SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting
to order at
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Joyce Brown, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Bill Strom was 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, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, Town Engineer George Small, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1
- Public Hearing on closing a Section of
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 2 - Zoning Matters
2.a - New Zoning District: Proposed Development Ordinance Text Amendment.
Mayor Waldorf announced that there would
be a meeting of the Town-Gown Committee on
Mayor Waldorf explained that tonight's agenda was to consolidate two scheduled public hearings (on items 2.a and 2.b). She proposed allowing citizens who had signed up to speak on both items to speak for six minutes, rather than the three minutes normally allowed.
Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that the first item was a proposal for a new zoning district, O&I-4 (Office and Institutional-4). The second item, he said, would apply that new zoning to the University’s main campus. Mr. Waldon noted that the first item would be an amendment to the Town's Development Ordinance. He listed the key features of this new zoning district:
· Development Plan. The new zone would require the property owner to present a development plan outlining what s/he seeks to build and develop on the land in a process similar to the current Special Use Permit (SUP) application procedure.
· Guidelines for Applications for Development Plan. These would be used for assessment of impacts on the community at large, and would focus in particular on adverse impacts, such as traffic, stormwater, and noise. The guidelines would also address what measures might be taken to mitigate adverse impacts.
· Permitted Uses and Intensities. These would be the same as those currently permitted in the O&I-3, except that "places of assembly" would no longer require a SUP. If adopted, the University could request that some existing SUPs be abandoned. Mr. Waldon explained that the Town Council would determine and approve the intensity of use that would be permitted under this ordinance's structure.
· Timelines. This is intended to be something that can move expeditiously, Mr. Waldon said. The ordinance calls for a 90-day period from the time the development plan is originally submitted until the time the Council would either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the plan. He noted that there is a 15-day timeframe for review of building proposals to ensure that they match what the Council approves in the development plan.
Mr. Waldon discussed application of this new zone to the main campus. Noting that specifics were in his written memo to the Council, he addressed the following issues:
· Area Proposed for Rezoning. Mr. Waldon showed a map of the proposed area for rezoning, which encompasses most of the main campus. Noting that it is all University-owned land, he pointed out that although there were a number of different zoning districts in the surrounding area the majority of the land was zoned O&I-3.
· Evaluation of Proposal. Mr. Waldon said that after applying the Town's criteria to the area requested for rezoning the staff's preliminary recommendation was that the rezoning was justified due to changed or changing conditions, and that there is language in the Comprehensive Plan that favors rezoning this property. He noted, however, that there also is language in the Comprehensive Plan that would also argue against rezoning some of this area. But that, on balance, he said, the staff finds grounds for rezoning as requested by the University.
· Protest Petition. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council had copies of certification saying that the protest petition for the south side of the area had been considered valid and sufficient to trigger the "protest petition environment." He explained that it would take seven affirmative votes by the Council to approve the rezoning as it has been applied for.
PlanningBoardChair Gay Eddy reported that the Board had recommended approval (7-1) of the new O&I-4 zone. She said that the Board recommended including language in the Purpose and Intent section (6.1) that would make clear that one of the purposes was to protect nearby neighborhoods as well as the larger community. Ms. Eddy added that the Board had wanted clarification of whether or not the public hearing was quasi-judicial. She said that Board's and the staff's recommendations differed in the Permitted Uses and Development Intensity section (16.4). Ms. Eddy commented that the Board was not opposed to additional housing on campus, but wanted to make sure that the housing is truly additional and not just substitute housing for other buildings that have been torn down. With these changes, Ms. Eddy said, the Board had voted to recommend approval of the new zoning district.
Regarding rezoning of the land to O&I-4, Ms. Eddy explained that the Planning Board had not yet received the applicant's presentation when they last met. She reported that the Board had nonetheless voted to recommend rezoning 578 acres of the 584-acre request. The other five acres, she said, are identified on the map as areas two, three, eight, and nine. Ms. Eddy explained that the Board did not think that these areas meet the "changing conditions" justification for rezoning. She said that the rezoning recommendation passed by a vote of 5-3.
