SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Edith Wiggins.

Mayor pro tem Pat Evans and Council Member Jim Ward were absent, excused.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Planner Phil Mason, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

Item 1 - Closure of Unnamed Right-Of-Way in the Morgan Creek Hills Neighborhood

Town Engineering Director George Small explained that this was a standard statutory procedure that the Town goes through periodically for closing rights-of way. He said that the Town had no interest in keeping the road open. Mr. Small suggested that the road be maintained with drainage and utility easements running over it.

Robert Moore, explaining that he was the author of a March 28th letter to Council members, said that he was available to answer questions. Mayor Foy and Council members replied that the letter and map had been self-explanatory.

In response to a question from Council Member Harrison, Town Manager Cal Horton recommended that the Council wait until the next business meeting to execute this item. That would provide time for comment from those who might only hear about the item after the public hearing had taken place, Mr. Horton said. Mayor Foy added that the Council was not planning to vote on anything of substance that evening, but was taking public comment and referring it to the Manager and Attorney and would hold the public hearing open to a later date.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER THE ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 2 - Special Use Permit Application and Zoning Atlas Amendment

for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development

Mayor Foy asked if the Special Use Permit and the Zoning Atlas Amendment could be considered simultaneously. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos replied that the Council could conduct it as one hearing but that anyone who wanted to speak must be sworn in.

a. Public hearing on Zoning Atlas Amendment for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

Planning Director Roger Waldon showed on an overhead map that indicated that only one of the parcels making up the site was outside the Town Center zoning district. He explained that this parcel would have to be rezoned for the application to receive approval. Mr. Waldon noted that the staff's memo had listed the pros and cons of rezoning the parcel. On balance, he said, the Council could make the finding that purposes of the Comprehensive Plan would be addressed by this proposal for conditional use rezoning, as well as the accompanying Special Use Permit (SUP). The staff's preliminary recommendation was to approve rezoning that parcel, Mr. Waldon said.

b. Public hearing on Special Use Permit Application for Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development.

Mr. Waldon explained that the SUP included the Town Center site as well as a small portion of land on Merritt Mill Road. He displayed slides of the two areas, included buildings that would be replaced by the project and a significant tree that would be preserved. Mr. Waldon displayed a development plan and stated that the staff had recommended preliminary approval of the site with a number of changes and modifications. These include adding two points of access, shifting units to the north, creating more streetscape along the front, reducing the number of units, and adding a passageway to Rosemary Street, he said.

Council Member Harrison asked why the rezoning notice had not contained material about the protest petition process. Mr. Waldon replied that this was an error and that a notice with a protest petition would be sent out, with plenty of time to submit a protest petition before this item comes back to the Council in August.

Chapel Hill business owner Tom Tucker, speaking as the developer, explained that he had been working on this project for about two and a half years. He has a vested interest in the community, he said, because he grew up in Chapel Hill and has extended family still living in the Northside neighborhood. Mr. Tucker explained that he was sensitive to the issue of infill development in the residential area of Northside. As a business owner, he said, he was also sensitive to the issue of crime and the need for affordable housing for his employees. Mr. Tucker explained that he had incorporated many neighborhood concerns into his project. He pointed out that the Town had expressed in its Comprehensive Plan and other forums that it would encourage opportunity areas and pedestrian-friendly developments within the Rosemary Street area. He said that this Town goal had been a guide for his project.

Mr. Tucker explained that the building would include small shops for area residents. He said that he also wanted to create a residential community within a commercial district in order to justify the economics of the project. He pointed out that that the number of units had decreased over the past two years from more than 50 to about 42, and that the staff had recommended reducing it further to 39. Mr. Tucker stated that he felt strongly that 42 units would work given some of the design changes he had made. He said that he had been personally involved with every aspect of the project and had incorporated the ideas of many people in Town.

Landscape Architect Dan Jewell noted on a map the proposed project's proximity to Hargraves Center and Park. He commented that its location makes the site appropriate for high-density residential use. Mr. Jewell noted that the recreational space payment-in-lieu would go directly to the Hargraves Center. He displayed a map showing an additional piece of property on Merritt Mill Road and explained that it could be appropriately rezoned for parking. Mr. Jewell pointed out that the applicant had changed his plans to accommodate a large tree and had incorporated all but one of the stipulations in Resolution A.

