SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 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, 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, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Ceremony: Proclamation regarding Edwin Lee Caldwell, Jr. Day
Mayor Foy noted that some might view naming a day after Edwin Caldwell, Jr. as redundant, since "pretty much every day is Ed Caldwell Day in Chapel Hill." He then read a proclamation listing Mr. Caldwell's many accomplishments and contributions to the community. Mr. Caldwell listened to the proclamation from his seat in the audience and received a standing ovation. Ms. Lillian Lee accepted the proclamation in Mr. Caldwell's behalf and read a response that Mr. Caldwell had written.
In his response, Mr. Caldwell thanked, in particular, Council Member Edith Wiggins, Assistant to the Mayor Emily Dickens, and Mayor Kevin Foy. He also thanked his children and grandchildren and his many supporters in the audience. To Mayor Foy, Mr. Caldwell said, "Y'know, Kevin, you turned out to be a real good Mayor." He pointed out that the name Caldwell had a rich history that his children and grandchildren should be proud of. Mr. Caldwell asked the Town to remember how he had tried to make life better in Chapel Hill through service on boards and committees. Mr. Caldwell wrote that he would cherish this moment, and asked citizens to remember to "do something good for somebody else every day."
Town Manager Cal Horton explained that the item had two components. He suggested that citizens be allowed to make comments on both rather than having to appear twice. Mayor Foy agreed, and Mr. Horton introduced Town Planning Director Roger Waldon to review both components together.
With regard to 1a, Mr. Waldon gave a brief overview of the site, setting and policy context. He discussed both the zoning reapplication and the Special Use Permit (SUP) application. Mr. Waldon explained that the area east of Rogers Road was currently zoned Residential-1 and that the request was to rezone it to a Residential Special Standards District. This is a district that the Council created to promote development of affordable housing, he said. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the request for rezoning would be heard again on October 15, 2003, at a joint meeting of the Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
With regard to 1b, Mr. Waldon reviewed the proposal to divide the site into 12 lots with a total of 17 affordable dwelling units. He pointed out the location on a map, and indicated where the Resource Conservation District (RCD), roads, and regulatory wetlands were located. Mr. Waldon pointed out that sewer was not immediately adjacent to the property and would have to be extended from the area south of it.
Mr. Waldon noted that the Transportation Board had recommended more pavement on Rogers Road for bike lanes than the Manager had advised based on the Council's established policy for roads of this kind. With enactment of the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO), he said, the Council had rearranged the regulatory system so that minor subdivisions would become subject to Planning Board approval rather than staff approval. Mr. Waldon noted that the Council had the flexibility to modify those regulations in the context of an SUP application. The Council could modify the regulation such that the Council would be the final approving body, he said, adding that the staff would then assign the plat for the subdivision to create the lots.
Habitat for Humanity Board Member Frank Phoenix, Chair of Habitat's Site Planning Committee, spoke in support of the SUP. He described this as a good location for a Habitat development and stated that Habitat had something to offer the neighborhood. Mr. Phoenix noted that the proposed development was within the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) district and would put families close to their jobs. This would cut down on traffic and air pollution, he said. Mr. Phoenix also pointed out that Habitat was familiar with the community, having completed the nearby New Homestead Place development only three years ago.
Mr. Phoenix noted that bringing sewer from New Homestead Place to the proposed development would also provide potential future access to the Greene Tract and make it available to neighborhood residents. He expressed hope that increasing density would bring public transportation to the Rogers Road neighborhood. Mr. Phoenix stated that Habitat had designed an attractive project that would enhance the appearance of the neighborhood. He added that Habitat had held two neighborhood meetings and that some who attended had asked Habitat to help find funding for access to sewer.
Habitat's Executive Director Susan Levy said that a steady stream of people had hand delivered their applications for housing on the application deadline. There were about 60 applications, she said, pointing out that they would only be able to serve about 12 families. Ms. Levy explained that about 50 of the applicants live in Chapel Hill or Carrboro and that at least 35 of them were employed in those towns and had children in Chapel Hill/Carrboro schools. The development would be life-changing for the 12 families that are approved, she said, noting that one family were descendants of Charles Rogers after whom Rogers Road was named.
Ms. Levy described the project as a true partnership with the community. She noted that Habitat already had received allocations of funding from a variety of sources, including the Chapel Hill Housing Trust Fund, the Orange County Bond Program, the HOME Program, and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Habitat will raise the balance, she said. Ms. Levy noted that the development included five rental units for people who are elderly or disabled. She asked the Council to approve the zoning request and the SUP. Habitat and the families would appreciate not having to go back to the Planning Board, she said, pointing out that doing so would add a couple of months to the time required for obtaining building permits.
