SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, January 27, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison (arrived at 7:06), Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Planner Kay Pearlstein, Library Director Kathy Thompson, Assistant Library Director Mark Bayliss, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1—Ceremonies: None
Item 2—Public Hearings: None
Item 3—Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Joyce Brown regarding the Greene Tract.
Former Council Member Joyce Brown proposed that any development for affordable housing on the 18.1 acres of the Greene Tract be built in a sustainable manner. Her petition was also from Tom Henkel, Arnie Katz and Mark Marcopolos, and Ms. Brown noted that others were interested as well. She outlined the main points of the proposal:
· Adopt green or sustainable building standards for anything constructed on the Greene Tract.
· Require certain of those standards include the following:
a) Solar orientation
b) Solar hot water heaters
c) Energy efficiency standards at least 30% above code
d) An enforcement mechanism established to ensure that developers, architects and contractors follow the stipulated standards
· Develop a series of other standards, which would give developers a choice of standards to follow in developing the site.
· Modify the standards developed by Southface Energy Institute, to give the developers choices.
· Designate a group to modify standards and determine the number to be required. The group should include: Council members Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk and Jim Ward, a representative from Habitat for Humanity, a representative from Orange Country Community Housing Corporation, a representative from local architects, and a representative from local builders.
Ms. Brown asked the Town Council to give serious consideration to the petition and to use the Greene Tract as an example of how buildings could be constructed in an affordable and sustainable manner.
Mayor Foy said this was a good time to start laying the foundation for the Greene Tract. He said the Council was about to begin working on a Small Area Plan for the Greene Tract and thanked Ms. Brown for bringing this forward.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
2. Richard Leber regarding development in Carrboro on Bolin Creek.
Chapel Hill resident Richard Leber outlined his petition asking the Town Council to approach its counterparts in Carrboro and Orange County and ask them to consider adopting consistent land use provisions in watersheds upstream of Chapel Hill. He gave examples of future upstream developments that might affect Bolin Creek as it flows though Town. Mr. Leber noted that a similar joint committee had agreed to protect upstream areas of Bolin Creek. He asked Council members to ask the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Commissioners to join the Town Council in exploring a consistent set of land use provisions to protected watersheds that flow through Chapel Hill.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3. Robert Gwyn regarding bus posters displaying peace messages.
Robert Gwyn, representing "Elders for Peace," which consists of 50 Carol Woods’ residents, expressed concern about the prospect of the United States going to war in the Middle East. He asked Council members for permission to display peace messages in Town buses that might help stimulate debate on this issue. Mr. Gwyn gave the following examples of possible poster messages: Everyone Wins Without War, War destroys; Peace builds, and Peace is Patriotic.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
4. Johanna Cleary regarding "no-pay" policy at parking deck during inclement weather.
Ms. Cleary presented a written petition asking the Council to consider instituting a "no pay" policy at the Rosemary Parking Deck on the days when bus service is suspended due to inclement weather. She had a class scheduled at the University on a day of inclement weather, she explained, at 11 a.m. Normally, Ms. Cleary said she would take the NS bus from Southern Village to campus, but because the buses were not running at the time she needed to leave, she had to drive in. She said since she uses the transit system daily, she does not have a campus parking pass, so she parked in the deck at a cost of $6.50.
Ms. Cleary said she understands the University has contributed a substantial amount to the bus system and, if the service is not provided, it seems accommodations should be made on those days. She also explained that she had major trouble getting home from campus the last time Chapel Hill had snow because the buses were being called in with little notice.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
5. Mildred Council regarding affordable rental housing.
Mildred Council, owner of Mama Dip's Restaurant, conveyed the difficulty that service workers have even renting homes in Chapel Hill's better neighborhoods. She stated that homeless people were getting younger all the time and suggested this was due to the overcrowded housing conditions that lead to family violence. Ms. Council told Council members that restaurant work had been degraded to the point where some would rather stand on the corner than accept a service job.
Mayor Foy pointed out that a resolution of support for "Project Homestart" was on the Council's agenda this evening, as well as a resolution to contact the congressional delegation about public housing funds. He said both of those items address allocating money for affordable housing, especially for very low-income people.
Council Member Wiggins noted that Ms. Council also wanted the Town to consider the need for affordable rental housing. Ms. Council explained that only about 20%-25% of restaurant employees could afford to buy a small house. She noted that not many of those were being built anymore, adding that those available were for women and children, and consequently, many of the men were just standing on the corner dealing in drugs.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION AND TO INCORPORATE IT INTO OTHER ADVICE THE TOWN IS RECEIVING ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE RENTALS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3b. Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda. None.
3c. Announcements by Council members.
Council Member Harrison explained that he would not be at the January 29, 2003 Public Forum on the Town budget. He had been asked to attend a regional summit on low impact development and design with a cross-disciplinary group of professionals, he said. Council Member Harrison pointed out the summit would relate to the new Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) because its purpose is to produce specific technical and policy recommendations for low impact design in the region. Mayor Foy noted the problems the Town was confronting were regional and not just limited to Chapel Hill.
Item 4—Consent Agenda
With regard to 4c, Council Member Bateman suggested placing an add on the website to attract people to advisory board positions. Mayor Foy agreed that this was important since many board members were not eligible for reappointment.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2003-01-27/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
Adoption of Minutes: November 25 and December 12, 2002.
Nominations to Various Advisory Boards and Commissions (R-2).
Schedule of Advisory Board Appointments (R-3).
Proposed Traffic-Calming Devices on Lonebrook Drive (R-4); (O-1).
Plan for Extending Services to Proposed Annexation Area (R-5).
Resolution of Support for Project Homestart (R-6).
Resolution Authorizing Mayor to Contact Congressional Delegation regarding Funding for Public Housing (R-8).
Resolution Transmitting Comments from Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission to Orange County’s Chapel Hill Township Park and Education Work Group (R-9).
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2003-01-27/R-2)
WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:
Town Operations Center Design Review Committee
James Mathewson, II
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING APPOINTMENTS TO TOWN ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2003-01-27/R-3)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following schedule for appointments to Town advisory boards and commissions:
May 12 Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors
May 28 Historic District Commission
Library Board of Trustees
Chapel Hill Public Arts Committee
June 9 Board of Adjustment
Community Design Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
June 23 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
Housing and Community Development Advisory Board
Human Services Advisory Board
Personnel Appeals Committee
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF CERTAIN TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ON LONEBROOK DRIVE IN CHAPEL HILL (2003-01-27/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill is concerned about vehicular and non-vehicular safety and mobility on Town streets; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a petition from the Parkside and Northwood neighborhoods and a report from Town staff regarding proposed traffic calming measures on Lonebrook Drive;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses installation of the following traffic calming measures on Lonebrook Drive:
1. Three speed humps on Lonebrook Drive
2. Multi-way stop signs at:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the expenditure of not to exceed $9,000 for construction/installation of the above noted traffic calming measures on Lonebrook Drive.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2003-01-27/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-13(a) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by deleting the following:
“Through Streets Stop Streets
Tremont Circle Lonebrook
Glenmore Road ”
Section 2. Section 21-13(c) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by inserting the following, in appropriate alphabetical order:
Lonebrook Drive and Tremont Circle
Lonebrook Drive and Glenmore Road”
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective March 1, 2003.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REPORT WITH PLANS FOR EXTENDING MAJOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO AN ANNEXATION AREA IN ACCORD WITH G.S. 160A-47 (2003-01-27/R-5)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the annexation report for extending and financing services to that certain proposed annexation area (Map 1 – Parkside II Area) as described in the Council’s Resolution (2003-01-13/R-4); which report was submitted to the Council by the Manager on January 27, 2003, and a copy of which report shall be retained with the records of this meeting.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to make the report available for public inspection at least 30 days before the public information meeting in accordance with State law.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FUNDING OF THE PROJECT HOMESTART PROGRAM AND PLEDGING TO PETITION FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS TO ASSIST THE INTER-FAITH COUNCIL’S FUNDING RESTORATION EFFORTS (2003-01-27/R-6)
WHEREAS, the December 2002 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Homeless Assistance grant awards did not include funding for the Project Homestart program sponsored by the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service; and
WHEREAS, Project Homestart is a transitional housing program designed to assist up to 15 homeless families move toward independent, permanent housing; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service requested reallocation of funds totaling $366,156 to the Project Homestart program; and
WHEREAS, this reallocation would support both permanent and transitional housing for homeless individuals and families in the Town and would help continue to meet the growing needs of this segment of the population;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council supports the restoration of funding to Project Homestart and pledges to petition our federal legislators to assist the IFC’s funding restoration efforts.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO CONTACT CHAPEL HILL’S CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE EFFECT A REDUCTION IN FUNDING WOULD HAVE ON THE TOWN’S PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM (2003-01-27/R-8)
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued a preliminary notice that sets the initial operating subsidy for 2003-2004 at 70%; and
WHEREAS, a 70% operating subsidy would have a severe negative impact on the Town’s ability to operate the 336 public housing units that provide housing for 900 residents in Chapel Hill and Carrboro;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Mayor is hereby authorized to communicate the Council’s concerns to Senators John Edwards and Elizabeth Dole and Representative David Price.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
A RESOLUTION FORWARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO THE CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP PARK AND EDUCATION CAMPUS WORK GROUP (2003-01-27/R-9)
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners on May 14, 2002, adopted a Master Plan Process to begin planning for the new park and educational campus on the County’s 193-acre site near Old 86 and Eubanks Road; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan Work Group membership as adopted by the Board of Commissioners provides for one member from the Town Council, one member from the Town’s Parks and Recreation Commission, and one member from the Town’s Greenways Commission;
WHEREAS, the Chair of the County Parks and Recreation Commission asked for recommendations on potential program elements from the Town’s Parks and Recreation Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council forwards the following recommendations from the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission to the Chapel Hill Township Park and Education Campus Work Group:
· Large, multipurpose athletic fields available for public use
· Winterized restrooms
· Picnic shelters
· A large playground structure
· Loop trails
· Activities targeted for seniors
· While the Commission believes that school/park joint use of facilities is workable at the elementary school level, we believe it is extremely difficult to effectively share facilities at the middle and high school levels due much increased demand by school programs
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
Item 5—Information Items
Council members received the information reports by consensus.
