SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 14, 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, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom and Edith Wiggins. Council Members Jim Ward and Pat Evans were absent, excused.
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, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Planner Rob Wilson, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Town Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that items #1a and #1b were related applications: #1a was for a zoning change; and #1b was for a Special Use Permit (SUP). Mr. Waldon presented both together and suggested taking public comment on the two concurrently. He pointed out that the Town has the authority to unilaterally act on the SUP request, but must approve the rezoning request jointly with the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Regarding the rezoning application, Mr. Waldon displayed a map of the property at the intersection of Homestead Road and the railroad (currently zoned R-2). He noted that the proposal was to rezone that property to R-4 conditional upon no increase in density over and above what R-2 would allow.
Regarding the SUP, Mr. Waldon explained that the Town had requested that the applicant build Weaver Dairy Road Extension all the way down to Homestead Road. He said that the applicant was doing so. Mr. Waldon then indicated on the map where the applicant proposed to build affordable housing. He pointed out that this public housing would be along a private street, noting that the staff had recommended a public street in that area.
Mr. Waldon pointed out portions of the property that the applicant had proposed donating to the Town: a gymnastics facility, a pond, and a greenway along the railroad tracks. He noted, however, that maintaining the pond could pose difficulties. Mr. Waldon stated that the staff was recommending that the applicant be responsible for improvements along Homestead Road. He said that the applicant's proposed site plan maintains significant trees.
Mr. Waldon noted that the applicant was proposing 15% affordable housing, which complies with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He repeated the staff's view, however, that the road in front of those housing units should be public, not private. Mr. Waldon recommended that the applicant improve the portion of Homestead Road along its own frontage, but noted that the applicant had disagreed with the recommendation, particularly along the area being donated to the Town.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the proposed parking was above the 110% of minimum established by the Council. He noted that although the Development Ordinance requires that active improved recreation space be part of a multi-family development, the Council may accept land for greenway purposes in lieu of recreation space. Mr. Waldon remarked that the staff was concerned about the lack of recreation space and had proposed building a pair of small playgrounds, one on each side of Weaver Dairy Road Extension. He repeated the staff's view that there were advantages and disadvantages to having the donated land, but recommended on balance that the Town accept it.
Jack L. Smyre, of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., noted that the applicant had made concessions regarding streetscape and density issues but was seeking rezoning because the "mathematics for floor area" would result in units that were an average of 850 square feet. He explained that rezoning to R-4 would yield floor area that averages out to about 2,000 square feet.
Mr. Smyre noted that the applicant had capped density at four units per acre. He said that the development would be less than 25% impervious surface and that 45% of the site would remain undisturbed. Explaining that they view this as a low-impact development, he noted that it includes a pond that would become an extended detention basin that can address up to the fifty-year storm. Mr. Smyre pointed out that this goes beyond the Development Ordinance requirements and that it would handle drainage for every piece of impervious surface on the property, whether public or private.
Mr. Smyre discussed the 14 acres that the applicant proposed dedicating to the Town. He pointed out that about six of those acres are in the Resource Conservation District (RCD) and that the remainder is level ground. Mr. Smyre then explained that 30 townhome units would be priced at 80% of the median income and be privately subsidized. He explained that he had been working with Robert Dowling at Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) to make those units affordable in perpetuity. Mr. Smyre emphasized that the applicant had planned for affordable housing from the start and intended to be an example to others in this regard.
Regarding the mixed-use requirement, Mr. Smyre pointed out that Syntex Homes is not a mixed-use developer. He explained that they had therefore transferred eight acres to a former partner who will work with the Town to develop that as a mixed use site. This land would provide about 60,000 square feet of mixed use space, he said.
Noting that the applicant and the Town were close to agreement on this project, Mr. Smyre expressed preference for Resolution B, proposed by the Planning Board, except that it omitted its own recommendation on page 56 (Attachment 10, third bullet) that the applicant not be responsible for making improvements on Homestead Road. Mr. Smyre expressed support for Resolution B with that recommendation included.