Engineer Warren Mitchell, of Mitchell Westendorf, P.A., described the project and discussed the sanitary sewer and the stormwater components. There would be 14 lots on just over three acres, he said, including one duplex and one triplex. He pointed out that a dense area of approximately 5,000 square feet was allowed in neighborhoods with this zoning. Mr. Mitchell indicated how the stormwater basin had been moved to save the wetlands without changing the dynamics of the subdivision.
Mr. Mitchell emphasized that the project would require an extension of sewer to an area that would be more than halfway to the Greene Tract. Habitat would construct the most expensive portion of that extension, he pointed out. Mr. Mitchell proposed moving the infiltration basin out of the wetlands and combining it with the recreation area in a gentle, sloping basin with gradual, grassy slopes. That would meet the Town's stormwater requirements, he said, adding that it would accommodate all requirements and still allow room for grass and picnic tables.
Mr. Mitchell suggested rewording stipulation #4 with regard to Construction in Wetlands. He recommended the following wording: "Construction of public or private improvements shall be allowed on the portions of the wetlands within the proposed rights-of-way in front of Lots 10 and 11, if constructed in a manner to minimize disturbance into the wetlands, and shall be approved by the Town Manager."
Planning Board Co-chair Sally Greene reported that the Board was pleased to support this project. Board members had focused most of their attention on the wetlands issue, she said, and they had been happy to help Mr. Mitchell find a way to preserve wetlands and get the houses that Habitat needs. Ms. Greene said that the Planning Board was ambivalent about pulling the detention pond out of the recreation area, however. She advised Council members to balance those requirements. Ms. Greene pointed out that a revised definition of intermittent streams would come before the Council after this approval. This new definition might have had implications for this development, she said. Ms. Greene stated that the Planning Board would gladly give the Council the responsibility of approving this subdivision, since that would expedite the application.
George Cianciolo, speaking for the Transportation Board, reported that the Transportation Board had approved the staff's proposed resolution, with the exception that it include a 16-foot wide road plus bike lanes. He pointed out that this would give Rogers Road continuity with other roads in the area. The Board had proposed a 26-foot cross-section that would include a five-foot bicycle lane on each side, Mr. Cianciolo said. He stated that the proposed nine-foot travel lane was too narrow for that section of road.
Mr. Cianciolo said that Transportation Board members had expressed concerns about sidewalks on only one side of the internal roads. Since some of the homes were being considered for the elderly and disabled, he said, Board members had wondered about the lack of access to sidewalk facilities. Mr. Cianciolo pointed out that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had recommended that the sidewalk be considered part of the right-of-way. The Transportation Board had not specifically addressed that, he said, but it was their understanding that the sidewalk on Rogers Road would be part of the right-of-way and not of the landscape buffer.
Tom Tucker, a property owner adjacent to the proposed Lot 13, expressed support for the project and for what it would do for the Rogers Road community. He pointed out that the neighborhood had carried the burden of the Orange County Landfill for many years and that promises had been made to residents concerning affordable housing, water and sewer. Mr. Tucker expressed concern that not all community members would have access to sewer as it is brought to the Greene Tract because of the topography in that area.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that people have to walk in the street on Rogers Road, with dump trucks zooming past in both directions. He requested a larger sidewalk along that road. Mr. Tucker also noted that there was no bus service to and from the Rogers Road area. With respect to the mix of inhabitants of the Habitat development, he suggested that it reflect the residents of the surrounding community as much as possible. Mr. Tucker repeated his support for the Habitat project, but also repeated his concerns about the lack of buses, sidewalks and sewer despite the fact that there is a huge dump located there. People feel as though they are getting the bad aspects of being near a dump without getting some of the benefits of being residents of Chapel Hill, he said.
Council Member Harrison asked that the Council be given copies of the zoning and land use maps that the staff had displayed. He also asked for at least a general sense of Carrboro's plans regarding that area. Council Member Harrison praised the applicant's move toward wetland protection. He agreed that the current road was too narrow, and noted that it was probably classified as a minor arterial. He urged the Town to move toward more bicycle facilities. Council Member Harrison pointed out that Rogers Road was not listed on Carrboro's 14 year-old bicycle policy, but was listed in the regional long-range transportation plan. He agreed with Mr. Tucker that it was difficult to get anywhere from the area on foot and that there should be a sidewalk. Council Member Harrison said that a larger bicycle shoulder and a sidewalk built within the right-of-way would make sense.