Item 6—Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation:
Application for Special Use Permit
Town Planning Director Roger Waldon gave a brief overview of this application and explained that an expected agreement between the applicant and its neighbors had not been reached. He said the applicant had stated the cross-access easement was not possible, and had not agreed to that condition. Mr. Waldon explained that the staff had taken that agreement off the list of conditions of approval since it was between the applicant and a third party. He noted the application was the same as before except Phase II and the cross-access easements had been dropped. Mr. Waldon pointed out that Council members must decide whether the application meets the four findings. Resolution A would approve the application with the modification of conditions, he said, and Resolution G would deny it.
Bill Wilson, representing Eastern Federal Corporation, pointed out that Eastern Federal had agreed to reduce the number of movie screens from 13 to 11 and then to 10, with a reduced seat count of 1,600. He said the applicant had tried to do everything asked of them and had worked hard to achieve the Manager's recommendation. Mr. Wilson explained that parking would be 71% of what is required under the existing ordinance, up from the 68% that they now provide. Finally, he said, they would be providing significantly more additional parking than the new LUMO would require.
Mayor Foy clarified that there is no actual procedure for speakers to turn their time over to others, even though the Council may allow a speaker extra time. He was not planning to change the custom this evening, he said, but wanted Council members to be aware of the rules.
Jim Groot, owner of Red Hot and Blue Restaurant, expressed regret that the efforts of so many had failed to produce a compromise. He contradicted the applicant's statement about the project having been reduced. Mr. Groot said the original application was for a 35,000 square-foot theater, then it grew to 45,000 square feet, and then it was reduced to 38,000. He stated that the project lacked the most minimal amount of parking, and asked Council members to decide whether 155 parking spaces was practical. Mr. Groot pointed out that successful retail depends on convenience, adding that customers would rather pay a fine than be inconvenienced. He asked Council members to remand this project for future review if they do approve it. Mr. Groot submitted a nine-minute videotape which he said documented traffic problems at a similar project in Gainesville, Florida. He also submitted a written copy of remarks by Caroline Morgan of the Gainesville Planning Department. Mr. Groot asked Council members to base their decision on reality, deeds, results, and their own life experiences.
Michael Ortiz spoke on behalf of Steve Ginn, owner of the Whole Foods area of Village Plaza. Mr. Ortiz described this as a rare situation where a shopping center will not be enhanced by the development around it but will be drastically impacted by it. He pointed out that the proposed theater would be 198 spaces less than the development requirement. All of the spaces beyond the 145 in front of the theater would be drawn from neighboring tracts, Mr. Ortiz said. Noting that the shopping center already has a parking problem, he predicted that it would be overrun with cars every weekend if Eastern Federal's application is approved.
Mr. Ortiz described the four proposed modifications as significant, adding that Chapel Hill can see what will happen by looking at the project in Gainesville. He gave Council members the phone number (352-334-5023) of the Gainesville Planning Department and asked them to call. Mr. Ortiz noted one of the four findings the Council must make was whether the project would enhance and maintain the value of neighboring property. He argued that this project would very much affect the neighboring property and its tenants for the long term, and asked the Council to deny the application.
George Jones, representing Wellspring/Whole Foods Market, expressed appreciation for the amount of time that the Council had devoted to this application. He reviewed the various contributions that Wellspring had made to the community and described it as a solid and successful business partner in Chapel Hill. Mr. Jones pointed out that both Wellspring and Staples had expanded within their buildings and ordinances. Granting Eastern Federal this variance, he said, would drive Whole Foods customers away. Mr. Jones predicted that allowing the project would lead to a parking nightmare because the center could not absorb 100 extra cars at three-hour increments without destroying the other businesses, which depend on convenient parking.
Cotton Boll owner Rosemary Hargrove noted that Chapel Hill was known for advocating for its citizens, for the quality of life, and for strict requirements. She asked Council members why they were letting Eastern Federal get away with so much. Ms. Hargrove implored the Town Council to help her and the other businesses in the area, which had tried to negotiate with Eastern Federal but had been unable to work out the cross-easement agreement. She submitted a petition signed by her customers, and asked why Eastern Federal’s business was considered more important than her own. Ms. Hargrove asked Council members to check with the Gainesville Planning Department and to avoid repeating the mistakes they had made.
Chris Shaw, owner Shaw Business Machines and manager of Village Plaza and Staples Plaza, stated that making this exception would further aggravate the ongoing parking shortage. He argued that adding bike racks and bus routes would not change the parking situation because people would continue to drive cars.
Dal Honeycutt, owner of a Village Plaza dry cleaning business, stated there had been only one evening during the previous week when parking was available, and that was because of the snow storm. She pointed out that many of her customers come from out of Town, and the theater project will have a negative impact on all cleaners in the area, she said.
Buffie Webber, Executive Director of the PTA Thrift Shop, predicted that traffic between movie showings would be a disaster. She praised Council members for expediting the process, but said that the cross-easement agreement would either make or break the project. Ms. Webber asked Council members to determine what is an acceptable deflection from the theater onto Mr. Ginn's property during construction. If the Council approves this project, she asked, please put time and energy into figuring out how traffic will move off Fordham Boulevard and Franklin Street onto Elliott Road.
Mayor Foy asked the staff to elaborate on the cross-access easement issue. Mr. Waldon explained that the staff had thought it would be helpful to have easements on both properties. It would guarantee that cars move freely across both properties as they do now, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that the applicant no longer agreed to the cross-access easement, and the staff did not think it was reasonable to require it as a condition of approval since it involved an agreement with a third party who was not part of the application.
Mayor Foy asked the applicant's representative, Richard Gurlitz, to explain why the cross-access agreement had broken down. Mr. Gurlitz replied that the applicant had agreed to any form of cross-easement, as was stated in stipulation #12. Mr. Horton explained that Whole Foods owner, Steve Ginn, had not been willing to provide a cross-easement in return. Mayor Foy verified with Mr. Gurlitz that he had not been able to get an agreement from Mr. Ginn. Mr. Waldon clarified that the condition of approval had been that the cross-easement agreement must be reached prior to the start of construction. He explained, though, since the applicant had not been able to gain the agreement of the adjoining property owner the applicant had not fulfilled that condition.
Mayor Foy asked for a comment form Mr. Ortiz, who explained that discussion at the last Council meeting had determined that the agreement must have some structure to prevent traffic from crossing over if traffic became unbearable. The agreement had been worked out by the parties, he said, but the Town's Planning Department had rejected anything that would restrict access. He said Mr. Ginn was willing to discuss a cross-access easement as long as it provided certain requirements. Mr. Ortiz pointed out that Mr. Ginn's tenants have a right to oversee any cross-access easement that he enters into.
Mayor Foy clarified with Mr. Ginn that Eastern Federal was willing to grant a broad access easement to their side, but Mr. Ortiz’s side was not willing to grant the same kind of broad easement. Mr. Ortiz replied this was the agreement that had been presented to them within the last 24 hours. He said agreeing to this would mean that Whole Foods would never be in a situation to change or modify its portion of the shopping center because they would always have to grant a cross-access agreement. Mr. Ortiz stated that Whole Foods would not be able to satisfy all of the requirements of their tenants and still grant a cross-access easement.
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that most of the Whole Foods overflow parking had been going into the movie theater's parking lot. Without a cross-access, she said, it seemed as though Whole Foods would be hurting rather than helping its tenants. Mr. Ortiz replied there had always been an unwritten agreement to allow cross-access. Changing that would change the entire complexion of the shopping center, he said, so their only recourse was to not agree.
Mr. Horton pointed out that the existing approval for the Whole Foods development shows an unobstructed, two-way connection between these two properties. If Whole Foods were to attempt to block that off, he said, they would violate their existing permit.
Council Member Strom inquired about Whole Foods perhaps increasing their parking capacity. Mr. Ortiz replied that the changes that had been looked at would seriously impact the capability of delivery trucks. He added it would be shortsighted to close off an entrance or exit to create more parking spaces.
Council Member Harrison asked why there was nothing in the stipulations about Eastern Federal providing security. Mr. Horton replied that this would be reaching beyond what the Town can lawfully require. Mayor Foy determined that Council Member Harrison was requesting that.
Mr. Ortiz implored Council members to talk with planners in Gainesville about the increased cost and limited effectiveness of an "after-the-fact type method of controlling parking."
Mayor Foy reminded Mr. Gurlitz about Council Member Harrison's request regarding security. Mr. Gurlitz replied that the applicant would agree to provide security on an as-needed basis. Mr. Karpinos asked how this would be done.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested the aggressive style of the security officers at University Square.