Catherine Frank, representing the Historic
District Commission, recommended that the new zoning be put in place in most
areas of the main campus that are currently zoned O&I-3. She commended
the Council for creating this zone, and commended the University for its plans
to hire an historic preservationist. Ms. Frank urged Council members not to
impose new zoning on parcels not currently zoned O&I-3 and to remove certain
properties—particularly those in the 400 block of Franklin Street—from the new
zoning category. She also suggested removing UNC's
On Behalf of the UNC Board of Trustees and Chancellor Moeser, Nancy Suttenfield conveyed the University's appreciation to the Mayor and Town Council for attempting to create a new regulatory paradigm that would allow the University to grow in an orderly fashion. She described the proposed ordinance and rezoning request as the logical next steps toward implementation of the campus Master Plan. Noting that any period of change creates stress for those directly impacted, Ms. Suttenfield stated that the University intends to be a good neighbor and will do its best to mitigate adverse impacts on the community.
Ms. Suttenfield expressed appreciation to Mayor Waldorf in particular for her leadership in proposing the Town-Gown process for discussing issues and community concerns. She also thanked Town Manager Cal Horton and the staff for developing the ordinance and the guidelines for the development plan that the University would soon submit.
Jonathan Howes explained that the proposed ordinance would permit the University to submit a development plan to the Council in July that will cover anticipated campus development over the next eight years. He pointed out that the development plan derives directly from the Master Plan, which had been approved by the Board of Trustees in March. Mr. Howes explained that the objectives of the campus Master Plan were:
· To provide a blueprint for effective utilization of the main campus and provide for expanded housing opportunities on campus;
· To provide room for expansion for the sciences and for UNC Healthcare;
· To provide an arts corridor close to downtown Chapel Hill, which would include Memorial Hall and the Ackland Art Museum; and,
· To provide better access by road and transit, especially to the Hospital area.
Mr. Howes said that the University seeks to export the qualities of the north campus to the south campus area and to reduce impervious surface. He remarked that preparing the development plan had required the University to add detail to its Master Plan and to look carefully at phasing of development. The plan they finally submit to the Town in September, he said, will include details regarding traffic, parking, stormwater management, noise, and lighting. Mr. Howes added that the plan will also include the phasing of new construction over the next eight years
Mr. Howes noted that the campus Master
Plan calls for family housing around Beatty Hill and along
Comments from Citizens
Peg Rees, whose property abuts the southern
end of the campus, addressed the issue of incorporating Residential-1 (R-1)
properties seven, eight, and nine - on the north side of
Ms. Rees suggested that the properties on the north side of Mason Farm Road be treated the same way as those on the south side, which are also zoned R-1and presumably will go through the rezoning process after the development plan has been submitted. She asked why the Botanical Garden was exempt from rezoning, and proposed that the Town Council treat the rezoning of all sub areas individually. Ms. Rees also commented that the rezoning of properties seven, eight, and nine could be done through one of the current residential zonings if it is going to be for student housing.
Richard Wolfenden explained that parcel
#7 on the rezoning map was next to his driveway and pointed out that the University
had twice before "tried to violate the buffer," once for a parking
lot and once for a conference center. He said that the University had threatened
to condemn his house if he and his wife did not agree to sell it to them for
the conference center. Mr. Wolfenden explained that both attempts failed thanks
to the Town Council. He stated that he understood that there eventually would
be student housing all along
Dr. Wolfenden said that his neighborhood
had prepared a protest petition but had withdrawn it in order to have a less
adversarial negotiation with the University. He stated that the University
had suddenly introduced as new plan that enlarges and accelerates construction
of student housing in the buffer area. He said that the University had done
this after the deadline for filing a petition had passed. Mr. Wolfenden asked
that construction in the buffer be held off until no one is living in his house,
or the Egan and Steele houses. Mr. Wolfenden also asked that construction traffic
from the huge projects in the buffer be directed north onto
Joe Capowski inquired about the map showing the O&I-4 zoning proposal. He noted that it differed from the June 14th map provided by the University and said that his comments would depend on which map is accurate. Mr. Waldon explained that this public hearing had been called to discuss the rezoning as on the map Mr. Waldon had displayed. She said that the June 14th map was the University's attempt to answer the Town's questions about where it would like to put buildings over the next eight years.