Mr. Jewell explained that they had redesigned one building to accommodate more parking underneath, which would increase on-site parking from 41 to 47 spaces. He pointed out that this would allow the requested number of units (42), noting that the staff's recommendation to lower that to 39 had been based on too little parking. Mr. Jewell asked the Town Council to permit the 42 units, since doing so would make it much easier for the applicant to achieve affordable housing. He also said that there would be a large, underground stormwater control facility at the site. Mayor Foy clarified that the applicant had added more parking without eliminating or reducing any units.

Mr. Tucker stated that making a payment-in-lieu to the Hargraves Center was important to him because he wanted to give something back to his community. He said that he enthusiastically supported the affordable housing requirement of the rezoning request and wanted to tailor that to suit residents of the community. Mr. Tucker asked for approval of Resolution A, except for the provision to reduce the number of units.

Council Member Bateman inquired about the three existing houses on the site. Mr. Tucker explained that they were a furniture business, a video rental business, and an office building that is leased to two individuals. He added that a small fourth building was currently empty. She clarified that the pictures that looked like houses were really businesses.

Council Member Kleinschmidt determined that 42 units would yield six affordable housing units, but that 15% of 39 units probably would yield only five.

Council Member Wiggins, noting that there would be only three commercial parking spaces at the site, asked what the additional parking on Merritt Mill Road would be used for. Mr. Jewell replied that residents might park a second car there and that tenants of the commercial space would park there.

Planning Board Director John Hawkins said that members of the Planning Board had been following the application with great interest and satisfaction. The project deals with many of the key aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, he said, and introduces new vitality into the downtown. He added that the plan also forwards the cause of affordable housing and integrates new development with an older adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Hawkins explained that in December there had been too many ordinance exceptions for the Board to approve this application. But the applicant and his designers had come back with a vastly improved project, he said, and the Board believes that the Council can approve this with a high level of comfort and enthusiasm.

Mr. Hawkins noted that the project had received strong support from Northside residents, and would be a positive force for that neighborhood. It will provide retail services targeted to them, he said, and housing stock intended to relieve the ongoing pressure toward conversion of rental homes to profitable rental properties.

Estelle Mabry objected to the project, saying that there is not enough parking now and cars will spill over onto Mitchell Lane.

James Carnahan described this an excellent project and urged the Town Council to support it. He predicted that the presence of residents and merchants would attract more people to the area. Mr. Carnahan pointed out that area merchants support the development, adding that projects such as this will make the Town's transportation goals more feasible. He asked the Town Council to allow all 42 units, stating that it is important to build densely and intensely so that transit will work and so that the area will become a destination for a greater segment of the community.

Roy Piscitelo, co-owner of Breadmen's Restaurant and other property in the area, pointed out that Rosemary Street is mixed use from one end to the other. Predicting that the street will be developed and changed, Mr. Piscitelo expressed hope that other changes will as positive as this one.

Aaron Nelson, representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, expressed enthusiastic support for the project, its applicant, the way the project had developed, and its meaning to the community. He stated that the Chamber supported both the zoning atlas amendment and the issuance of the SUP. Mr. Nelson also praised the applicant's efforts to accommodate the requested parking.

Long-time resident Edwin Caldwell supported the project, but scolded Council members for "allowing monstrosities to come out of the ground," and for not solving several problems in the Northside neighborhood.

Mark Chilton suggested taking a hard look at the parking problems associated with this application and requiring the developer to do more in that area. Regarding the affordable housing component, he stated that Mr. Tucker should have had a payment-in-lieu option to invest in affordability among existing structures in Northside. He agreed in general with the Council's view that payments-in-lieu were not appropriate with affordable housing, but argued that a development at the edge of Northside might be a circumstance where that would make more sense. Providing affordable housing within the development might not do as much for anyone who lives in that neighborhood, he said. Mr. Chilton stressed that he did not blame Mr. Tucker for this, since the possibility of helping to pay for other projects had been ruled out. He encouraged the Council to open the payment-in-lieu option up for Mr. Tucker and for other developers when it is a more appropriate way to contribute to affordable housing.