Mayor Foy stated that the security guard would direct traffic away from the Whole Foods shopping center. Mr. Gurlitz said that this would be acceptable as long as there was some reasonable trigger for when that would go into operation.
Council Member Wiggins wondered if it could work both ways, adding she almost always parks in the theater lot when she shops at Whole Foods.
Council Member Ward commented that the Town should look toward a development that does not require that kind of police effort.
Council Member Verkerk expressed a preference for a more symbiotic arrangement, one that would allow people to park in one spot and then go to dinner, see a movie, and go shopping.
Council Member Bateman compared this situation to David and Goliath going out to seesaw, and said that she would support the smaller, home-grown businesses. Because of the long list of requested modifications, she said, she did not intend to vote in favor of this project.
Mayor pro tem Evans expressed disappointment that the prior weeks' agreement had fallen through. She asked again that the entrance to the theater be moved closer to the ABC store. Mr. Gurlitz stated that traffic flow would be the problem with that. Mayor pro tem Evans suggested making the traffic pattern accommodate the entrance, even though it might not be the easiest location. She said she was sure it could be done, adding that it would help the parking situation a great deal.
Council Member Strom wondered why the businesses to the east of the theater had not objected to the development project. Mr. Gurlitz said that objections had only come from the six people on the Whole Foods side who had spoken at Council meetings. He said that he did not know what portion of Mr. Ginn's tenants those six represent.
Council Member Strom determined that Eastern Federal had found 50 additional parking spots by reconfiguring their parking, and determined that this did not include the additional 25 spaces in the back of the project.
Mayor pro tem Evans corrected typos on pages 10, 11 and 13 of the resolution, and inquired about the transit incentives mentioned in stipulation 16, noting that Town buses are free. Mr. Waldon explained that employers could provide additional incentives to their employees.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked Mr. Waldon if he thought the five components covered all of the things the Council might include in a Transportation Management Plan, or would it be better not to specify. Mr. Waldon noted that the Town encourages creativity and would not set a limit, specified or not. The Town would encourage employers and property owners to be as aggressive as possible in getting people out of their cars, he said.
Mayor pro tem Evans expressed frustration about granting expedited review for the public good and now having a problem with the project not enhancing adjacent properties, causing more problems than it cures, and not including the cross-access agreement. Mr. Horton pointed out that the only way to make it go away is to vote on it.
Council Member Verkerk expressed support for the application. She suggested solving the parking problems by reducing the number of tenants or redesigning the parking lot. Council Member Verkerk stated that it was unfair to tell another business that they could not improve their property merely because yours is doing so well. She expressed concern about what would happen to that lot if Eastern Federal abandoned the project, and said she did not want to sacrifice a movie theater for 198 parking spaces. Council Member Verkerk pointed out that Eastern Federal had given up a lot throughout the negotiations, adding that she had not seen Whole Foods give much. She described the movie theater as a good project for Chapel Hill in a place that needs it.
Council Member Ward inquired about the staff's comment on page two, regarding parking being reasonable because of the counter-cyclical uses. He asked for a better sense of how 1,600 seats would translate into parking spaces. Mr. Waldon replied that the staff could only offer its observation that the current parking requirements for the suggested development would be 688 spaces. It would be 200 spaces short after Phase I, he said, adding that the staff cannot quantify counter-cyclical activity. Mr. Horton stated that the staff thought the proposal was reasonable, but noted that others might look at the same numbers and conclude otherwise. He pointed out that the parking numbers on page 152 and the surveys that the applicant had conducted at the Council's request were the only facts they had as to present conditions, and do not speak to future conditions.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED R-11A, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE CORRECTIONS ON PAGES 10, 11 AND 13, WITH A DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR THE ENTRANCE, AND WITH SECURITY MONITORS. SHE ASKED THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO CRAFT LANGUAGE FOR THE LAST TWO CHANGES. COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK SECONDED.
Council Member Wiggins explained that she would not support the application, but, if it passed, she would like the applicant to provide a Construction Management Plan. Mayor pro tem Evans and Council Member Verkerk accepted that amendment.
Council Member Ward stated that the theater was not in the Town's overall best interest even though he was a proponent of squeezing parking.
Council Member Harrison said that he goes to this theater without a car but that this asks a lot of a regional theater-going public. He concluded that he was not comfortable with this proposal at this time.
Council Member Kleinschmidt pointed out that the deficit in parking spaces requires that all of the parking spaces for Whole Foods, the theater, and Mark Properties be full at the same time. He said that this seemed improbable to him, given the cyclical nature of the businesses there, and in order to make alternative transportation work means you have to swallow hard sometimes.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that her motion now addressed all of the concerns that Mr. Ginn had brought to the last meeting.
Mr. Horton offered wording for the amendment on relocating the lobby.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had been put in a difficult situation, but urged them to vote.
Council Member Wiggins inquired about extending free bus service to this area in the evening. Mr. Horton replied that the Council could decide to do that if there was demand for it. He noted that the Town would hear from customers if they desired to have that service.
Council Member Wiggins remarked that this would cost the Town money. Mr. Horton said that the staff hoped it would be successful and that other shopping areas would use the extra service.
Council Member Wiggins wondered if any of those in the audience who had opposed the SUP were satisfied. Mayor Foy suggested that those who were satisfied raise their hands, but no one did so.
Council Member Bateman pointed out that her size nine foot would never fit into a size six shoe, and that is what the Town is trying to do with this multiplex theater in this small area, she said.
Council Member Strom called the question.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-11a AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTIONS ON PAGES 10, 11 AND 13; TO SHIFT THE LOCATION OF THE BOX OFFICE TO THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE THEATER BUILDING; THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDE AT LEAST TWO ON-SITE SECURITY MONITORS DURING THE HOURS OF 6:00 P.M. AND 9:00 P. M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHTS AND FROM 1:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AFTERNOONS, TO DIRECT TRAFFIC FLOW FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTING THEATER PATRONS TO PARK ON THE APPLICANT'S SIDE AND TO DISCOURAGE PATRONS FROM PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE COST OF PROVIDING SUCH MONITORS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; AND THAT A CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BE APPROVED BY THE MANAGER PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (5-4), WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM AND VERKERK VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, HARRISON, WARD AND WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR VILLAGE PLAZA
SHOPPING CENTER RENOVATION (2003-01-27/R-11a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by Eastern Federal Corporation and Triangle V II L. P. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 46, Block B, Lots 11 and 11B (PIN# 9799242361, 9799148584), if developed according to the site plan dated July 17, 2002 and site plans included as attachments to the January 13, 2003 Council memorandum titled Additional Parking Lot Buffer, and the proposed Refuse Compactor/Container/Parking Layout dated January 8, 2003, and conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, and 14, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:
1. Modification of Subsection 13.11.1 and 22.214.171.124 to allow a minimum of 154,242 square feet of livability space.
2. Modification of Subsection 14.6.6 (a) to allow less than a five-foot landscaped strip between portions of the buildings and adjacent parking areas.
3. Modification of Subsection 14.6.7 to allow a minimum of 490 parking spaces.
4. Modification of Subsection 126.96.36.199 to allow impervious surface areas associated with this development to encumber 24% of the Resource Conservation District.
Said public purposes being (1) the provision of higher intensity infill development, (2) the promotion of greater pedestrian mobility, (3) the provision of increased landscaping in the parking lot, (4) the provision of less impervious surface area, and (5) the provision of improved quality with Best Management Practices.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for the Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin by January 27, 2005 and be completed by January 27, 2006.
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes business-convenience use and the demolition of 24,797 square feet of floor and land use intensity requirements as specified below:
Land Use Intensity
Village Plaza Shopping Center
Net Land Area
475,632 sq ft
Total # of Buildings
10 (8 existing, 2 new)
Maximum Floor Area
110,034 sq ft
Maximum # Movie Theater Screens
Maximum # Movie Theater Seats
Minimum Outdoor Space
407,920 sq ft
Minimum Livability Space
154,242 sq ft
*Minimum # of Parking Spaces
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces
*Parking spaces may be decreased in order to accommodate pedestrian crosswalks/walkways between the proposed Elliott Road sidewalk and the shopping center buildings.
3. That the location of the box office be shifted to the southern edge of the theater building.
Stipulations Related to Access and Circulation
4. Elliott Road Access Driveway “C and D”: That the applicant improve the two northern most driveways (driveway “C and D”) along Elliott Road to provide 30-foot wide driveways with striped left and right turn lanes exiting the site, stop signs and one lane entering the site. That, if practical, the reconstructed driveways shall intersect Elliott Road at a 90 degree angle. The final design and configuration of these two reconstructed driveways along Elliott Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
5. Elliott Road Sidewalk: That the applicant:
a) Construct a minimum width five-foot wide sidewalk along the Elliott Road frontage of the Village Plaza site beginning on the south side of access driveway “D” and terminating on east side of access driveway “A”. The sidewalk shall connect to the proposed Booker Creek Greenway trail spur near the east side of access drive “A.”
b) That the sidewalk be installed directly adjacent to the parking lot curb rather than adjacent to Elliott Road. If deemed necessary by the Town Manager in order to minimize the impact on the street trees and to provide suitable space for supplemental planting necessary to screen the parking lot, the applicant shall adjust the existing parking lot curb location. The final location and design of the sidewalk and parking lot curb, including wheel stops shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.
c) That the installation of the sidewalk includes a connection to the Elliott Road bus stops.
d) That, if a portion of the sidewalk is constructed outside of the public right-of-way, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of a recorded pedestrian access and public maintenance easement for the portion of the sidewalk outside of the public right-of-way. The maintenance easement shall extend to a point one-foot behind the inside edge of the sidewalk. The easement document shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation at the Orange County Register of Deeds.
e) That the final plans include signage, to be approved by the Town Manager, indicating that the sidewalk connection provides access to the Booker Creek Greenway and US 15-501.