Mayor Waldorf said that the areas shaded in gray indicated areas that are currently zoned R-1, but that did not mean that the University was asking to rezone all of that territory. Mr. Capowski asked if everything inside the blue line was to be rezoned. Mayor Waldorf replied that the function of the blue line was to indicate property owned by the University. She verified this with Town Manager Cal Horton, who said that this was this understanding as well. Mayor Waldorf explained that the red line on the map that Mr. Waldon had displayed indicated areas of the rezoning request.
Mr. Capowski asked for specific clarification
that the rezoning request did not include any property on
Mr. Capowski requested that this land be deleted from rezoning to O&I-4. He pointed out that it is in an R-2 neighborhood and surrounded by R-2 properties. He noted that the Town's Comprehensive Plan states that this area should be low-density residential. Mr. Capowski said that the neighbors would later petition the Council to rezone the land, which is O&I-3, to R-2.
Mr. Capowski stated, "UNC was in a terrible hurry but does not know where it's going." Commenting that the University had spent a fortune on a consultant to develop a plan and then made changes to that plan, he asked the Town Council to take its time with what he described as the biggest development proposal the Town had ever seen.
Mr. Capowski agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation that there be language to protect the immediate neighborhoods. He said that the O&I-4 zone, by itself, was too vague, adding that every other zone in Town had numeric caps that indicated what and how much could be built.
Mr. Capowski pointed out that the Council was considering voting on a rezoning request without a development plan. He stated that the requirement that the Town must, upon request, abandon the Dean Smith Center SUP after approving this rezoning would destroy the intact Mason Farm neighborhood before the Town had even seen a development plan. Mr. Capowski argued that there should be a true buffer around the O&I-4 zone and a transition zone behind it. He commented that the proposed 200-foot buffer was sufficient considering that the proposed campus will be 5,000 feet wide.
Mr. Capowski noted that "adjacent properties" had not been defined in the Council's development plan, which states that adjacent property values must be maintained. He pointed out that a project this large would require it to mean properties that are "some distance into the neighborhoods."
Mr. Capowski asked the Town Council to deal with noise, stormwater, radiating interior lighting, energy infrastructure, towers, and transmission lines in the "standards and perimeter paragraphs (16.5 and 16.6)," and to consider the cumulative impact of all of this on the neighborhood. Under the paragraph on "amending the development plan (16.9)," he noted that it was unclear what the five percent is of new floor area - the total floor area of the campus, the new number of parking spaces, or total number of parking spaces.
Mr. Capowski proposed that the Council approve the rezoning only to support the bond projects that voters had approved, and to do so according to the schedule that the University had set out. He recommended that they take time to understand the remaining parts of the development proposal.
Joe Straley, noting that he had been
a member of the Town Council as well as a UNC faculty member for 40 years, praised
the way that the Town and University had functioned together over the years
without much antagonism. Speaking as a private citizen on behalf of the
Kimberly Brewer, a resident of
1. There needs to be a stronger link between the text amendment and the performance standards that the University and Hospital are required to meet. As written, Ms. Brewer said, there is no real regulatory/legal basis for requiring the standards that are concurrently under review.
2. She suggested deleting the clause, in section 16.4, allowing Places of Assembly to be a permitted use.
3. She recommended including the Town's Comprehensive Plan in the decision criteria for approving or denying the University's development plan.
4. Ms. Brewer asked to add a floor area ratio cap to the O&I-4 zone.
Regarding the proposed rezoning, Ms. Brewer strongly supported the concept of moving from O&I-3 to O&I-4 and using the proposed process and standards with modifications. But she opposed the rezoning in two categories:
1. She opposed rezoning any property in the Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood Protection Conservation Zones (#2, 3, 5, 8, and 9).
2. She opposed rezoning the buffer land which is currently zoned R1 (Parcel #7). Ms. Brewer pointed out that the buffer stipulation was needed when the Dean Dome was built, and the Dean Dome is still there.