Mr. Smyre said he objected to the requirement to improve Homestead Road because that road is on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for improvements in 2003 with construction beginning in 2004. He also argued that the logic that the applicant should pay for a traffic signal because it is creating an intersection does not hold. Mr. Smyre proposed that the applicant pay its share of what was needed, noting that the Planning Board agreed with that suggestion.
Regarding the private street in the affordable housing area, Mr. Smyre suggested dedicating a public access easement across it. He said that the drive lanes would be built to public standards and that maintenance would be shared by the 191 members of the homeowners association. Mr. Smyre explained that redesigning that area for a public street and providing parking for those units would push them back toward the RCD. He suggested working on the geometric design to address price concerns for residents of that area.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Smyre if he was saying that even though the applicant was requesting that segment to be a private street, they would build it to public standards and have an agreement that all of the homeowners of the entire neighborhood would equitably contribute to the cost of maintenance of that section. Mr. Smyre replied that was correct. He commented that the applicant does not refer to that street as a "private road," adding that it would have public access and a cross section for service vehicles. Mr. Smyre explained that keeping it privately maintained, however, allows parking lots flanking the 27 feet of pavement, which lets the area function better because the units are closer to the drive isle and are not pushed back into the RCD.
Mr. Smyre expressed concern about item #9 on page 38 of Resolution A, regarding traffic calming. He noted that the applicant had proposed rumble strips, and stated that roundabouts would geometrically push the corner units into an area where the applicant had worked hard to preserve trees. He suggested that they consider alternatives, adding that he wanted to make sure that they were not locked into roundabouts.
Regarding parking spaces, Mr. Smyre pointed out that only 133 of the 420 spaces would be ground surface spaces because most are in two-car garages. He pointed out that the additional three percent overage would be for the small lots designed for overflow parking. Mr. Smyre asked the Town Council to follow the Planning Board's recommendation and let them have those additional spaces. He noted that he and Mr. Dowling had been discussing reducing some units to two bedrooms and that doing so would reduce parking accordingly.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy reported that the Board had voted (8-0) to recommend approval of the zoning change. She listed the many favorable things that the developer had done (limiting units, donating acres, contributing affordable housing, arranging compact development), and said that for that reason the Board did not recommend requiring the developer to make improvements to Homestead, since NCDOT was scheduled to do that anyway. Ms. Eddy added that the Board felt payment-in-lieu for the parking signal was the fair way to handle it.
Ms. Eddy explained that the Board thought the Manager's recommended number of bicycle racks was too high given the number of garages. Noting the improvements that the developer had agreed to make on the land he proposed donating to the Town, she said that requiring him to build a path across it was asking too much. Ms. Eddy suggested adding language to allow more flexibility in working with OCHC regarding unit size. She said that the Board had voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the SUP.
Council Member Brown asked the applicant why the affordable housing was segregated from the project as a whole. Mr. Smyre displayed a map to show how each type of housing was designed in its own module because of the different streetscapes. He added that the Land Trust's approach to affordable housing requires "almost an artificial lot around each building, condominiumizing the building" so that it can be approached as a contiguous whole. Mr. Smyre emphasized that the intent was not to discriminate against townhomes but to place every unit in its own neighborhood.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Smyre to elaborate on the eight acres for potential mixed use. Mr. Smyre explained that this land had been taken by one of the former partners who was willing to take a long-range approach to working with the Town on developing it. He noted that it would be better to wait until the area has matured a bit more and the University's plans for the Horace Williams tract have become clear.
Council Member Foy asked Mr. Smyre if he meant it literally when he said that 45% of the property was undisturbed. Mr. Smyre replied that he meant untouched by the developer. He noted that 15% of that land would go into Town ownership, 15% would be either in buffers or tree-save areas, and 15% is in the RCD. Council Member Foy asked to again see the area that the developer proposed donating to the Town. Mr. Smyre indicated the boundaries on the map and explained that the land is slightly more than 14 acres.