Council Member Verkerk asked if public on-street parking was available in the area. Mr. Waldon replied that there was some, but he did not know how many spaces. Mr. Horton noted that a future Council could change that and there might not be a guarantee of those spaces in the future.

Council Member Bateman determined that there were 13 spaces in the Merritt Mill area requested for overflow parking. She asked how many retail units were available. Mr. Jewell explained that the space would be carved up as tenants need space, but there was about 6,000 square feet available, which is likely to become six to nine commercial spaces.

Council Member Bateman asked if there would be direct access to the Hargraves Center. Mr. Jewell replied that the only way to legally provide that would be to cut a gate in the fence to the Hargraves tennis courts. Council Member Bateman asked if the applicant was willing to let the 13-space lot serve as spillover parking from Hargraves. Mr. Jewell replied that doing so would violate the parking requirement.

Council Member Bateman asked how the height of the proposed project compared to other buildings in Town. Architect Michael Hining explained that it would be four stories high and not the same density as the nearby Warehouse Apartments. Council Member Bateman asked for a sense of what the building would look like to neighbors looking up at it. Mr. Hining replied that the back of the project would look very similar to the front. As far as height, he said, he could take Council members to the site and float a balloon. Council Member Bateman approved of that idea.

Council Member Harrison asked how many bedrooms would be contained in the 42 units. Mr. Jewell replied that there would be two-bedroom units in the center building and three in the others. The exact number of bedrooms had not yet been determined, he said. Council Member Harrison, noting that there would be close to 126 bedrooms, asked how many total parking spaces would be available, including those on Merritt Mill Road. Mr. Jewell replied that there would be at least 52. Council Member Harrison asked if the applicant had any idea of what percentage Chapel Hill Transit would cover. Mr. Jewell replied that the true impact of that did not come out in the traffic analysis report because of a disagreement between the Town Engineer and the consultants over the rate of transit use. Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Horton if the Town had eliminated the option of payment-in-lieu for affordable housing. Mr. Horton replied that the last Council discussion had eliminated it.

Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Waldon how high the Warehouse Apartments were compared to this project. Mr. Waldon agreed to bring the heights of several buildings back when this application returns to the Council. Council Member Wiggins determined from Mr. Tucker that affordable housing in this project would be in the form of rentals, some of which would be federally funding through the Section 8 program. She encouraged Council members to remember this.

Mr. Horton stated that he had been mistaken in his response to Council Member Harrison's previous question. The Council's payment-in-lieu discussion had been in conjunction with the Small House Ordinance, he said, and limited in nature. Mr. Horton clarified that the Town Council does not have a specific policy that would apply in this case and could consider payment-in-lieu if they wished to do so.

Council Member Strom requested more information about the Section 8 voucher program and a brief outline of its status in Orange County. He commented that if the Town is going to have a project like this then this is exactly the area of Town where it should go. Council Member Strom asked Mr. Waldon if it was possible for the Town to get this project and also do more about parking. Mr. Waldon replied that the Council's policy had been to squeeze parking and not make it as abundant as people might want. Parking would be tight, he said, noting that this was why the staff had suggested fewer units. Mr. Waldon pointed out, though, that the applicant had added more parking.

Mayor Foy asked if people living in the building would be eligible for residential parking permits. Mr. Karpinos replied that the Town could identify that area when writing the ordinance. Mr. Horton added that there would be a line drawn to eliminate the possibility of people who live in this new development from obtaining resident parking permits.

Council Member Wiggins asked the Manager to make a list of ways to protect the neighborhood from possible overflow parking. Mr. Horton agreed, adding that the staff would also catalogue devices that have been used in other neighborhoods.

Mr. Waldon said, in response to Council Member Verkerk's previous question, that there was some parking along the street by the proposed building.

Mayor Foy requested information on how much retail space The Fountain's had and how much parking was associated with that.

Council Member Verkerk asked how many buses serve the area and how frequently they come, noting that the area is a heavily serviced part of Town.