Milton Heath, a member of several noise committees, noted that the Town had recently held a public hearing on proposed revisions to the Noise Ordinance and then delayed action to November in deference to University students. Pointing out that this will be after the University's scheduled October action on its plan, he advised Council members to schedule its consideration of the Noise Ordinance before considering the University's plan. This, he said, would avoid a situation where the University could say that the noise standards do not apply to them because their plan was adopted before the Noise Ordinance was approved. Mr. Heath also recommended that the consultants be present when the Council discusses the Noise Ordinance. He suggested that the Council ask the staff to monitor compliance with the Noise Ordinance (if adopted) and encouraged them to consider readopting an environmental assessment and impact ordinance. Mr. Heath noted that the Town would be in a stronger position now if it had adopted such an ordinance.
Diana Steele, a
Ms. Steele pointed out that the University lists 82,000 square feet of R-2 land, which she said had never been shown on maps previously made available to residents. She concluded that there were too many unanswered questions to move ahead on rezoning the perimeter areas around central campus. Ms. Steele noted that the Town was not compelled to do the rezoning with a single vote and suggested rezoning the central part but waiting to rezone the peripheral parcels. She described the need to rush toward approval as "artificial and dangerous."
Ruby Sinreich stated that she resented
the threat of "legislative retribution" or "collateral damage"
that hangs over the Town because it means evaluating the politics of this project
over and above the merit of whether or not to rezone it. She stated that the
University had betrayed the spirit of collaboration that used to exist with
the Town, and that it had arbitrarily change the rules of the game by taking
this matter to the State legislature. Ms. Sinreich recommended that the Town
not make this decision hastily during the summer. She stressed that there are
many reasons to deny the rezoning, and asked the Town Council to resist worrying
about political and legislative retribution and be true to the interests of
Adam Sotak, a local resident, commented that the University's administration was attempting to subvert the democratic process. He recommended that the Town resist rushing the plan, and asked the Town Council to stand firm. Mr. Sotak suggested that the University go back to the drawing board to create a university with adequate student housing, sustainable public transportation, and energy efficient and environmentally sound buildings. He asked the Town Council to truly represent the people by maintaining a livable community with a university that is "big on ideas, not necessarily on size."
Martin Rody, a member of the Community Design Commission, asked what impact these regulations have on the current responsibility of the Commission to review concept plans developed by the University for each building and for the appearance of those buildings. He said that such a review was particularly important on the edge of campus, and wondered how the new University development fits with the Commission's current status.
Dan Coleman, representing the Sierra
Club, asked Mr. Waldon what was currently zoned R-2 that was 83,000 square feet.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the question would be answered at a later time. Mr.
Coleman stated that he supported the Planning Board's request to add the word
"net" to "new residential development" not being counted
in the maximum floor area. He reminded the Council that the Sierra Club was
opposed to the destruction of
Mr. Coleman stressed that the standards in the zone, the way it is written, are confusing. Of the five areas identified, only stormwater management, noise, and light have standards attached to the zone itself, he said, and asked when the other standards would be identified in the development plan. Mr. Coleman added that it was not clear what the other standards are. He stressed that the Council ought to reject the development plan if the standards that come with it are not adequate. Mr. Coleman also suggested having an enforcement mechanism in place in case the Manager finds that the development plan as a whole does not comply with prevailing standards. He said that the Sierra Club was particularly concerned about environmental standards and concurred with Mr. Capowski's suggestion to include energy infrastructure.
Mr. Coleman said that the requested rezoning was in violation of the Comprehensive Plan, which states that neighborhood protection issues are "paramount" and implies that the Cameron-McCauley neighborhood should be subject to a small area plan before rezoning is considered. He urged Council members to read the language in the Comprehensive Plan carefully regarding coordinating with the University and UNC Healthcare in developing and implementing the plan. Mr. Coleman said that approving the rezoning would not be coordinating with them but rather acceding to the plan and to their implementation of it. Coordinating, he said, would mean that the University would listen to the issues that citizens had raised and come up with some solutions. Mr. Coleman noted that the Sierra Club concurred with limiting rezoning to what would accommodate the bond issue. He added that areas that are part of the neighborhood protection districts should not be included in the rezoning.