6. Pedestrian Connection to Booker Creek Greenway: That the applicant construct a pedestrian connection between the Booker Creek Greenway and the back of the movie theater. The location and design of this pedestrian connection shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
7. Traffic Signal Timing Plans: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu of $5,000 for the design and implementation of a traffic signal timing plan.
8. Elliott Road Bus Shelters: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu of $10,000 for two bus shelters, and associated improvements, at the existing bus stops in front of the Village Plaza Shopping Center. The applicant may provide the approved shelter prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy instead of providing the payment-in-lieu.
9. Booker Creek Greenway Easements: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide recorded copies of the following easements, as reviewed and approved by the Town Manager:
a) Temporary construction access easement across the eastern entrance drive and parking lot that lies east of the Spa Health Club;
b) Temporary construction access and staging easements over the portion of the property that lies east of Booker Creek; and
c) Permanent public greenway easement that would allow the Town to construct, access and maintain a continuation of the existing trail across the property.
Exact dimensions and specific location of these easements shall be determined, through discussion between staff and the developer, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The easement document(s) shall be recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Town. This easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation.
10. Booker Creek Greenway Cost Sharing Payment: That the applicant agrees to participate in cost sharing for the construction of the Booker Creek Greenway by providing a $10,000 payment.
11. New Vehicular Connection to the Whole Foods Shopping Center: That the applicant provide a service vehicle access driveway connection between the proposed development and the Whole Foods shopping center. The access drive shall permit uninterrupted travel between Village Plaza driveway “A” on Elliott Road and the Whole Foods shopping center. The access drive shall be located behind the Village Plaza shopping center, adjacent to the site’s eastern property line.
12. Construction Access and Maintenance Easements: That prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, the applicant shall provide a temporary construction and permanent maintenance easement for off-site improvements associated with the proposed Village Plaza Development.
The easement document(s) shall be recorded with the Orange County Register of Deeds Office and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Town. This easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to recordation.
13. Ingress, Egress Easement: That the applicant shall provide an ingress and egress access on Village Plaza site (aka Lot #1 and Lot #2 Village Plaza) permitting tenants and customers from the Whole Foods and Gateway Commons properties vehicular and service vehicle ingress, egress and regress across and between the Whole Foods/Gateway Commons properties and Lot #1 and Lot #2 Village Plaza. The easement shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office, and copies of the agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
14. That the property owner provide at least two on-site security monitors during the hours 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, and from 1:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, to direct traffic flows for the purpose of directing theater patrons to park on the applicant’s site and discourage theater patrons from parking on adjacent properties. The cost for providing such monitors shall be the responsibility of this property owner.
15. Parking Lots: That all parking lots, drive aisles and parking spaces associated with the proposed development shall be constructed to Town standards.
16. Parking Lot Crosswalks/Walkways: That two additional crosswalks/walkways shall be provided in the parking lot for pedestrian movements between the proposed Elliott Road sidewalk and the shopping center buildings. The crosswalks/walkways shall be located at or near Driveway “B” and “C.” Parking lot landscaping shall not be modified however, parking spaces may be decreased in order to accommodate the crosswalks/walkways. Final crosswalk/walkway locations shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager.
17. Park and Ride Spaces: The applicant shall reserve a minimum of 20 parking spaces for the Town’s Park and Ride program. Spaces shall be reserved between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The parking spaces shall be located within 200 feet of a bus stop and adjacent to the proposed Elliott Road sidewalk. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install signage, approved by the Town Manager, for the reservation and designation of these parking spaces.
18. Transportation Management Plan: That the applicant provide a Transportation Management Plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The required components of the Transportation Management Plan shall include:
a. Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;
b. Provision for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;
c. Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;
d. Ridesharing incentives; and
e. Public transit incentives.
The plan shall be updated and approved annually by the Town Manager.
19. Bicycle Parking: That the development shall comply with the Town’s Design Manual for bicycle parking standards as follows:
Total Number or Required Spaces
Number of Class I Spaces
Number of Class II Spaces
The 87 bicycle parking spaces, including the Class I Spaces, shall be distributed proportionally around the site. The applicant shall install signage identifying the location of Class I spaces. The applicant provide shower and locker facilities.
Stipulations Related to Landscape and Architectural Elements
20. Required Landscape Bufferyard: That the following landscape buffers are required:
Location of Bufferyard
Elliott Road: Between US 15-501 and Driveway “A”
Minimum 15’ Type “A” Buffer
Remaining Elliott Road frontage
Alternate Type “A” Buffer
(as authorized by the Town Council)
US 15-501 frontage
Minimum 75’ Type ‘D’ Buffer
Whole Foods property line
Alternate Type ‘B’ Buffer
(as authorized by the Town Council)
Staples & Eastgate property lines
Existing off-site buffer
Days Inn property line
Existing off-site buffer and Minimum 30’ on site Type ‘B’ Buffer
21. Alternative Landscape Bufferyards: That the details for all alternate landscape bufferyards shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Design Commission prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
22. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. This plan shall include a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas. This plan shall also indicate which labeled trees are proposed to be removed and where tree protection fencing will be installed.
23. Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers), landscape maintenance plans, and parking lot shading requirements be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The landscape plan shall indicate the size, type, and location of all proposed plantings.
24. Parking Lot Screening: That all parking areas shall be screened from view in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.12.7 of the Development Ordinance. The screening plans shall be approval by the Town Manager.
25. Community Design Commission Approval: That the Community Design Commission shall review and approve details for all authorized alternative bufferyards, building elevation details, and lighting plans prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related To Stormwater Management
26. Stormwater Management Plan: That a Stormwater Management Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. Based on the 1-year, 2-year and 25-year storms, the post-development stormwater run-off rate shall not exceed the pre-development rate. Depending on the development site location, size in area and the condition of the existing conveyance system and associated lands, the Manager may waive or change the peak discharge rate criteria in part or in whole if, based on an approved Stormwater Management Plan, it is demonstrated that detention would intensify existing peak discharges or may cause other problems on abutting or downstream properties. In addition, the plans shall show all storm drainage outlets and address any impact the stormwater from these outlets may have on abutting properties.
27. Operations and Maintenance Plans: That an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
28. Stormwater Easements: That the final plans and final plat include an easement titled “Reserved Storm Drainageway.” The easement shall be included on all engineered stormwater features located above and below ground including pipes, streams, and ditches that carry water to and from abutting properties. All said easement shall be located on a plat and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Unless specifically designated by the Town as “Public,” drainage features and infrastructure, within the “Reserved Storm Drainageway” shall be considered private and the responsibility of the property owner. Drainage easements are not required for drainage structures and conveyance systems that handle internal stormwater runoff within a single lot or parcel. This detail shall be noted on the final plans.
29. Best Management Practices: That the applicant provide verification that the proposed bio-retention facility will provide for the removal of at least 85% of the suspended solids in the stormwater runoff prior to the stormwater run-off leaving the site. If practical, the facility shall be designed to capture and treat runoff from that portion of the parking area located down slope from the underground stormwater units (“stormceptor”).
That the underground units proposed at drop inlet #3 shall be relocated to drop inlet #4. The unit (closest to the bio-retention area) shall be relocated to the junction box, location on-line with the existing drainage system. Both units must be sufficiently sized to remove 85% total suspended solids, subject to Town Manager approval.
The proposed bio-retention facility location and design, and the installation of the other underground stormwater units, or similar Best Management Practice design, be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
30. Performance Guarantee: That if more than one acre of land is disturbed, then a performance guarantee in accordance with Section 5-97.1 Bonds of the Town Code of Ordinances shall be required prior to final authorization to begin land-disturbing activities.
31. Impervious Surface Limits: Booker Creek Greenway: That any imperious surface added to the site within the Resource Conservation District caused by the Town’s Booker Creek Linear Park project shall not be counted toward the Village Plaza amount of impervious surface and/or land disturbance for regulatory purposes.
32. Boundaries: That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District be indicated on the final plans and final plat. A note shall be added to all final plans and plats, indicating, “Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.”
33. Variances: That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or Final Plan approval for the subject phase(s) of development.
34. Construction Standards: That for encroachment(s) into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements and standards of subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance and all other applicable Resource Conservation District regulations must be adhered to, unless the application is granted administrative exemptions from subsection 5.8.
Stipulations Related to Refuse and Recycling Collection
35. Redesigned Refuse/Parking Area: That the final plans indicate where a refuse compactor and recycling containers will be located to service this proposed development. The applicant shall provide a refuse/recycling collection facility for this development that coordinates the refuse needs of the businesses sharing the zoning lot. The refuse compactor shall be at a central location to service all of the affected businesses. The plan shall include the construction of accessible compactor and recycling dumpster pads, constructed to Town standards. The plan must note the existing sewer line under the driveway along the eastern property and address how the line that may impact the placement of dumpsters in this area.
