan roads. Mr. Bonk said they will be used for all types of transportation planning in the next 25 years to assess what is the general level of congestion in the region and what transportation improvements may be necessary to relieve the congestion, and air quality.
Council Member Foy said he did not want to support theoretical numbers for growth on one hand, and then say the Council did not support growth that the Town could not handle.
Mayor Waldorf said it was her understanding that the numbers were being projected in order to see what their impact would be. She said that voting for this document was not in any way deterministic.
Council Member Foy said he did not want to support the numbers, because he did not know if that was the direction in which the Town was headed. Mr. Bonk responded that there was an April 1, 2001 deadline to get new numbers into the projections, and if new numbers were not adopted, then the old numbers would be used that might potentially give results that may or may not be realistic in the future. He said if the projections exceed what the transportation projections can support, then the Regional Transportation Plan projections for growth would have to be modified in order to support such things as good air quality and congestion relief. Mr. Bonk said these numbers were not final, and would be open to revision.
Council Member Evans said these were numbers which should not to be conservative, and asked if the numbers included Southern Village. Mr. Bonk said they did.
Council Member Brown asked what had happened in the past with projections, had they resulted in any kind of reduction in the growth patterns. Mr. Bonk responded that this was the first time they had engaged in a local process that involved the entire region, and this was the first time that land use growth would be looked at as a dynamic part of the process.
Council Member Brown asked if the language could be changed to get at the concerns that the Council had raised about lowering the growth patterns. Mr. Bonk said the Council could add language to the Resolution that would direct the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to view land-use projections and land use growth patterns as part of the planning process, and recommending changes if necessary.
Council Member Brown said she would be more comfortable with the added language.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 8, INSERTING A FOURTH “WHEREAS” TO READ “WHEREAS THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL INTENDS TO USE THE RESULTS OF THIS INFORMATION TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT FUTURE LAND USE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGES TO THE CHAPEL HILL 2025 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS (2001-03-26/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill approved 2025 housing and employment projections for use in the development of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Regional Transportation Plan on July 8, 1998 and;
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization has requested local jurisdictions review the accuracy of the 1998 housing and employment projections; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has identified changes to the adopted 1998 housing and employment projections; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill intends to use the results of this information to make decisions about future land use;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council revises the adopted 1998 housing and employment projections for the UNC main campus and Horace Williams area.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
Item 10.1 – Proposal for a Joint Chapel Hill-Carrboro Community Request for the November 2001 Orange County Parks and Recreation Bond
Mayor Waldorf said that she and Carrboro Mayor Mike Nelson were proposing to the Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen that they agree to move forward with the request with a joint Southern Orange County request, to be presented as such to the County Bond Needs Committee. She said she and Mayor Nelson felt it was more achievable.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 9.
Council Member Bateman suggested that when the Mayor made the presentation she should include the resolution which the School Board passed supporting the requests.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that every member of the Council attend the meeting.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AND THE CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN ENDORSE A CONSOLIDATED PARKS AND RECREATION PRIORITY LIST AND PRESENT THE LIST TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (2001-03-26-R-9)
WHEREAS, the Mayors of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have had informal discussions and wish to suggest that Chapel Hill and Carrboro coordinate requests for the 2001 Orange County Parks and Recreation Bond; and,
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen have already approved two resolutions requesting the Orange County Board of Commissioners to include specific parks projects;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen hereby request:
· Endorsement of this consolidated parks and recreation priority list for southern Orange County and authorize the two mayors to forward this list to the commissioners and the bond needs committee; and
· Authorization for the two mayors, with appropriate assistance from staff and other fellow elected officials, make a presentation of this priority list to the bond needs committee; and
· Cooperative work to advocate for this consolidated request.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
Item 11 – Petitions
11. 1. Council Member Brown
Council Member Brown petitioned the Council to invite Weaver Dairy Road residents to the meeting with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Secretary.