Council Member Foy thanked Mr. Smyre for bringing the idea of affordable housing forward at the start and for taking the Town's request so seriously. He inquired about the minimum square footage requirement, and Mr. Smyre explained that this was not absolutely determined because of ongoing discussions with OCHC regarding possibly building some two-bedroom units, which would reduce the square footage to 1,800.
Mayor Waldorf stated that she understood Council Member Foy's concern but had confidence in Mr. Dowling's opinion and in the ability of the developer to work with OCHC toward a good outcome. Mr. Smyre replied that he will be able to be more specific in June. He added that he was trying to make the price even lower to make the affordable units more marketable, but would like to set a limited time period during which they are reserved for the below median income buyer. He explained that these were the kinds of details that the applicant and OCHC were still working out.
Council Member Wiggins asked if monthly homeowners dues would be required for the affordable townhomes. Mr. Smyre replied that the costs would be spread out over all 191 owners, so that those 30 would not be solely responsible for maintenance of their parking lot. Council Member Wiggins asked if he had said earlier that there would be a separate association for the townhomes. Mr. Smyre replied that Land Trust issues might require a sub-association that would be a separate legal entity.
Council Member Wiggins stressed the importance of this detail, noting that homeowners’ association dues can become high over time. She wondered if the sub-association might keep their dues from increasing as fast as the larger association's dues. Mr. Smyre agreed to consider this in the discussions. Council Member Wiggins said that she hoped that one area would not begin to look different from another simply because it can afford more amenities. Mr. Smyre replied that having everyone carry those expenses would keep that from happening. Council Member Wiggins commented that this would raise the dues on the affordable housing units, but Mr. Smyre countered that if they have a sub-association they will have a voice to petition the others, or the Town, regarding such issues.
Council Member Bateman asked if potential buyers would be told that the eight acres they pass when entering the development were destined for mixed use development. Mr. Smyre replied that Syntex Homes has been diligent nationally about full disclosure. He added that the mixed use area should be an amenity to the neighborhood.
Council Member Bateman requested that the developer build a path leading to the adjacent land. Mr. Smyre explained that they had agree to build a bridge over the stream but did not know where a path would lead if the Town agrees to accept the tract.
Council Member Bateman expressed appreciation for the applicant's cooperation regarding affordable housing. She asked the staff to comment on their position regarding the public street. Mr. Horton said that the primary concerns were that vehicles are not allowed to back out onto public streets and that the 30 homeowners would be responsible for maintaining all that pavement. He noted that he would like to further discuss Mr. Smyre's comments about spreading the cost among all homeowners.
Council Member Bateman expressed concern about the 30 townhome owners having to be part of a larger group in order to maintain their own road when the others would not have to do so. Mr. Smyre replied that if they could make it a public street and provide parking in a manner that would not push the units back the applicant would be happy to do that. Mayor Waldorf suggested that the staff and the applicant work together on this.
Council Member Strom expressed enthusiasm for the 15% affordable housing and said that he hoped this would become a model for the Town. He noted that this was the first development application that had that "kicked in the Town's waiver of development fees," which was the Town's incentive to those who come in up front with a proposal for affordable housing. He then asked the applicant to describe, at a later time, some of the materials, energy efficiency components, utilities, and interior finishes that they will use to construct these units so that they will remain durable and efficient in the long term.
Mayor pro tem Pavão asked Mr. Smyre how important he thought the Mayor's sub-committee was in developing this program to bring to the Council. Mr. Smyre replied that it was "extremely useful," adding that it was the most helpful part of a development application that he had seen in 16 years. He remarked that he would prefer to have sat down and discussed issues one-on-one, but stressed that having written material that gave a sense of what the Council wanted had helped immensely.