The redesigned refuse/parking area must provide a minimum of 33 parking spaces and adequate loading areas. The final parking lot and refuse area design must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
36. Approval of Shared-Container and Joint Access Agreements: That a shared-container and joint refuse vehicle access and construction agreement shall be provided between the property owner of Lot #1 Village Plaza and Lot #2 Village Plaza. The agreement shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds Office; and copies of the agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
37. Heavy Duty Pavement: That all drive aisles needed to access refuse containers shall be constructed of heavy duty pavement. The final plans must include a detail of this pavement section. It will also be necessary to include the following note on the final plans: “The Town of Chapel Hill, its’ assigns or Orange County shall not be responsible for any pavement damage that may result from service vehicles.
38. Overhead Utility Wires: That the final plan confirm that no overhead obstruction or utility wires will interfere with service vehicle access or operation.
39. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling and for the management and minimizing of construction debris, and demolition waste shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Utilities
40. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Duke Power Company, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time/Warner Cable and the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The final plans shall demonstrate that there is no conflict between utility lines, easements, and other site elements.
41. Utility Lines: That except for existing 3-phase electric utility lines, all new or relocated utility lines shall be installed underground and shall be indicated on final plans.
Stipulations Related to Fire Protection/Fire Safety
42. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report prepared by a registered professional engineer and demonstrating compliance with the provisions of the Design Manual be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
43. Fire Department Connection and Fire Hydrant: That the final proposed location for all Fire Department connections and the location and number of new fire hydrants shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
44. Sprinkler System: That the new building shall have a sprinkler system in accordance with Town Code, which shall be approved by the Town Manager.
45. Taxation of Office and Commercial Property: That arrangement be made by the applicant such that proposed office and commercial buildings be subject to local and State property and sales taxes, or that provisions be made for annual payment in lieu of such taxes in the event that such properties become tax exempt. The arrangement shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
46. Off-Site Easements: That all necessary off-site utility, construction, access, maintenance, or other required easements shall be obtained and a recorded copy of such easements shall be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
47. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are complete, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plans.
That if the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase, and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plans.
48. Detailed Plans: That the final detailed site plan, grading plan, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plan (with hydraulic calculations), and landscape plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans shall conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and design standards of the Development Ordinance and Design Manual.
49. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for buildings, parking lots, street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
50. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the beginning of construction.
51. Erosion Control: That a detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan, including provision for a maintenance of facilities and modification of the plan if necessary, be approved by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer, and that a copy of the approval be provided to the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
52. Silt Control: That the developer shall take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
53. Construction Sign Required: That the developer shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number; the contractor’s representative, with a telephone number; and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The construction sign may have a maximum of 32 square feet of display area and may not exceed 8 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
54. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
55. Vested Rights: This special use permit constitutes a site specific development plan establishing vested rights as provided by N.C.G.S. Sec. 160A-385.1 and Section 2.121.1 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.
56. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for Village Plaza Shopping Center Renovation.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
Item 7—Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO)
Mr. Waldon stated that the memo before the Council described eight changes in the LUMO fourth draft, which the Council had directed the staff to make at their January 6, 2003 meeting. These changes, he said, relate to small house requirements, impervious surface, definitions of intermittent and perennial streams, protection for steep slopes, tree protection regulations (and the threshold for triggering those regulations for single-family development).
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the memo also addressed Resource Conservation District (RCD) boundary issues, clarified what the new regulations apply to, and adjusted for typographical errors. He added that the staff had provided alternate language on increasing incentives for residential development downtown and on increasing the amount to be paid in lieu of affordable housing, and had clarified the language on the RCD boundary change.
Mr. Waldon noted that a number of citizens had made requests. He described two of those, having to do with solar facilities and with correcting an omission in the current Development Ordinance, as compellingly good ideas.
Mr. Waldon asked Council members to consider enacting the ordinance and the two resolutions. The first resolution would direct that the Manager and staff keep a certified copy of the ordinance on hand prior to the Council's vote. He explained that this was because there are many references in the LUMO where the old regulations would apply. The second resolution would direct the Manager to bring back a work program and a schedule of tasks to implement parts of the LUMO, he said.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that there had been two changes to the revised ordinance since the packet was delivered to Council members. One was a recommendation from Council Member Harrison to further clarify the definition of obligate and facultative wetland vegetation associated with the RCD. The other, Mr. Waldon explained, was a reference to the development plan and site development permit application that had been added to page two. In addition, he said, the grandfathering language refers to an old regulation that the staff believes to be unworkable. It refers to an occupancy restriction of four persons per structure, Mr. Waldon said, adding that the staff had offered language that would clear up that piece of uncertainty about occupancy restrictions.
Mayor Foy asked if the new language would modify the current ordinance. Mr. Waldon replied that it would add the following to page two: "…with the exception of occupancy restrictions for single-family and two-family structures, which shall be defined as defined in Appendix A of the new Land Use Management Ordinance." Mr. Waldon said that there were two or three places where that phrase would be inserted.
Marc Nelson, representing the Graduate Professional and Student Federation at the University, thanked Council members for listening and responding to students' concerns. He asked that they continue to do so if they enact the LUMO.
Johnnie Pearce, and Airport Road resident, commented on the stormwater management article 5.4.1 on page 166 in the draft LUMO and explained that water was being piped from the Horace Williams Airport property across the street and into a gully along his property. That water was contaminated, he said, adding that one of his dogs might have died from drinking it. Mr. Pearce explained that the YMCA is north of him, and that run-off from their pool had been going onto his property as well. He noted that pages 166 to 169 of the LUMO do not deal with the responsibilities of the original site. Mr. Pearce said that a third neighbor had also been directing driveway runoff into his yard.
Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Pearce for raising the issue. He stated that Mr. Pearce was correct in saying that the Council had not addressed this issue on an individual basis in the new LUMO. But, said Mayor Foy, the Town was moving forward on a stormwater utility to address those very concerns. Mr. Pearce replied that he hoped the stormwater utility would provide a remedy.
Jan Zadeits, representing Columbia Place Townhouses, stated that implementing the occupancy requirement of increasing unrelated persons from two to four would be disastrous for him and his neighbors. He explained that Columbia Place already has a serious parking problem and that this would double the number of cars. Mr. Zadeits noted that fire trucks and recycling trucks had not been able to get through and that mail was no longer being delivered to some because of the narrow roads. Mr. Zadeits said there is damage from students parking on the grass and driving into trees, and asked Council members to reconsider.
Council Member Bateman explained that the Town had been allowing four per side and that the interpretation the Council received mid-year did not change what had been allowed to happen. Mr. Horton added that the Town had misinterpreted the collection of ordinances that applied to this question for 10 years, and had been allowing four persons per side. Council Member Bateman pointed out that there had never been only two allowed at Columbia Place, but Mr. Horton remarked that the Town did not know what the facts of occupancy were there.
Mayor Foy stated that the Town was merely making a technical correction, so that what it does in practice conforms to what the law says.
Resident Jerry Russell said that the design of the Columbia Place Townhouses called for two parking spaces per side. Increasing the number to four almost automatically calls for an increase in cars, he said. Mr. Russell remarked that this correction would compound the issue rather than solve it. By officially approving four unrelated persons per side, he said, the Town would be endorsing overcrowding. Mr. Russell recommended allowing three unrelated persons rather than four.
Planning Board Chair Scott Radway provided a handout and chart with the Board's suggested language regarding permitted uses within the RCD. With regard to the detention and retention basin section, he recommended making it clear that this includes associated infrastructure having to do with outflow of water and that all of those pieces should be outside 50 feet of the RCD. Also, Mr. Radway stated that the Planning Board recommended that private recreational uses within the RCD be counted as RCD. He added the Board's suggested changes to the wording on the top of page 153.
Mayor Foy clarified that the Planning Board was asking that public uses, such as open space and greenways, be permitted under Article 5.5.2 in a streamside zone but that private uses not be permitted even if a homeowners’ associations maintain them. Mayor Foy began to suggest a different approach, but Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos stated that he was not comfortable addressing either suggestion on the floor and offered to find out whether either would be allowable under State law. He noted that certain uses are permitted as a matter of right in floodways and that the Town could not preclude them by ordinance. Mayor Foy recommended referring this for further discussion.
Mr. Radway addressed the second definition on page 251 regarding two-family dwellings which include accessory apartments. The Planning Board felt that the definition should be changed to recognize that it is really a dwelling/single-family with an accessory apartment, he said, adding that the emphasis should be on accessory apartment to single family rather than duplex. Mr. Radway suggested two places where the wording should be changed. Mr. Horton objected to accepting a change without having an opportunity to check other places in the LUMO to which it is referred and without knowing what the implications would be.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE THE PLANNING BOARD'S COMMENTS AND REFER THEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Virginia Knapp, representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, read a statement expressing concerns about language contained in the ordinance. She urged the Council to delay implementation of stormwater volume regulations pending greater community discussion over how they will be put into practice, specifically on small residential lots. Ms. Knapp praised the additional floor area incentive and the flexibility in height restrictions. She encouraged Council members to add language outlining community objectives that the Council values in granting conditional use zonings.