Roy Fauber, a resident of
Mr. Fauber pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan requires the Town to coordinate with UNC and UNC Healthcare in developing and implementing the Master Plan for the main campus. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan also affords the Cameron-McCauley neighborhood special protection as a residential conservation area and that the language in the Comprehensive Plan is unambiguous regarding these areas. After repeating what Mr. Coleman had said about the Comprehensive Plan deeming neighborhood protection as paramount, Mr. Fauber read, "when policy choices that affect these areas are before the Town Council…the balance should tilt in favor or protection and preservation."
Mr. Fauber argued that rezoning Nash
Hall, Nash Hall parking lot, and
Ken Broun said that it was "with
a great sense of frustration and disappointment" that he was standing before
the Council. He explained that in the latter stages of approval of the University's
Master Plan there had been clear statements made about how the expansion would
be built and phased, and how it would affect those who live on the north side
of
Mr. Broun stated that the corporate leadership of the University had breached faith with the Town by going to the General Assembly and had breached faith with those living on the south side of campus by announcing its intention to provide a phased protection for them and then proceeding in a direction that provides no protection. The only thing that can protect the community from the action of its "largest corporate citizen," said Mr. Broun, is its existing SUP and zoning regulations. He asked the Town Council to reject any provision in the zoning regulation that calls for the elimination or abandonment of any SUP. He also requested that all zoning in existing residential areas south of Town, especially parcels seven, eight and nine, remain in place.
Baird Grimson, president of the West Side Neighborhood Association, asked Council members to consider the new Noise Ordinance prior to considering UNC's developmental plans and to take a definitive stand one way or the other. He said that his neighborhood, which already was living with institutional noise, had been developing a proposal that specifically addresses institutional noise, and that this proposal will soon come before the Council for a vote.
Julie McClintock stated that the Town
could achieve financial and environmental accountability in this zone by reaching
a strong agreement on financial responsibility before the Council enacts the
zone. If the Town does not make sure that there is a way to pay for this development,
she said, then the Town will end up paying for it in high taxes, a new sewage
treatment plant, and a line running down to
Ms. McClintock supported the recommendation to exclude the five parcels. She suggested scrutinizing the performance standards, such as the one for the environment that says, "development proposed in the development plan shall minimize impacts on natural site features and be accompanied by measured measures to mitigate those impacts." Ms. McClintock asked citizens if that language makes them feel safe. Noting how polluted the air is, Ms. McClintock read, "development proposed in the development plan shall be accompanied by measures to mitigate transportation impacts that are caused by the development." She argued that the Town needs specific standards, including thresholds that must be met, before more development begins.
Ms. McClintock described what she thought
the Town might look like if UNC were permitted to do exactly what they proposed
with no regulation, and said she agreed with Mr. Capowski's suggestion to act
only on what was proposed with the bond projects. She suggested a "sunset
revision" of perhaps eight years for the zone, stating that this would
be enough time to build the bond projects and then stop and evaluate whether
infrastructure had been able to accommodate that growth. Ms. McClintock commended
the Mayor and Town Council for "not buckling to scare tactics" and
for standing up for
Martin Feinstein, a
Aris Buinevicius, an RTP business owner, read a statement prepared by his neighbor Elaine Barney. Mr. Buinevicius said that he and his wife, Claire Horn, agreed with Ms. Barney’s statement. Ms. Barney’s statement expressed support for additions to the ordinance passed by the Planning Board, particularly sections 16.1 and 16.73, which speak to the issue of protecting neighborhoods adjacent to UNC property. Her statement said that she was unable to find any mention of a provision for notifying property owners within 1,000 feet of the main campus regarding proposed buildings that could impact residents or neighborhoods. Ms. Barney’s statement said that this was currently required under O&I-3 and needs to be included in the proposed O&I-4 zoning. Mr. Buinevicius continued, stating that Ms. Barney’s statement said that neighbors were concerned about whether there would be ample time and opportunity to review the development plan, as well as individual site plans, to determine if there would be any negative impact. Her statement asked that neighbors be permitted to give their opinions to the Planning Department and the Town Manager. Ms. Barney’s statement urged the Town Council to resist appeasing UNC at the expense of the Town and its residents, adding that the University was no longer an institution that could be trusted.