Council Member Brown noted that the Council had recently taken information on energy from the old Comprehensive Plan and put it into the new Comprehensive Plan. She urged the applicant to use innovative approaches in all of the units and asked if they were planning anything above and beyond Code requirements for this project. Mr. Smyre replied that no corners would be cut on the affordable units, noting that the price was adjusted as a subsidy so there was no need to build them cheaper. He added that he would discuss energy plans with Syntex and have a better answer on that when he returns to the Council in June.
Mayor Waldorf asked for the staff's opinion about what the municipal uses might be for the road frontage property on the land proposed to be deeded to the Town. She also asked for a general sense of what could be built there in terms of square footage. Mayor Waldorf said that this might give the Council some guidance about what to suggest regarding that land.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADPOPT RESOLUTION 1 WITH 1,500 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR WILSHIRE PLACE (2001-05-14/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 Wilshire Place, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 1500 feet of the site.
This the 14th day of May, 2001.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JUNE 25, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Item 2 - Europa Applications:
Hotel L'Europa/Village Complex Application for Special Use Permit Modification;
and Europa Office Building: Application for Special Use Permit
Mr. Waldon noted that there were two memoranda before the Council: to modify an SUP and create three parcels (two SUPs and a vacant parcel); and to approve an SUP on the vacant parcel. He pointed out on a map how this would carve a large parcel at the intersection of Legion Road and Europa Drive into three parts: the existing hotel, an existing office building, and a vacant parcel. Mr. Waldon explained that a new office building was being proposed on the vacant lot.
Mr. Waldon said that the hotel floor area exceeds the required floor area ratio, but explained that the staff was recommending modifying those regulations to allow the existing hotel to sit on that site. He added that the staff was also recommending that the Council modify buffer requirements to allow an existing condition to continue. Mr. Waldon stated that a condition of approval to move the parking lot back from the roots of existing trees would leave the number of proposed parking spaces below the required minimum. He pointed out that either the building or the parking lot would therefore have to be reconfigured slightly. Mr. Waldon said that the staff had recommended approval of a modification and of the new office building with the conditions that he had described.
Owner/Managing Partner AllanNestor explained that he had contemplated an office building on that property when it was under one SUP. He pointed out that the matter had become more and more complicated and that now, through the urging of the Planning Department, he had come up with a more attractive proposal for that property. Mr. Nestor proposed building a "nice, simple, attractive" office building where the "dilapidated" tennis court is. He noted that this had been contemplated under the original SUP in 1981. Mr. Nestor agreed with all the stipulations, but asked that the Planning Department work with them on repositioning the connector between the hotel and office building because of drainage and trash collection issues.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy reported that the Board had voted (5-1) to recommend modification of the existing SUP. She said that the member who voted against it had been concerned about allowing more than the maximum permitted floor area for the hotel. Ms. Eddy noted that the Board had agreed with the Manager's recommendation, but had suggested allowing the applicant to put the connection where they want it. She predicted that the parking changes probably would not be made by changing the floor area ratio of the building, and reported that the Board had voted (4-2) in favor of recommending approval of the office building.
Ms. Eddy added that the Board had also discussed traffic problems between Eastowne and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, particularly at the intersections with 15/501 at Wendy's, Europa Drive, and Ephesus Church Road. She said that the Board had approved a resolution urging the Town Council to study traffic in that area before permitting much more development.
Mayor pro tem Pavão noted that NCDOT had promised to build roundabouts at Erwin Road and that the interchange at Ram's Plaza is scheduled for improvements as well.
Erwin Road residentJeff Fendtexpressed concern about rush hour traffic. He asked the Town Council to do another traffic survey since other properties will be under construction there as well. Mr. Fendt predicted that the overall traffic impact will become a severe problem.
Gray Styers, speaking on behalf of the Sheraton Hotel, stated that the Hotel does not object to the applicant's proposal. He said that the Sheraton strongly agrees with the Manager's recommendation to maintain the vehicular connection between the property and the Hotel and suggests that a pedestrian connection be created between the parcels as a condition for the permit. Mr. Styers stated that the 108,000 square-foot estimate for the Hotel probably is accurate, but asked for an opportunity to confirm that before the June 25th meeting.