Ms. Knapp asked the Council to re-examine the idea of internal transfers of development rights in properties with expanded RCDs. She recommended keeping the language on steep slopes as it was in the fourth draft, adding that the increase to 75% needed further community discussion. Ms. Knapp asked the Council to clarify what regulations would apply to projects still in the pipeline and encouraged them to allow projects making a post-department head review to proceed under current regulations. She reported that the Chamber had pledged to work with the Town to ensure that the monitoring process for impervious surface helps refine the ordinance. Chamber members had also pledged to take part in the upcoming discussion of duplexes and parking standards, Ms. Knapp said.
Developer Bruce Ballentine objected to the 75% preservation requirement on a 25% slope. He remarked that the Town could preserve 100% of a 50% slope and that this would be more realistic, fair, practicable and reasonable. Mr. Ballentine also stated that the volume controls would be very expensive and that it would be difficult to apply those standards to a typical small business project in Town, including affordable housing. He suggested changing the steep slope requirement to a 50% threshold—with 100% not developable if the Council so chooses. Mr. Ballentine recommended pulling volume controls from the ordinance and studying it longer.
Daniel Risku, Vice President for Strategic Development at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, concurred with Mr. Ballentine's recommendation to postpone acting on the volume control measures until there had been further study.
Paul Jones asked the Council to revisit the 2,000 square foot minimum disturbance per lot requirement. This keeps the trees standing to make the Town look the way its citizens want it to look, he said. Mr. Jones said that Sally Greene had found nothing to substantiate the staff's assertion that a typical house disturbs 5,000 square feet. If the Council does accept the staff's recommendation, however, he asked that they hold the line at 5,000. Mr. Jones said that 5,000 plus half of the remaining lot would be no protection at all. He explained that Mr. Radway would later give the Council a chart demonstrating how allowing an extra half lot clearance would have no effect. People really want no more than 5,000 disturbed square feet, he said. Mr. Jones argued that it would be more visionary and stronger leadership to stop at 2,000.
Heidi Chapman, representing the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association, asked Council members to reconsider the change in the provision to raise the tree protection to 5,000 square feet plus one half of the area of a lot. She said that the Association's interpretation of that was that it would only protect trees in "McMansion situations" and would not consider smaller houses. Ms. Chapman asked the Council to consider protection at 5,000 square feet at a minimum, preferably between 2,000 and 5,000.
Developer Scott Radway directed Council members’ attention to a table comparing 2000, 5,000 and 5,000 plus 50% square feet. He said the comparison had led him to conclude that 5,000 plus 50% would be no tree protection at all. If you can clear 65% of an R-1 lot before tree protection is even required, Mr. Radway said, then this is not fulfilling the Council's intention. He also discussed the transfer of rights within the RCD and argued that it was reasonable to use the underlying zoning floor area ratio on a piece of property where the Town is extending the RCD by a factor of 50% or 100%. The land would be protected from development, Mr. Radway said, adding that the underlying floor area ratio should go to the property owner. It could be used on the remainder of that site provided that they meet all of the other regulations, he concluded.
Linda Convissor, speaking on behalf of the University and UNC Healthcare, encouraged the Council to delay implementation of the stormwater volume control regulations. She stated that stormwater volume control is one of the requirements of the OI-4 zoning. Ms. Convissor noted that the University is proud to be on the cutting edge with our stormwater projects and would be happy to share our experience with volume control at a later date if that would be useful.
Ms. Convissor noted UNC’s stormwater control projects:
Ms. Convissor said that despite our successes, we recognize that our situation on campus is very different than what others in Town will experience in trying to comply with these regulations. We have more than 500 acres on main campus with a variety of land uses including open space, she said, and recreation fields and parking lots that offer opportunities for stormwater regulation that may not be available on smaller parcels.
Ms. Convissor said our learning curve for designing these projects was long and steep and we benefited from the advice and counsel of consultants who had national experience in stormwater volume control. She said the hope is that the Council will delay the implementation of the volume control until there is wider community understanding of and comfort with the various strategies for controlling stormwater volume.
John Kent, a member of the Town's Stormwater Management Committee, urged the Council to keep the floodplain areas undeveloped and green and in a natural state. He argued that this would be good for water quality, aesthetics, the natural environment, public safety, and the public purse. Mr. Kent acknowledged that there would be pressure to develop the land. Giving in to that would cause the Town in the end to pay and pay and pay, Mr. Kent said, urging Council members to keep the floodplains undeveloped despite cries to the contrary.
Calvin Mellott, developer of Northwood, explained that a group of five lots that he had planned to develop would not be allowed under the new ordinance’s RCD regulations. He explained that the lots had been cleared and already had sewer, water, electricity, phones and driveways. This project had been held up for a year and a half, Mr. Mellott said, because of questions regarding another section of Northwood. Now the development will be precluded by the LUMO, he said. Mr. Mellott asked Council members to grandfather his final five-lot development, and offered to donate his remaining seven lots to affordable housing as a trade-off.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ENACT O-2.
Council Member Wiggins asked when and how the Council would deal with Mr. Mellott's offer. Mr. Horton replied that the Council would not be able to consider that this evening because Mr. Mellott had not yet filed an application. Mr. Horton added that he was not sure that Mr. Mellott would be able to bring the Council a proposal that would meet the requirements of either the present or the new ordinance.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Horton if he was saying that it had not been lawful for Mr. Mellott to develop those five lots. Mr. Horton asked Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper to review the details of the proposal. Ms. Culpepper explained that the Northwood subdivision had reached the maximum number of lots. Areas that had been used for erosion control, she explained, could not be platted for single-family development and had been set aside as unbuildable areas. Ms. Culpepper said that Mr. Mellott had filed a preliminary plat application today for development of those areas, which have not been authorized for lots.
Mayor Foy turned the Council's attention to the items of discussion on page two of the Manager's memo, and suggested taking them point by point:
1. Reduce the threshold for Small House Requirements.
Mayor Foy clarified that the paragraph stating that the restriction should be adjusted to 30 months meant that the ordinance that Council Member Strom had just moved contained a 30-month term of restriction.
2. Raise maximum impervious surface limitations when development is accompanied by stormwater management facilities.
Mayor Foy remarked that he thought the Council's discussion of this had focused on non-residential. If this applies to more than that, he said, then it should be changed back. Mr. Waldon replied that the Council had directed the staff to include a provision that would not apply the 70% impervious surface to residential development for which lots already existed. These limits would apply for new developments, he said. Mayor Foy verified that if the Council wanted to alter that it would need to take some action to do so.
In response to a request for clarification from Mayor pro tem Evans, Mr. Waldon explained that there had been impervious surface restrictions since 1993 for the southern part of Town that is in the watershed. The Council had directed the staff to include language that would apply those restrictions Town-wide, he said, adding that this had raised the question of how it should apply to existing lots. The Council had directed that it not apply to existing lots, Mr. Waldon explained.
Council Member Strom noted that he had originally made the motion to apply 70% to non-residential projects. He described it as a quantum leap to apply it to residential projects as well, adding that doing so went further than he had intended. Council Member Strom proposed that the high density option in section 3.6.4-1 apply 70% to non-residential projects only, Town-wide. Mr. Waldon asked if the Council intended it then to be 50% for residential projects. He also clarified that there had been no restrictions on the northern part of Town, with the exception of livability space for multi-family development.
Mr. Horton said that he understood Council Member Strom's intent to be as follows:
1. Leave 50% where that had been the requirement in the southern portion of Town.
2. Establish a requirement of 50% in the northern part of Town for residential development.
3. Establish a new allowance of up to 70% for non-residential development Town-wide.
Mr. Horton and Mr. Waldon pointed out that the state would have to be involved in changing the limit to 70% in the southern part of Town. Council Member Strom agreed that this had been his intent.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council would need to amend the present motion. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos asked if there was consensus for accepting this as an amendment.
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that it would be difficult for those who had purchased lots in the northern part of Town, and who have had no restrictions, to accept this change. Mr. Horton clarified that Council Member Strom intended that the 50% apply only to new residential lots.
Mr. Waldon asked for clarification of the intent regarding mixed-use. Council Member Strom replied that this would be subject to a Special Use Permit (SUP) and that the 70% limit should be taken on a case- by-case basis.
Mr. Horton noted that the Council could establish the limit at either 50% or 70% and make adjustments based on the facts.
Council Member Strom said he was comfortable with 70%, with adjustments based on the facts. Mr. Waldon pointed out that this change would occur on page 79 and in the footnote on page 82. Council Member Strom noted that page 55 would also include the change.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT OF 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHERN PART OF TOWN, TO LEAVE IT AT 50% IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF TOWN, AND TO ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT OF 70% TOWN-WIDE WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON THE FACTS.
3. Clarify the definitions of Intermittent and Perennial Streams.
Council Member Harrison expressed satisfaction with the corrected definition.
4. Increases protection for areas with steep slopes.
Council Member Bateman asked what had precipitated the change from 50% to 75% on 25%, or steeper, slopes. Council Member Harrison explained that several Council members and Mr. Waldon had agreed that this was worth trying. He said that he stood by his view that 25% is a steep slope on undisturbed land. Council Member Harrison noted that the Council would have flexibility to alter the standards for some projects.
Council Member Bateman asked how the Town had been able to change standards, and Mr. Horton replied that it had been specifically written into the LUMO.
5. Adjust the threshold for tree protection for single-family development.
Mayor Foy expressed opposition to changing the threshold from 5,000 square feet to 5,000 plus one-half of the lot above 5,000 square feet. He recommended deleting that change.