Council Member Bateman asked Ms. Levy for an estimate of how many potential homeowners have children. Ms. Levy pointed out that the rental units were one-bedroom units, but most likely all of the other twelve units would include children, she said. Council Member Bateman remarked that providing recreational areas for children was as important as preserving wetlands. She encouraged Mr. Mitchell to provide a recreational area.
Council Member Verkerk asked how having sidewalks on both sides of the road would affect the project. She pointed out that sidewalks could be used as recreational areas for kids. Council Member Verkerk described the lack of sidewalks as a safety concern because having sidewalks on only one side of the road would mean people must cross over and risk being hit by a car.
Council Member Ward agreed with the comments about the need for sidewalks within the development. He asked the staff to clarify their recommendation regarding the width of the Rogers Road cross-section. Mr. Waldon explained that the recommendation was for a 12-foot travel lane. Council Member Ward inquired about what the dimensions would be with a striped bike lane, and Mr. Waldon agreed to bring that information back to the Council. Council Member Ward emphasized that bike and sidewalk facilities should provide clear transportation alternatives for residents.
Council Member Ward inquired about this project in relation to the Town's moratorium on duplexes. Mr. Waldon replied that this was an SUP and that it could be viewed as a 17-unit multi-family development. The prohibition on duplexes would not apply in this situation, he said.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that the area did not have bus service because it was not within city limits. She noted the importance of having infrastructure in place so that such services could be provided when the Town annexes the area. Mayor pro tem Evans verified that improvements on Homestead Road would include a bike lane and sidewalk on each side. She emphasized the importance of people being able to get to Homestead Park and expressed support for a delineated bike lane along Rogers Road. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the application was for a very small piece of Rogers Road. But the staff would address the larger issues when they bring the item back, he said.
Mayor Foy determined that Rogers Road and Rusch Road were State-owned and overseen. Mr. Waldon explained that the Town had expressed interest in annexing Rogers Road at some point in the future. Mayor Foy ascertained, though, that the State maintained those roads and that annexation would not change that.
Mayor Foy summarized the Council's comments as suggesting that a sidewalk be built along Lots 10 through14, and on the east side of Lot 7. A future developer would then build the remainder of the sidewalk on the west side of the new road, he said. Mayor Foy remarked that he did not actually see a connection from the proposed development to the Greene Tract. Mr. Waldon indicated a stub-out from the development and explained that it preserves the right-of-way. It was not known what would happen to the property to the east, he said.
Council Member Strom asked for a map showing a more regional context for the road when this item comes back to the Council. He asked that the map include the Greene Tract so that the Council can see the relationship between the two properties.
With regard to whether or not this should go back to the Planning Board, Mayor pro tem Evans recommended that the Council make the final determination rather than delaying the project. Mr. Horton offered to bring language back that would allow that.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 10, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 2 - Public Hearing on Red Hot & Blue (Whole Foods Plaza)
Mr. Horton explained that the staff had discovered that Red Hot & Blue had been in violation of a SUP requirement imposed by a previous Council. The stipulation limited the restaurant to evening hours only. The staff had recommended a process to remedy that technicality, Mr. Horton said, and had brought it forward for a decision by the Council. Mr. Horton recommended the proposed resolution to make the correction.
Red Hot & Blue owner Jim Groot noted that in June 1984, February 1987, and July of 1990, Zoning Compliance Permits had been issued to Red Hot & Blue. Whatever was in the files in 1969 had slipped through when these compliances were issued, he said. Mr. Groot added that his lender had required a zoning compliance in 1999 and that it had been issued as well. He described the violations as a "boo-boo" and expressed appreciation for the Council's support.
Bill Wilson, Vice President and Director of Real Estate for Eastern Federal Corporation, expressed support for allowing Red Hot & Blue to serve lunch. However, as a long-term property owner and stakeholder, Eastern Federal feels that approval should be based on a few simple stipulations listed in Attachment 7 of the materials, he said. These include:
· The shopping center should provide traffic monitors to direct Red Hot & Blue patrons away from the theater's lot in a fashion similar to what Eastern Federal had been required to do.
· The shopping center should provide Eastern Federal with the same access easements across their property as Eastern Federal granted to them as part of its approval.