Council Member Harrison asked the staff to bring back the comparative percentages regarding capture by transit that the Town Engineer and the TTA had disagreed about. He commented that such percentages are being determined in other parts of the country.

Council Member Wiggins wondered if there were other examples in Town of off-site parking being as far away from a site as this would be, and, if so, how successful it was. Mr. Waldon replied that parking for Michael Jordan's Restaurant was down the street and around the corner from the restaurant itself. Mr. Horton said that there were only a few such examples in Town and that probably none were as far away as this is proposed to be. He agreed to catalogue those for the Council.

Council Member Bateman spoke in support of the staff's recommendation for 39 units, even with the applicant's additional parking. She agreed that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this neighborhood needs density and mixed use but noted that the Plan also pointed out that this is a part of Town that is very vulnerable to change. She said that she would need to see more parking before she would support the application. Council Member Bateman determined that each unit would go through the rental licensing process and would pay a school impact fee. She asked if the Town could require all six affordable units to be Section 8. Mr. Karpinos replied that the Council could talk to the applicant about that, adding that the Town's leverage would be on the rezoning issue.

Council Member Wiggins asked if dropping to 39 units and losing an affordable unit would be worth the few extra parking spaces. Mayor Foy noted that the Council could still ask for six, but stated that he supported 42 units and thought that parking needed to be dealt with differently.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for more information on how the proposed building's size would relate to those next to it and to the single-family duplex behind it.

Council Member Harrison described this application as a relatively attractive way to start dealing with the issues of density, parking and transit.

Mayor Foy, pointing out that the Planning Board had recommended that units other than the affordable ones be owner-occupied, asked if that would be possible. Mr. Karpinos replied that he did not know of any legal basis to put that in or any stated policy that would relate it to rezoning. At least one court case in North Carolina had found that a Town Council cannot determine the question of whether something is owner occupied or not under rezoning regulation, he said.

Mr. Caldwell, apologizing for his previous heated remarks, urged Council members to solve the problem of parking in the Northside neighborhood.

In response to a question by Mayor Foy, Mr. Karpinos said that the applicant had already responded to the proposed conditions in R-A.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO SET CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 1,000 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ROSEMARY STREET MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (2002-06-17/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 Rosemary Street Mixed Use Development, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:

All properties within 1,000 feet of the site.

This the 17^th day of June, 2002.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 26, 2002. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 3 - Delta Upsilon Fraternity Application for Special Use Permit Modification

Mr. Horton explained that this application involved two houses and a proposal to treat them separately for different purposes. Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper displayed photos of the two houses, at 401 and 407 East Rosemary Street. She explained that the proposal was to reduce the 1979 SUP boundary, remove the Dey House from fraternity use, and replace the Bain House with a 9,694 square-foot, two-story fraternity. She said that the applicant had requested modification of regulations involving floor area, perimeter landscaping and planting requirements, and the number of parking space per resident. Ms. Culpepper pointed out that another question before the Council was whether the East Rosemary Street sidewalk should be paved in brick or remain Chapel Hill gravel. The third issue, she said, was that the fraternity had asked to take the sewer line out the back of the Dey House and along Hillsborough Street, which would create a slightly irregular SUP boundary. Ms. Culpepper stated that the staff had recommended approval of Resolution A.

Architect John Ramsey pointed out that this approval process had taken two years. The only stipulation that the fraternity objected to, he said, was installing the brick sidewalk because doing so would create some economic hardship. Mr. Ramsey displayed photos of surrounding sidewalks, all Chapel Hill gravel, and demonstrated that the only brick sidewalks were some distance from the area. He also showed slides of those brick sidewalks and pointed out that they had been broken up by tree roots. He asked the Town Council to follow the Historic District Commission's and the Planning Board's recommendations that the brick sidewalk not be required (Resolution B).

Planning Board Chair John Hawkins reported that the Planning Board had concurred with most of the staff report, except for the section on sidewalk material. He stated that this was a neighborhood character issue and that Chapel Hill gravel walks have always been part of that area of Town.

Catherine Frank, Chair of the Historic District Commission, supported the applicant's request and agreed with the Planning Board that the brick sidewalk should not be required.