Harvey Krasney read a statement in which he explained that he had asked the Council in 1986 to prohibit more mixed use development in the Dobbins/Erwin/Europa Drive area because of traffic congestion. He noted that the Council had agreed with that then, and had zoned the property R-2 instead of O&I. Mr. Krasney pointed out that NCDOT in 1998 had measured 13,000 cars per day spilling into the worst and most congested intersection in Chapel Hill (Erwin/Europa/15-501). He stated that there was no plan to widen those roads and that the proposed roundabout did not consider the 961 more cars that would be added from Europa Office and two other proposed developments that are before the Town. Mr. Krasney requested that the Council deny the Europa Office proposal in its current form because of these traffic concerns.
William Conner explained that he had been president of the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, where he had developed some familiarity with traffic problems. Mr. Conner stated that he could not come up with five locations where it would be "more insane" to add to the traffic problems. Mr. Conner described this proposed office building as an "incredibly obviously bad idea."
Rich Gernand, with Graham Associates, a commercial real estate brokerage firm located in the Europa Center, expressed concerns about parking and traffic. He said that overflow parking from the Hotel had at times been accommodated by the gravel parking lot which would become Europa Office. Mr. Gernand predicted that an office complex in that area would add to the traffic and parking problem, but added that his business had no objection to the building itself.
Council Member Foy asked if there had been a traffic impact study done on this proposal. Town Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli replied that because the applicant had submitted a traffic impact statement in December 1996 they had recently received an exemption for a revised impact statement. He explained that the staff is aware of the existing traffic conditions at that intersection with 15/501. Mr. Horton added that because the staff has data collected in connection with the super street and other projects in the area they feel they understand what the traffic impact of this relatively small office complex would be.
Council Member Wiggins verified that the staff's understanding of the traffic impact on that corridor includes information on other projects that have not yet reached the Council. Mr. Horton acknowledged that the intersection is a mess right now. He expressed hope that the super street would resolve some of those problems.
Council Member Wiggins stated that the Council should look at that area as whole, rather than project by project. She noted that the roundabout may not come on line for years, if at all. Mr. Horton agreed that it could take several years, noting that there was strong interest in it from the State but not a commitment.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that a plan for it was in the newly adopted 2002-2008 TIP. She verified with Mr. Neppalli that the super street is scheduled for 2003 and will be funded at a realistic level of about $4 million.
Council Member Wiggins confirmed that construction is likely to begin in 2003.
Council Member Bateman asked how many trips the project would generate. Mr. Neppalli replied that it would be about 400 trips per day. Council Member Bateman concurred with Council Member Wiggins that the Council should look at the cumulative impact of all the newer developments in the area. Mr. Horton commented that this will be of greater concern when the much larger proposals for Erwin Road come in. He added that there will be better information available when the 15/501 corridor study is finished, but added that it might not be the kind of detail the Council is accustomed to getting with traffic impact analyses.
Council Member Brown remarked that this should not be seen as an isolated application because the Council needs to look at the entire area.
Mayor Waldorf asked if Council members were suggesting considering something such as the resolution that the Planning Board had put forward.
Council Member Strom said that he did not have enough information about traffic in the area to make an intelligent decision about this application.
Council Member Brown asked Council Member Strom if he was concurring with what she and Council Members Wiggins and Bateman had said. He said that he was, adding that even the super street needed to be explained more carefully.
Mayor Waldorf asked if projections for the super street had taken into account some annual anticipated growth. Mr. Neppalli replied that it had considered a four percent annual growth. Mayor Waldorf noted that it would be important for the Council to know what percentage of the four percent this and the anticipated larger applications would take up. She asked if any combination of these proposals would cause the super street to be ineffective. Mr. Neppalli replied that the super street takes all of these proposed developments into account as part of the four percent growth.