· The Council should anticipate that Red Hot & Blue might one day become a different type of restaurant and consider limiting the size of the bar or the number of seats while the Town has the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Wilson asked Council members to remember that the SUP applies to the entire shopping center, which he described as a multi-tenant, multi-million dollar operation. He said that approval of the SUP modification without stipulations would be inequitable and not in the best interests of the respective properties.
Council Member Harrison expressed support for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board's recommendation on page 14 of the materials. He also asked that the Ginn parcel consider modernizing the bicycle facilities to meet the Class II specification set out in the Town's Design Manual. Mr. Horton agreed to bring back a report on that with options for the Council to consider.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Text Amendment for Water and Sewer Provisions
Mr. Horton reminded Council members that they had instructed staff at the time the LUMO was adopted, to bring potential significant problems to the Council's immediate attention. This case fell into that category, he proposed. Mr. Horton said that the staff was bringing forward a proposal that would give justified relief to a group of citizens.
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper explained the proposal to change regulations in the LUMO regarding a requirement within the Urban Services Boundary that no Zoning Compliance Permit or Building Permit could be issued for development unless that development would be served by public water and sewer. Ms. Culpepper said the staff was recommending enactment of a text amendment that would allow a development to expand subject to regulations, including compliance with County Health Department regulations.
Dave Morgan, representing the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association, explained that many in his neighborhood do not have sewers because they believed it was not cost-effective for them and because of the associated construction and clearing of their wooded area. Nevertheless, he said, the neighbors think that using the provision of the LUMO to prohibit building permits for remodeling and basic repairs is not appropriate. Mr. Morgan asked Council members to approve removal of that provision.
Morgan Creek resident Dan Clark explained that he might want to renovate his home some day. He had discovered the provisions in the LUMO and was delighted to learn that the Town was re-examining them, he said. Mr. Clark asked Council members to support the text amendment so that people who want to make renovations can do so.
Morgan Creek resident Sally Greene, who is Co-chair of the Planning Board, observed that the Planning Board had seen this provision as a classic unintended consequence of the LUMO. No one she knew had understood what this would mean in practice, she said. Ms. Greene proposed that the intent had never been to regulate existing homes further than they already are. It is just basic fairness to homeowners, whether they are in the annexed area or not, to approve the text amendment, she said.
Suzanne Haff, speaking on behalf of her neighbor, Ms. Russell, thanked Council members for their consideration of the text amendment, and suggested approving it as promptly as possible.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4 - Public Hearing and Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment
for Housing Floor Area Restrictions and Accessory Apartments
Mr. Waldon explained that this text amendment would clarify what the Council had intended when it amended the former Development Ordinance to require a percentage of dwelling units constructed in new subdivisions to be limited in size. He noted that some applicants had asked to satisfy the requirement by including accessory apartments in houses. The staff believed that the Council had not viewed this as being in sync with their intent, Mr. Waldon said. He explained that the amendment would make it clear that accessory apartments cannot be used to satisfy the limited size requirement. If that is what the Council chooses, Mr. Waldon said, they should amend the ordinance to make that clarification.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if this would prohibit a separate carriage house. Mr. Waldon clarified that the amendment would not prohibit accessory apartments. But such apartments must be limited to 750 square feet at most, he said, and they must look like a single-family house. So, he clarified, a carriage house that meets those requirements could be considered an accessory apartment. He pointed out, though, that the amendment would mean that accessory apartments could not be used to meet the limited size requirement.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 5 - Public Hearing and Land Use Management Ordinance Text
In this case, Mr. Horton explained, the Council would be exercising additional authority that had been granted by the General Assembly. This allows the Council to consider a text amendment to the LUMO to allow reservation of identified school sites that are the subject of Site Plan Review or SUP development applications, he said.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council had previously had that authority for subdivisions but not for Site Plans or SUPs. The staff was recommending adoption, he said.
Attorney John McCormick, representing the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education, expressed gratitude to the Council and staff for their forward thinking approach to the problem. He praised the Town's vigilance in trying to assist and cooperate with other public bodies to assure that public services are provided into the future. Mr. McCormick noted the substantial change from the previous wording, which had given the School System 18 months from application to purchase. He said that 18 months was better than 12 because it would allow enough time for every possible situation.
Mr. Horton explained that the General Assembly had passed a law that limits the Council to 12 months. Mr. McCormick replied that the School Board would have no objection to moving forward in that case. Twelve months would cover almost every instance, he said, and the School Board certainly can live with it.
Council Member Ward verified that 18 months would remain in place for subdivisions.
Council Member Strom determined from Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos that the Council could go back to the General Assembly next year or the year after to extend the 12 months if they choose.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 22, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.