Council Member Verkerk argued for returning to 2,000 square feet of disturbance.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that she had put solar panels on her house but they had never worked because she was not willing to cut down trees. You cannot have both, she said, and have them effective. Mayor pro tem Evans recommended leaving the proposed adjustment because not allowing it almost precludes homes from having solar power.
Council Member Ward described the 5,000 square-foot plan outlined in Mr. Radway's handout as a good compromise.
Council Member Bateman agreed with making it 5,000 square feet rather than being more restrictive at the start.
Council Member Strom noted that there had been consensus among the Comprehensive Plan Committee to aggressively pursue tree protection. He said that he was comfortable with dropping it down to 2,000 square feet, noting that the model of compact development and low impact design has smaller lots.
Council Member Harrison suggested perhaps withholding this and considering a sliding scale based on lot size. He pointed out that Mr. Radway's analysis showed that the average does not fit all development.
Mr. Horton noted that the Council and staff had concluded that virtually every permit would invoke coverage of this portion of the ordinance at 2,000 square feet. He said they had concluded that some would escape coverage at 5,000 square feet, but that this was reasonable because they did not have the same impact on the earth. Mr. Horton predicted that some people would consider this onerous, even at the 5,000 square-foot level, and that the Council would hear from them. He expressed concern that inspecting each lot, at 2,000 square-feet, would become the controlling factor in the Town's ability to process a permit. Mr. Horton predicted that the Town would not be able to process this on a timely basis with only one inspector.
Mayor Foy suggested taking a straw vote to see if there was support.
ON A STRAW VOTE OF SUPPORT FOR CHANGING BACK TO THE FOURTH DRAFT LANGUAGE, "IF LAND DISTURBANCE WERE TO EXCEED 5,000 SQUARE FEET," THE VOTE WAS 7-2, WITH MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS AND COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON VOTING NAY.
ON A STRAW VOTE OF SUPPORT FOR CHANGING BACK TO THE FOURTH DRAFT LANGUAGE "IF LAND DISTURBANCE WERE TO EXCEED 3,500 SQUARE FEET", THE VOTE WAS 4-5, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KLEINSCHMIDT, VERKERK, STROM & FOY VOTING AYE.
ON A STRAW VOTE OF SUPPORT FOR USING A SLIDING SCALE, THE VOTE WAS 3-6, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WARD, HARRISON & WIGGINS VOTED AYE.
ON A STRAW VOTE OF SUPPORT FOR LEAVING THE FINAL DRAFT AS IT IS, THE VOTE WAS 1-8 WITH MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS VOTING AYE.
6. Clarify the circumstances in which current RCD boundaries would remain unchanged.
There were no comments or questions from Council members.
7. Clarify that Town-approved Master Plans, Development Plans, Special Use Permits, Subdivisions, Zoning Compliance Permits, Site Development Permits, and Site Plan Reviews may continue to proceed with authorized development under the regulations in place at the time of approval.
Mayor Foy referred to the language that appears in the recommended ordinance and in O-2. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that Mr. Waldon had noted some minor modifications, which were now part of the main motion.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Karpinos if he had analyzed this. Mr. Karpinos replied that he had and that this was part of why Mr. Waldon had asked for modifications. He said that the language was based on the staff's understanding of the Council's desire with respect to applications that had already been approved.
8. Adjust for typographical errors, formatting, and internal references.
Mr. Horton noted that the staff had hired three librarians to help edit the document.
Council Member Ward asked if everyone was clear regarding #1 of the reduced thresholds for Small House Requirements. The threshold was now 25% of the larger size, rather than the two different sizes, he said. Council members indicated that they understood.
A. Increasing incentives for residential development in the Town Center.
Mayor Foy said that he did not support this language, even though he supported increasing density in the Town Center. He explained that he wanted the Council to keep leverage to give that density where it was warranted rather than in a wholesale fashion.
Council Member Harrison expressed support for Mr. Radway's approach, which pointed out that it would take more than adding a permitted bonus density to make residential development happen in the Town Center. He agreed that encouraging such development would require studying parking policy and standards and being connected with a transit-oriented development analysis.
Mayor pro tem Evans argued that the Town needed this added incentive to build housing Downtown because it was too easy not to do so. She stated that it was worth trying, and suggested putting it in the LUMO and reviewing it later.
Council Member Strom suggested that the Council include this in its transit-oriented development discussion. With conditional use zoning, he said, it would be silly to give it up and not have this additional leverage to meet community needs.
Mayor Foy asked if there was support on the Council for making a change from the existing table to the proposed table.
IN A STRAW VOTE REGARDING MAKING A CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING TABLE TO THE PROPOSED TABLE TO INCREASE INCENTIVES, THE VOTE WAS 1-8, WITH MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS VOTING AYE.
Council Member Harrison noted that even though he did not support doing this tonight he thought the table should be looked at as Mr. Radway had outlined.
B. Increasing the amount of money that would be expected to be offered as a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing options, to consider fractions of required units.
Mayor Foy noted that the current language rounds down, and the proposal is for different language that would not round off the fraction and would therefore have a different effect.
Council Member Verkerk asked if the $52,000 could be written to reflect inflation. Mr. Waldon pointed out that it would be estimated on a case-by-case basis.
Council Member Ward spoke in support of the language on page six, which would include fractions of required units in the calculations.
IN A STRAW VOTE, THE COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO INCLUDE FRACTIONS IN PAYMENT-IN-LIEU OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
C. Grandfathering current Resource Conservation District boundaries on existing lots for all language, on page 40.
Mayor Foy asked the staff to explain the difference in language from the fourth to the fifth draft. Mr. Waldon explained that the final draft has what the staff believed to be the Council's intent. That is, if there is an existing lot with an existing development, then the old RCD boundary applies, he said. But if there is an existing lot and new non-residential development is proposed, Mr. Waldon said, the new RCD boundary would apply. Mr. Waldon noted that the fourth draft had said that the old RCD boundary applies to an existing lot regardless of what you plan to do on it. The staff believed that this was not the Council's intent, he said.
Mayor pro tem Evans clarified that the new RCD regulations would not apply to an existing undeveloped lot in the case of a single-family or two-family dwelling. She determined that it applies to commercial or multi-family development.
BY CONSENSUS, COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVED THE NEW LANGUAGE ON GRANDFATHERING CURRENT RCD BOUNDARIES ON EXISTING LOTS.
D. Subdivisions shall not include covenants or other conditions of sale that restrict or prohibit the use, installation or maintenance of solar collection devices.
E. 1992 exemption for large lots in R-LD5 zoning district.
Council Member Bateman pursued Mr. Radway's suggestion regarding transferring some floor area ratio from one portion of a lot to another. Mr. Waldon explained that this was among the ideas that had been suggested, which were not in the LUMO because the Council and staff had not reached conclusions regarding them.
Mayor Foy noted that this had been referred to the staff for comment in anticipation of further refinements. Mr. Waldon agreed that it would be one of the first things the staff would look at when adjusting the ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE MR. RADWAY'S SUGGESTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD.
Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had basically added a conditional 50 feet when it increased the RCD boundary from 100 to 150 feet. Whether the Council wants to embrace the idea of taking the floor area that might have gone in that 50 feet and putting it somewhere else on the site, he said, depends on Council members' intent. Mr. Horton added that this seemed essentially harmless to him even though the staff had not yet carefully evaluated it.
Council Member Ward noted that the Chamber of Commerce had recommended transferring that floor area ratio to the dry part of the lot. Mr. Waldon pointed out that a property owner already can transfer whatever floor area ratio is permitted in the table on page 41 to the non-RCD portions of the site, so that would not require a change.
Council Member Bateman offered to withdraw her motion, since no one, including her, seemed to understand it.
Mr. Waldon directed the Council’s attention to the table on page 41, which showed how much floor area one can get from different portions of the site. He explained that Mr. Radway's proposal was that, rather than .019 for the Upland Zone, it would be whatever the underlying zoning would call for, which would be significantly higher than that. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that it would be for the non-RCD portion, meaning that the floor area would be used outside the RCD. Mr. Horton added that this would be consistent with other standards.
Council Member Bateman decided to leave her motion on the floor.
IN A STRAW VOTE FOR AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE MR. RADWAY'S SUGGESTION, THE VOTE WAS 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY VOTING NAY.
Council Member Ward asked if the Council could make the Planning Board's recommended changes to the permitted recreational uses within the RCD. Mr. Waldon commented that it would be fine to say "public recreational uses and private recreational uses" rather than "public and private recreational uses." He added that there would be no harm in adding the recommended cross reference to 5.5.2B of the ordinance. Mr. Waldon pointed out, though, that the associated infrastructure suggestion had been part of the Planning Board's recommendation to the Council on January 6, 2003, and that the Council had not directed the staff to do that. It would mean, he said, that outlet pipes would not be allowed within the 50 feet.
Council Member Ward expressed concern about permitting private recreation in a streamside zone. This would allow much to go on in critical areas that the Town is trying to protect, he said. He wondered if the "P" could be changed to an "S" so that the Town would have some control over what was done in areas near streams. Mr. Karpinos expressed concern about that since the RCD ordinance is based on authority from State law. There are certain provisions that provide that certain uses are permitted as a matter of right in floodway areas, he said. Mr. Karpinos stated that he was not prepared to advise the Council without taking a closer look at the law.