Council Member Foy volunteered to be on the Committee, but he did not see that inviting citizens to the meeting would be workable. He said that the Council needed to come to a conclusion with the NCDOT Secretary, and the Council is the elected representative of the Town. He said he did not want the Secretary to think that this was a localized issue, and said this was a Town-wide issue.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THE PETITION. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
11.2. Council Member Brown - Alternative Fuels Cooperation in Orange County
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO PETITION FOR CHAPEL HILL TO ASK FOR A STAFF LEVEL MEETING BETWEEN THE TOWNS OF CARRBORO AND HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE COUNTY, THE TWO SCHOOL BOARDS, UNC AND OWASA TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES FOR COOPERATION AMONG US ALL TO ADVANCE THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS. THIS COULD BE ONE MEETING HELD SOMETIME THIS SPRING WITH A REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS, EITHER BEFORE THE SUMMER BREAK OR AT ITS FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST, ABOUT THE WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE AND HOW TO GO FORWARD IF THIS SEEMS THE RIGHT PATH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Brown asked that Bill Terry, the Internal Services Superintendent with Chapel Hill’s Public Works Department, be the one to undertake such an effort.
11.3. Council Member Brown
Council Member Brown’s request for an agenda item for a Council discussion of Chancellor Moeser’s March 7th proposals to the Town and related matters was resolved earlier in the meeting.
Consent Agenda Item 4b Pulled for Further Discussion
4b. Response to a Petition Concerning Safety Issues Related to the Lower Booker Creek Greenway
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED TO TABLE THE ISSUE FOR LATER DISCUSSION. THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Ms. Loewenthal asked if the Council would like the staff to remove the parking spaces and still retain the “No Parking” signs at the entrance to the Greenway.
Council Member Foy said he did not understand what was wrong with the whole Resolution, which he said made sense, adding he supported the Resolution.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2.
Mr. James Jollis, who had requested that the Council reconsider this Resolution, said there were no sidewalks, there were pedestrians in the street, it was very steep, there is lots of traffic, the police said they would not recommend a parking area there, the Traffic Engineer said he would not recommend a parking area there, and none of the neighbors want it. He said the parking spaces would encourage more traffic to come down a very heavily traveled road with no sidewalks. Mr. Jollis said every resident in the area had signed the petition.
Recreation Planner Bill Webster said there was no really good opportunity for parking, but there were three on-street parking areas that are suitable, and the Greenways literature noted that on-street parking is available: at Booker Creek Road, Daley Road, and Markham Drive. He said that because Markham Drive was so narrow, it would be necessary to provide a place for people to park by widening the shoulder. Mr. Webster said the spot was for two cars to parallel park. He said the parking area was planned in a flatter part of the road, after the neighborhood protest about the original location choice. Mr. Webster said it was a safety issue, and that on the other two streets there was more traffic, which was another safety issue.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Jollis how the two parking spots increased the safety issue. Mr. Jollis responded that there was fast traffic coming down the hills, there were blind curves, pedestrians in the street, and by adding parking the Town would be responsible for more bad accidents, which occur frequently already in the area. He said this would encourage more motor traffic.
Council Member Foy said the restrictions on parking would prohibit many more than two cars. He said he did not understand how the Town was adding to the traffic because it was eliminating the other parking on the road. Mr. Jollis said the handicapped space was on Daley Road and said the area under discussion was a bad area to encourage people to park.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO RESPOND TO CONCERNS RAISED BY RESIDENTS OF MARKHAM DRIVE AND TADLEY DRIVE RELATED TO THE LOWER BOOKER CREEK TRAIL PROJECT (2001-03-26/R-2)
WHEREAS, On June 2, 2000, the Council approved bids for construction of Phase II of the Lower Booker Creek Trail; and
WHEREAS, plans for trail project included a parking area for 2 cars; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, thirty-one residents of Markham Drive and Tadley Drive petitioned the Council with safety concerns related to the Lower Booker Creek Trail project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council that the Manager is authorized to:
· Move the planned parking area on Markham Drive farther from the trail entrance.
· Postpone the paving of the parking area until such time as it may be required.
· Place construction of a sidewalk on future project lists for sidewalk construction.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 8-1 WITH MAYOR WALDORF, MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, EVANS, FOY, STROM, WARD, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-27 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING NO PARKING AS TO PARTICULAR STREETS (2001-03-26/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-27 of the Town Code “No parking as to particular streets,” is hereby amended by inserting the following therein, in appropriate alphabetical order:
“Street Side From To
Markham Drive Both Tadley Drive A point 96 feet west of
Tadley Drive
Tadley Drive Both Markham Drive A point 154 feet south of
Markham Drive
Daley Road Both Stayman Circle End”
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective April 30, 2001.
This the 26th day of March, 2001.
The meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m.