Jay Anhorn, Director of Greek Affairs at UNC-Chapel Hill, supported the recommended modifications. He described this project as a well thought-out process that had alumni support and will benefit everyone.

Catherine Kopp, a resident of the neighborhood and member of the Preservation Society, spoke in support of the project. It turns an existing home that has been in disrepair back to a single-family home, she said, and replaces a fraternity house with a smaller structure that will be new and in much better condition. Ms. Kopp added that Preservation Society members did not feel the brick sidewalk should be a requirement, since the majority of sidewalks in that block are Chapel Hill gravel.

Council Member Harrison noted that the staff was assuming that 23 parking spaces would be sufficient for 29 residents. Ms. Culpepper replied that the Town was relying on the fraternity to make sure that not all students bring cars. In response to a question from Council Member Harrison, Mr. Ramsey explained that the original application had one parking space per student but that the Town staff had recommended reducing the number of parking spaces to provide more room for the garbage truck to turn around. Mr. Ramsey pointed out that the Transportation Board had approved the smaller number of parking spaces and had encouraged the applicant to reduce it even further.

Council Member Bateman determined that a Delta Upsilon alumnus had offered to buy the Dey House. Mr. Ramsey said that the individual also owns the Rathskeller and recently purchased the Hillsboro Inn for restoration and renovation. His plan was to restore the Dey House and use it as a townhouse, Mr. Ramsey said, and his offer was conditional on site plan approval tonight.

Mayor Foy asked if it would be possible to retain the SUP on both sites but to sever it into two SUPs. Mr. Karpinos said that he would provide an answer to that when the item comes back to the Council.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO SET CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE DELTA UPSILON FRATERNITY (2002-06-17/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 the Special Use Permit Modification application proposed by John Ramsay on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 79, Block E, Lots 19 and 20 (PIN#’ 9788-58-2507 and 9788-58-2695), if developed according to the site plan dated May 1, 2002, and the revised Special Use Permit boundary as shown by the proposed property lines on the Recombination Plat of the Property of NC Delta Upsilon FD, dated May 21, 2002 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 500 feet of the site.

This the 17^th day of June, 2002.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 26, 2002. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item #4 - Public Hearing and Development Ordinance Text Amendment

for Non-Commercial Signage

Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had asked the staff to look into regulations that govern placement, size and messages on non-commercial signs. He said that the staff had researched this and had recommended three changes to the Town's sign regulations:

1. Increase maximum number of campaign signs per lot from 1 to 12.

2. Lengthen time period for campaign signs to 45 days before election, 12 days after.

3. Non-commercial signs on private property; 1 per lot, limited to 6 sq. ft. in residential zones, 15 sq. ft. in non-residential zones.

Mr. Waldon noted that the staff's and the Planning Board's recommendations were different but very much alike. He recommended that the Town make the three changes.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how many calls the Town had received regarding signs that would have violated either the old ordinance or the proposed one. In other words, he asked, how bad is the problem? Mr. Horton and Mr. Waldon said they had no idea but recommended contacting Zoning Enforcement.

Council Member Harrison asked where picketing would fit into this. Mr. Karpinos replied that it was covered by a separate provision of the Town ordinances and was in the Town Code. The provision relates to the size sign that picketers can carry when they are on a public street or sidewalk, he said. Mr. Karpinos added that a June memo, which referred to 11.58 of the Town Code, had stated that signs may not exceed two feet in width and two feet in length when carried by picketers.

Council Member Harrison asked if that had been enforced last fall. Mr. Horton replied that there had been a group of people who had signs the size of bedsheets, which were not lawful, and the Town had informed them that the Town would cite them if they did not conform. Council Member Harrison recommended that the staff perhaps modify that ordinance as well. Mr. Horton said that one of the Boards had also recommended that and that the staff intends to do so, but not immediately.

Council Member Kleinschmidt wondered how the Town would defend restricting non-commercial signs not related to a political campaign to one per lot when signs related to a political campaign cannot be defended. Mr. Karpinos replied that non-commercial signs not related to an election are allowed to be larger. Since there are a number of candidates in an election it is also reasonable to allow more than one sign, he said.