Pauline Grimson, who has lived with her
husband in the Cameron-McCauley District for almost 25 years, explained that
they had already seen an enormous impact on their neighborhood as a result of
University growth on south campus. She listed increased traffic, noise from
research buildings, and huge buildings looming over them despite zoning which
calls for a buffer. Ms. Grimson expressed concern about the rezoning of
Planning Board member Bob Reda cautioned,
regarding 2a, that the SUPs could be abandoned without having anything to replace
the protections that they put in place, especially regarding the
Regarding 2b, Mr. Reda said that he had not heard a justification for changing a number of the areas from their existing zoning to O&I-4. He suggested rezoning the existing O&I-3 to O&I-4 but putting the other areas on hold and reviewing the impacts as the process goes along.
Comments and Questions from the Mayor and Town Council
Mayor Waldorf explained that between the public hearing and the time that the issue comes back for a vote the staff will try hard to answer all the questions that had been raised tonight.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo stated that the overwhelming concern that speakers had expressed tonight had motivated him to ask University representatives to clearly explain why they need parcels two through eight and the little triangle of land on the south side of Columbia Street. Ms. Suttenfield replied that the University would provide a detailed response on the proposed uses, if any, of those parcels. She pointed out that the proposed rezoning reflects all property that the University currently owns, but that does not mean that they intend to build anything on all of those parcels. Mayor pro tem Pavăo accepted that, but said that he would still like to know what, if anything, the University expects to do with those properties and when.
Council Member Brown said that she would like to know the justification for extending beyond what had normally been considered University boundaries. She asked that this question be added to Mayor pro tem Pavăo's question.
Mayor Waldorf inquired about the sequencing
of properties along
Mayor Waldorf replied that she would be happy to hear from Dr. Kitchen but wanted to know what the University's phasing needs were in terms of dates of commencement of construction along Mason Farm and Beatty Hill. Mr. Howes replied that the purpose of the development plan was to outline the phasing of this as well as other areas. Because this area of the campus was of particular concern to the Town, he said, the University had brought it before the Council tonight.
Dr. Sue Kitchen explained that the overall plan, which had begun a number of years ago, was to accommodate about 3,000 new beds on campus. After looking at what was feasible, she said, the University decided to first build four residence halls that will give them 900 spaces. These will open in two years, she explained, at the same time that the University will remove an entire residence hall complex, which will leave an overall net of 400 new spaces on campus. Dr. Kitchen explained that the next phase will include the buildings on south campus.
Dr. Kitchen pointed out that the buildings
on the map surrounding Beatty Hill and extending along
Council Member Bateman asked when the
University expected the 3,000-student increase. Dr. Kitchen replied that she
would be happy to provide those details at a later time. Council Member Bateman
asked why the information given to residents on
Council Member Foy asked how many units would be contained in the three buildings of married student housing outlined on the map. Dr. Kitchen replied that there would be 25 units and that it will be three stories high.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo pointed out that the consultant, Adam Gross, had stated that parcels seven, eight and nine would not be touched for ten or fifteen years. Mr. Howes replied that Mr. Gross had been discussing construction of a road. He added that Mr. Gross does not remember making any commitments regarding housing construction. Mr. Howes pointed out that all of these units had been included on the original Master Plan. Dr. Kitchen added that UNC's expectation had been that the Beatty Hill area alone would contribute 500 units. She said that after studying the topography, though, they had decreased that projection and decided to move into the areas to the left, which they had originally thought would not be needed.
Mayor Waldorf, pointing out that UNC
plans to file its development plan on
Mayor Waldorf asked when those units would need to be under construction and if they would all be under the same bid. Dr. Kitchen replied that it was a single project, and that construction would begin in the spring of 2003, with an 18-month to two-year construction phase. Mayor Waldorf replied that this was exactly the kind of information she was seeking.
Council Member Brown, pointing out that the Town staff had only six and a half days to respond to citizens' questions, asked UNC representatives why there was such a rush. She also asked other Council members if the timetable was sacred. Mayor Waldorf replied that the Council had voted on April 23rd to follow this schedule. She recommended attempting to keep to that commitment. Council Member Brown then requested that the public hearing be recessed and that any information provided by the University or staff be available on Thursday morning in places where people could see it and have time to prepare responses and additional comments.