Council Member Foy noted that the proposed office building did not look pedestrian-oriented in any way. He confirmed that there were no plans for people to walk from the sidewalks to the building. Council Member Foy pointed out that there had been no thought given to how to make this attractive to someone who might take the bus.
Council Member Brown pointed out that this was not a pedestrian-friendly vicinity.
Council Member Foy suggested looking at the site differently, adding that a traffic impact study would only tell them that, yes, there would be more traffic.
Council Member Wiggins said that she was hoping that the study would included suggestions for mitigating traffic in that area. She agreed that the Town should try to make it more pedestrian-friendly.
Council Member Bateman suggested waiting to see what traffic projections will be for the other applications in the area before approving this one.
Mayor Waldorf suggested asking the staff to give the Council advice on the Planning Board's recommendation, the question raised by Council Member Bateman, and whether there is any way that the Council can move ahead that is procedurally correct. She noted that this was a challenging matter because the Council was discussing potential applications that have not yet come forward for approval in the context of discussing one that has. Mayor Waldorf pointed out that Council Member Bateman seemed to be making the same point as the Planning Board. Mr. Horton agreed that the Town Council needed the Town Attorney's advice on legal considerations regarding this matter.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-2 AND R-3, WITH 2,000 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR HOTEL L’ EUROPA/VILLAGE PARK OFFICE COMPLEX (2001-05-14/R-2)
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 Modification for Hotel L’ Europa/Village Park Office Complex, proposed by Duane Stewart and Associated, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block E, Lot 2 PIN# 9799478402, 7.27.E.2D PIN# 9799570157 and 7.27.E.2E PIN# 9799468987, 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 Modification application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 2,000 of the site.
This the 14th day of May, 2001.
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE EUROPA OFFICE BUILDING (2001-05-14/R-3)
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 Europa Office Building, proposed by Duane Stewart and Associated, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block E Lot 2E PIN# 9799468987, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 2,000 feet of the site.
This the 14th day of May, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR HOTEL L’ EUROPA/VILLAGE PARK OFFICE COMPLEX AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE EUROPA OFFICE BUILDING TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR ADVICE ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND WHETHER AND HOW THE COUNCIL MIGHT ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC ISSUES POSED BY EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PROPOSALS FOR THIS AREA, AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JUNE 15, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Item 3 - Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity: Application for
SeniorDevelopment Coordinator J.B. Culpepper explained that the application was for the addition of a fire sprinkler system to both the main house and the cottage. She explained that the applicant was also requesting a 1,000 square-foot addition to the site, permission to formalize parking and provide landscape and screening, and permission to build a new, shared refuse and recycling facility. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff was recommending Resolution A with those three specific modifications of regulations.
Jim Spencer, of Michael Hining Architects, pointed out that the applicant had taken this opportunity with the sprinkler ordinance to make a lot of capital improvements to the property and to make the house safer for the residents. Regarding concerns that the curb and gutter would take down trees, he noted that only one tree would be lost and would be replaced. Regarding screening, Mr. Spencer argued that a lack of physical barrier between the fraternity and sorority parking lots is appropriate in this location.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy reported that the Board had voted (7-0) in favor of Resolution A. She said that the Board had been impressed by the upgrades and improvements that fraternities and sororities had been making both inside and outside of their houses. Ms. Eddy recommended that the Town Council approve this application.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT R-4, WITH 1,000 FEET AS CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE LAMBDA CHI ALPHA FRATERNITY HOUSE (2001-05-14/R-4)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for the Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity House, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit Modification application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 1,000 feet of the site.
This the 14th day of May, 2001.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JUNE 11, 2001. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Acquisition, Personnel, And Litigation Matters
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, AS AUTHORIZED BY N.C. GENERAL STATUTE SECTION 143-318.11 (A) (3), TO CONSIDER A CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m.