Mayor Foy pointed out that a non-commercial sign on a person's lot can be political, or not, and that there is no time limit on it.

Council Member Bateman asked if this would also apply to private property in the Resource Conservation District (RCD). Mr. Karpinos agreed to look into that and bring back an answer.

Council Member Kleinschmidt proposed a series of arguments for not having a 45-day or 60-day pre-election limitation. Mr. Karpinos said that he would defer to the Council on that but was confident that 30 days was a little short. It is a question of what the community is willing to live with, he said. Mr. Karpinos noted that many signs get placed in the right-of -way. He asked Council members to consider that there might be a distinction for signs in the public right-of-way because the Town needs to maintain that area. Mr. Horton added that the only circumstance in which he could imagine asking an employee to remove someone's sign would be a safety issue. He agreed that signs do create litter and maintenance problems during the growing season, however. Mr. Karpinos recommended that the Council confer with the Manager regarding time limit on signs in the right-of way where the Town's authority to regulate is broader than on private property.

Mayor Foy advised making a distinction between the public right-of-way and private property.

Council Member Verkerk said that the Town was pushing community tolerance for campaign signs even at 30 days.

Council Member Kleinschmidt recommended keeping things the way they were, since taking signs down if they create a safety hazard probably is the only limitation the Town needs. He argued that making these changes would restrict political expression a little too far.

Mayor Foy agreed that there should be no limit to the number of campaign signs on a private lot. But he expressed willingness to have limits on how long a sign could remain in the public right-of-way.

Council Member Wiggins remarked that she always puts tons of signs in her yard. She said that she had often seen signs taken down for mowing in the public right-of-way, and that they had been left on the ground. Council Member Wiggins added that she understood, though, since the grass does need mowing. She concluded that the community would be best served by as few sign regulations as possible. Violators are never really punished, she said, and the regulations create headaches for those who have to think about it.

Mr. Karpinos said that he was hearing Council members saying that the limit should be 45 days for signs in the public right-of-way and that the number of signs per lot should be deleted.

Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that Chapel Hill's regulations were the most restrictive around.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO REFER TO THE ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO COME BACK THE FOLLOWING WEEK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Item 5 - Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont:

Application for Special Use Permit Modification

Ms. Culpepper explained that this was a proposed modification of a 1996 SUP. She indicated the 28-acre property on the map and said that the application proposes to construct about 69,000-square feet of floor area. The applicant was asking permission to build 49 parking spaces, she said, which would be a 10-space increase over that which was authorized with the 1996 SUP. Ms. Culpepper noted that the staff had recommended approval with Resolution A.

Dave Stevens, representing UNC's Kenan-Flagler Business School, spoke in support of Resolution A, noting that the only area of contention was the 10 parking spaces. He argued that the total still was below what one would expect for parking at a conference center of this size. Mr. Stevens said he accepted the stipulation regarding bicycles, and would continue to work with the staff on items 16, 18 & 2l in Resolution A.

Council Member Harrison asked Civil Engineer Bill Dirks if the applicant was proposing anything beyond a detention pond for stormwater management. Mr. Dirks displayed the two existing ponds on the map and said that the applicant believed the 50-year storm could be accommodated within those existing facilities by changing the structure of the outlet.

Council Member Bateman noted that the Design Commission had raised concerns about the proposed building elevation. Mr. Stevens showed Council members a model of the proposed building and indicated how the applicant would make most, but not all, of the proposed changes. He said they hoped to meet with the CDC again regarding those modifications.

Council Member Verkerk asked if the 18 parking spaces would be covered. Mr. Stevens replied that 20% of the 18 would be covered as required. Council Member Verkerk asked if there would be showers for those who bike to the Center. Mr. Stevens replied that there would be a shower at the fitness room.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO ADOPT R-3 AND TO SET TO SET CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE PAUL J. RIZZO CONFERENCE CENTER AT MEADOWMONT (2002-06-17/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 the Planned Development – Office/Institutional Special Use Permit Modification for the Paul J. Rizzo Conference Center at Meadowmont, 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 500 feet of the site.

This the 17th day of June, 2002.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 26, 2002. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.