Council Member Brown requested that the following list of resolutions adopted by the Council confirming the Council’s intentions to protect neighborhoods be put into the record. Council Member Brown read the following:
Ř
Page 4 – 2.2 Major Themes,
bullet 3: Conserve and protect existing neighborhoods. Some residential neighborhoods
will face pressures for infill development and redevelopment. This is especially
true for neighborhoods immediately surrounding downtown and the main campus
of the
Ř
Page 11 – 3.2 Goals, Objectives,
and Strategies, under Objectives: Neighborhoods: Protect the physical and social
fabric of
Ř
Page 12 – Strategies and
Actions, 3A. Neighborhood Protection.
Ř
What does this designation
mean? It means that it is the stated policy of
Ř
The neighborhoods that have
been designated as residential conservation areas are Cobb Terrace, Northside,
Cameron-McCauley, Franklin-Rosemary, Westwood,
Ř Page 28 – related to 4.0 – Relations with the University/Health Care System – Neighborhoods affected by growth on the campus should continue to be included in the planning process.
Ř We believe the University should incorporate into its development plans measures to address those community impacts, by providing infrastructure improvements, sharing in the costs of needed facilities and services, taking off- and on-site steps to minimize the creation of negative impacts, and to ensure the preservation of existing Chapel Hill neighborhoods.
Ř Both the Town and the University need to recognize that there could very well be a point when the cumulative impacts of University and Town growth on our natural resources and our public facilities are such that no amount of mitigation would be possible and still retain the charm of the Town and the quality of life which both the citizens of the Town and the State of North Carolina expect from Chapel Hill. A process involving the Town and the University should be established to develop a set of standards regarding natural resources and public facilities and our expected quality of life and then to monitor and evaluate the impacts of growth on those standards and look for alternatives for development when a saturation point has been reached.
Ř We further request that the University refrain from purchasing property in residential neighborhoods.
§ Potential New Zoning District: Office-Institutional-4 which includes the following:
Ř A perimeter sub-zone shall be established using the University’s current property line. Distance and standards for this sub-zone shall be established after a public process involving citizens, Town and University officials.
Council Member Brown pointed out that one resolution says that neighborhoods affected by growth on campus should be included in the planning process. She noted that there is little time to do so. She then asked the staff to comment on how the Comprehensive Plan is not part of the ordinance as required. She inquired about how to include something that would respond to the resolution regarding limits of growth, and asked that "construction of parking decks" be clarified. Council Member Brown noted the difference between the "encouraging" development plans and "requiring" them. She asked why such indefinite language was used and why Council oversight was not included.
Council Member Bateman asked to know about the square footage and requested a figure that would separate the bond-specified projects from the overall square footage.
Mayor Waldorf summarized that Council members were asking that, as part of consideration of the proposed ordinance and rezoning, the bond projects be spelled out, even though the process that they had been following would have those details coming forward in the development plan. Council Member Brown replied that she wanted a list of bond projects, and that this was in response to what the Council had heard from citizens tonight.
Council Member Bateman commented that the Town had entered this project because it wanted to work with the University to make sure that the State bond projects were built quickly. She noted that many things had changed since then and said that she wanted, at least, to understand the new square footage.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that the new square footage was not before the Council tonight, but was part of what would be before them in a development proposal. She said that tonight's public hearing, as well as the Council's vote on July 2nd, concerned the wording and parameters of an ordinance and the outlines of a zoning district. Mayor Waldorf stated that the Council would consider square footage issues, bond projects and so forth as part of the consideration of the development plan, which is more like a SUP. Mr. Horton agreed that this was the process that the Council had outlined.
Council Member Foy commented that information about building placement would address Council Member Bateman's question. He added that it is clear that parcels seven, eight and nine do not include bond projects and that part of Council Member Bateman's question was whether other portions that are requested for rezoning contain bond projects. Council Member Bateman said that this was what she wanted to know.
Council Member Evans said that it would be helpful to know how infrastructure that is removed, such as parking, will be replaced. Regarding pedestrian traffic, she noted that areas get fenced off during construction, making it difficult for pedestrians to move around, and asked for information on how that will be handled.