Mayor Foy determined that there was no legal problem with the associated infrastructure change, however. Council Member Harrison noted that there would be much RCD that is not in the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) floodway. He wondered if the ordinance could be written to show floodway uses by right, and then others. Mr. Karpinos replied that this was one of the things he would look at.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the farther down you go on table 3.6., the more intensive the uses are. For example, you could not build a play field, but you could build a path, he said.
Council Member Ward asked why private recreation use would not include playing fields. Mr. Waldon pointed out that playing fields are specifically prohibited streamside, as are lawns, pastures, playground equipment, and others.
Council Member Strom suggested that Council Member Ward make a motion to have the staff reflect the language in 5.5.2 more accurately in the streamside zone under the first item in this table. Mr. Waldon explained that section 5.5.2 addresses a different issue, which is what land can qualify to meet the recreation requirements.
Council Member Ward asked that the Council direct Mr. Karpinos and the staff to determine whether or not the Council can change the language.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO REMOVE THE VOLUME CONTROL ELEMENTS OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE.
Council Member Harrison commented that Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal had been describing a single-family lot at a workshop on the ordinance a few months ago. This is not the kind of threshold the Town set here, he said. Mr. Horton agreed, adding that there would be an upcoming conference to figure out how to do stormwater management on a small scale and that the staff believed it was workable. Mr. Karpinos noted that the language was at 5.4.6B on page 149.
Council Member Bateman asked if the ordinance required this to apply to single-family lots if they disturb more than 5,000 square feet. Mr. Waldon replied that the volume requirement was for more than 5,000 square feet for newly created lots but does not apply to single-family or two-family existing lots. Mayor pro tem Evans clarified that it would apply to multi-family and commercial lots.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN WITHDREW HER SECOND OF MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS’ MOTION.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked that the Council remain aware of this for further evaluation. Mr. Horton repeated that the staff had researched the issue and had concluded that it was workable.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested changes to the front yard parking section on page 186, 5.9.9D4. Mr. Horton recommended changing it to curb cuts "or other access points." Mayor pro tem Evans asked to add a #7 that would say "or on the basis of environmental constraints." Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the proposal regarding "other access points" was on 5.5.9C.
Mayor Foy clarified that the references to curb cuts on 5.9.9D4 and 5.5.9C would include other access points. He determined that other Council members agreed to that change.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO ADD "OR OTHER ACCESS POINTS" TO 5.5.9C AND TO ADD A #7, STATING "OR ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS".
With regard to sign restrictions for parking limited to four square feet, Mayor pro tem Evans proposed adding "except in Town Center to be approved by the Manager."
Mayor Foy asked Council members to consider that there were two more items on the agenda that could not be postponed. He recommended that Mayor pro tem Evans save her corrections for later when the Council refines the ordinance. He explained that it was too late to add new items to this version of the LUMO. Mayor pro tem Evans asked if that meant there would be a fifth draft. Mayor Foy replied that he wanted to move the item along so that the Council could make a decision on the ordinance this evening. Mayor pro tem Evans commented that others had made changes, and there never seemed to be a right time to make her changes.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ENACT O-2, AMENDED TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE FROM PAGE THREE OF MR. RADWAY'S 1/27/03 MEMO REGARDING THE SUGGESTION THAT FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR COLUMN D IN THE TABLE ON SEC. 3.6.3 ON PAGE 41 BE CHANGED FROM .019 TO "SAME AS UNDERLYING ZONE”; TO REVERT BACK TO THE FOURTH DRAFT LANGUAGE "IF LAND DISTURBANCE WERE TO EXCEED 5,000 SQUARE FEET"; AND ADD NEW LANGUAGE ON GRANDFATHERING CURRENT RCD BOUNDARIES ON EXISTING LOTS; TO ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT OF 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTHERN PART OF TOWN, TO LEAVE IT AT 50% IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF TOWN, AND TO ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT OF 70% TOWN-WIDE WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON THE FACTS; TO ADD "OR OTHER ACCESS POINTS" TO 5.5.9C AND TO ADD A #7, SAYING "OR ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS." THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
NOTE: The entire Ordinance 2 (2003-01-27/O-2), as adopted, is attached to these minutes beginning after page 41, and incorporated by reference.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-12A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT THE MANAGER PREPARE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHAPEL HILL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (2003-01-27/R-12a)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has enacted, on January 27, 2003, a new Land Use Management Ordinance that supercedes Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance that was in place at that time; and
WHEREAS, there are multiple references in the new Land Use Management Ordinance to regulations that were in effect immediately prior to enactment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to have the Chapel Hill Planning Director prepare and certify a copy of the Development Ordinance that was in effect on January 27, 2003, for reference and use in administering regulations under the new Land Use Management Ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk shall keep a copy of such certified January 27, 2003 Development Ordinance in the record of the Public Hearing on the Land Use Management Ordinance.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-12B. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO PREPARE A WORK PROGRAM FOR TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH ENACTMENT OF A LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, AND CALLING RELATED PUBLIC HEARINGS (2003-01-27/R-12b)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has, on January 27, 2003, enacted a new Land Use Management Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, there are a number of initiatives to be pursued in order to most effectively implement the Council’s intent in administration of these regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the Town Manager to prepare a work program and schedule, for the Council’s consideration, designed to accomplish the following tasks, with the highest priority on the first four items:
· Begin discussions with the Northside neighborhood about creation of a Neighborhood Conservation District for that area.
· Study parking patterns and propose new parking regulations.
· Prepare language concerning regulation of Duplex Dwelling Units for consideration.
· Establish a process to monitor implementation and administration of the Ordinance.
· Update the Chapel Hill Design Manual.
· Begin considering Use Patterns.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council calls a Public Hearing for May 19, 2003, for consideration of provisions related to Duplex Dwelling Units.
This the 27th day of January, 2003.
Item 8—Consultant Report on Library Building Program
Mr. Horton said Items 8 and 9 had grown out of the Council's commitment to developing long-range plans for its most important facilities. Library Director Kathy Thompson presented the consultants' reports on these two final components of the Library Master Plan. She introduced Robert Rohlf, of Professional Library Consultants, to present the Library Building Program, and Richard Wayne, of Strategic Information Management Services, to present the Long Term Library Technology Plan. Ms. Thompson thanked Library Board members for their vigilance and hard work.
Robert Rohlf outlined various issues for the Council to consider. Even though the Chapel Hill Public Library is about 40% undersized, he said, it is one of the busiest libraries in the United States. Mr. Rohlf added that the Library ranges from 25% to 50% overuse. He explained that his study, which projects to the year 2025, had corroborated the findings of others that the Town had done. Mr. Rohlf explained that there had been an enormous increase in library use throughout the country, both in readership and in electronic use and applications. Public libraries are experiencing great demand for web and internet access, he said. Mr. Rohlf stated that libraries were becoming the keys to electronic information, which means that the formula must change when determining library use.
Mr. Rohlf explained that his firm had projected 93,000 Chapel Hill Library users by the year 2025 and that all of the calculations in his proposal had been based on that number. His program indicates that the Town should have a building of 75,531 square feet, he said, and it also recommends wireless technology, conveyor returns, a quiet study room for up to 28 people, a small store, a coffee bar, and new meeting facilities that includes a meeting room for 150 people. The program expands the spaces for the internet center from eight to thirty positions, Mr. Rohlf explained, and it expands and designs a new teen area. He added that the plan recommends a very significant increase in children's services/programs and includes doubling the size of the study and tutorial rooms. Mr. Rohlf pointed out that the program also increases the capacity for seating and increases major capacities for collections. He noted the need for expansion of the periodical area. Mr. Rohlf added that the parking area should contain a minimum of 250 spaces, compared to the 130 that it has. He recommended that Council members study the program as soon as possible because they might need bonds to fund it.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THE REPORT TO THE MANAGER, LIBRARY, AND THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 9—Consultant Report on Library Information Technology Plan
Richard Wayne, of Strategic Information Management Services, said that he had been an information technology professional for more than 23 years and had focused on library technology for the last 10 years. Regarding the project's methodology, he explained that his report had built upon work done in Chapel Hill in the past. While the plan looks at 2003-2007, Mr. Wayne said, it focuses on activities over the last three years. He noted that the status of the Library's technology had been addressed in several studies since 1999, and commented that he agreed with observations that the technology is not where it should be. Mr. Wayne stated that there was a lack of adequate systems support staff, and made recommendations to upgrade the automation system development, streamline service, incorporate electronic reference, increase public access computing, train patrons as well as staff, develop infrastructure and human resources. Mr. Wayne recommended that the Town hire dedicated systems support staff to focus on developing technologies.
Council Member Ward stated that he would like the Town to do a better job of reaching those who are not facile with the computer. He suggested reaching them close to where they are, such as at the community centers. Mr. Wayne replied that the rich resource of people with computer skills at the library could help the community in those ways.
Council Member Wiggins inquired about being able to access a journal from home through the Library. Mr. Wayne referred to that as "remote patron authentication." This would allow a person to sign in from home and connect to subscription resources that the Library had paid for, he said.
Mr. Horton commented that the Town might need to invite the consultants back another time for a more detailed discussion of these issues. Mayor pro tem Evans noted that the issue would come before the Council at budget time as well.
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER THE REPORT TO THE MANAGER, LIBRARY, LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECESS THE MEETING TO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p. m.