Council Member Ward noted that Ms. Suttenfield
had justified rezoning the outlying areas by saying that they were University
property. Noting that the University had not asked to rezone three other parcels,
he inquired about why they were asking for rezoning at the same time that they
were saying that they have no intentions to change the land use. Council Member
Ward said that the University was causing unnecessary concern among neighbors
if they did not intend to change the land use. Mr. Howes replied that the University
does not plan to develop that area within the first eight years. Regarding
the property south of
Council Member Ward asked if the development
plan is going to be on the order of five million square feet. Mr. Howes replied
that the plan covers the existing O&I-3, plus the properties along
Council Member Ward then asked the staff if they were prepared to evaluate that size project in the timeframe allowed. Mr. Horton replied that the Town expects a very thorough, complete, and high-quality submittal from the University, which will facilitate review. He stated that it will be difficult, but possible.
Regarding the
Council Member Wiggins asked where district R-2 (83,000 square feet) was located. Ms. Suttenfield replied that this was traditional information that is submitted with all such applications. Council Member Wiggins replied that she did not understand the answer. Mr. Horton said that the staff would clarify that in writing.
Mayor Waldorf asked if it was correct
that the University and
Mayor Waldorf asked Ms. Beck if the University and the Hospital were in agreement that this is all the land that will be needed for as long as anyone can conceive of. Or, Mayor Waldorf asked, does the Hospital have a Master Plan separate from the University's that transgresses these boundaries. Ms. Beck replied that the Hospital's Master Plan works in a parallel track with the University's. She outlined the process through which the Hospital had determined what its future facilities needs would be and said that they had coordinated that with the University. Ms. Beck added that the Hospital's plans were reflected in the drafts presented by the University and that the Hospital did not see itself developing into other areas except for community clinics and so forth. Mayor Waldorf inquired about the time horizon for the planning process. Ms. Beck said that it would be about ten years. Mayor Waldorf then asked if the Hospital had any plans to go beyond this perimeter within the next ten years. Ms. Beck replied that they did not. Mayor Waldorf noted that the University would not make any effort to go beyond the perimeter for the next 30-50 years.
Council Member Brown asked the staff if they would respond to every comment and question that had been made tonight. Mr. Horton said that the staff would do its best to do so. Council Member Brown suggested that the Council ask the staff to bring the Noise Ordinance to either the first meeting at the end of August or the first meeting in September. Mayor Waldorf expressed support for that request, but asked Mr. Horton if that was manageable. He replied that he could not say for sure without consulting the staff member who was leading that work.
Council Member Foy agreed that the development plan needed to adhere to the new noise standards. He also asked the Council to specifically address the issue of tying the Development Ordinance revision for O&I-4 to the standards, noting that there should be some assurance that the standards are adhered to.
Council Member Ward pointed out that there do not seem to be any changes in existing conditions in some areas, which means that they do not fall under the need for rezoning. He asked the University and staff to response to that.
Mayor Waldorf asked the University to work with the Town on phasing and to consider that it means more than just a timetable for when housing gets built. Phasing, she said, also means that buffers are retained as long as people are living there. Mr. Howes replied that the University would welcome a proposal from the Town for a formalized involvement by neighbors. He said that the University would solicit citizen involvement, but would welcome assistance and advice on that from the Town.
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos noted that
the Council may continue to receive public comment on this item between now
and
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CITIZENS MAY CONTINUE TO PRESENT INFORMATION BUT THAT THE TOWN MANAGER'S WRITTEN REPORT WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT IF IT IS A RESPONSE TO THE HEARING THAT IS ENDING TONIGHT.
Council Member Brown asked for clarification. Mr. Karpinos repeated what he had said, emphasizing that the Manager would not be required to submit another written final report even though citizens may continue making comments.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo called the question. Council Member Brown said that she would vote against the motion because it was not fair.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (7-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN VOTING NAY.
Mayor Waldorf referred to a memo regarding
promoting a community gym at
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONSULT WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY ON MATTERS INVOLVING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Mayor Waldorf said that the Council did not expect to report after this closed session.
The meeting adjourned at