SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Council Member Cal Hill was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Senior Planner Phil Mason, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 1 – Public Hearing: Montessori School Special Use Permit Application
Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that the Montessori School had submitted an application for a Special Use Permit proposing to add facilities to the existing school located on Pope Road. He said the application proposed to add a gym and classrooms along with attention to buffers and storm water management facilities.
Mr. Bill Davis, representing the Montessori Board, described the process of creating the site design and engaging in conversations with neighbors.
Mr. Josh Gurlits, architect representing the School, requested adjustments to the recommended resolution of approval. The requests were (1) to add a provision regarding outdoor activity south of the existing triplex classroom; (2) and to add language about supplemental plantings.
Council Member Ed Harrison, who lives adjacent to the property, referred to the 1996 approval of additions to the Montessori School that were approved via a Site Plan Review Process involving the Planning Board, but not the Town Council. He noted that the Special Use Process worked better. Council Member Harrison said he considered the zoning of the school property to have characteristics often common to spot zoning situations. He added that discussions and agreements resulted in improvements to the original proposal.
Council Member Jim Ward said that other developers should follow the example of this applicant and work cooperatively with neighbors. He added that inspection of storm water facilities would be important. Regarding bicycle parking, he said he wanted 50 spaces provided, not the 40 as indicated in condition #6.
Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt asked about noisy activities. Staff described the recommended condition of approval.
May Kevin Foy noted the changes in the proposal between the Concept Plan and the Special Use Permit application, with respect to floor area and impervious surface. The applicant described changes subsequent to Concept Plan review.
Council Member Jim Ward asked that showers be provided as part of the facility. The applicant said that showers would be available as part of the new gymnasium.
It was the consensus of the Council to recess the hearing to the March 7 meeting.
Item 2 – Public Hearing: Southern Community Park Special Use Permit Application
Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper explained that the Town of Chapel Hill was the applicant and the application proposed playing fields, parking areas, trails, a dog park and a recycling center.
Mr. Brian Starkey, representing the applicant, described details and features of the site design.
Council Member Verkerk asked why the Park and Ride lot was not being expanded. Staff described the current configuration and use of the existing Park and Ride lot, and the need for the facilities shown on the plan for the Park.
Mayor Foy asked for clarification of the term “parking grove”. Mr. Starkey responded with a description of the design of parking lots.
Council Member Bill Strom asked why the location of the recycling facility was proposed at that location. The applicant commented about the need for a recycling facility and space requirements for such a facility. He said the facility as shown was similar to the Concept Plan previously shown to the Council.
Mayor Foy asked for a description of the approach to managing storm water. The applicant gave an explanation.
Council Member Harrison asked for further description of the proposed buffers, especially along US 15-501. The applicant described plans for plantings.
Council Member Ward asked for additional attention to pedestrian connections across Dogwood Acres Drive, and for additional attention to the number of parking spaces provided near Dogwood Acres Drive. The applicant agreed to explore that issue.
Council Member Greene said she was concerned about the height of proposed fences, especially along US 15-501. The applicant said fences were needed in relation to the playing fields. She also asked if it were possible for the areas to be used for performances. Staff agreed to explore that use.
It was the consensus of the Council to recess the hearing to April 5.
Item 3 – Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Amendment
for Changes to Vehicular and Bicycle Parking Regulations
Mr. Waldon gave a brief overview explaining that the proposed amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance was to adjust requirements for automobile and bicycle parking to be provided as part of new development.
Mr. Ray Moe, with LSA Associates, stated that as an outgrowth of the recent adoption of the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO), the Town was searching for opportunities for a more multi-model community. He said the objectives for the Parking Standards update were:
Regarding parking supply and utilization surveys, Mr. Moe stated the following:
Mr. Moe highlighted the locations of the selected sites for the survey, and displayed them on a map. He said they were comprised of:
Mr. Moe said that during two weeks in October 2004, when the University was in full session, LSA staff had literally counted the number of parking spaces at each of the sites and how many were occupied, noting that was done continuously during the day and evening over that two-week period of time. He said they also paid close attention to the variations, such as the time of day, the day of the week, and the weekends. Mr. Moe said in the seven multi-family residential areas, they had staff counting spaces at 10:00 p.m. and midnight.
Mr. Moe noted their sources of data:
Mr. Moe stated that the Parking General Manual was an excellent tool, as it had been updated for the first time since 1985 in October 2004.
Mr. Moe indicated that one thing that kept appearing was the difference between the Town Center and Non-Town Center rates. He said that the Town Center had 50 percent more trips in alternate modes than the rest of the Town. Therefore, Mr. Moe said, parking rates for land uses within the Town Center were established at about two-thirds the conventional parking requirements for land uses outside the Town Center.
Mr. Moe then displayed several charts that explained their findings and conclusions:
In conducting the survey, it was found that there are different peak parking demands by type of restaurant, such as fast food, high turnover sit down, or quality restaurant. It was further recognized that differentiating these types of restaurants could be problematic, so a single minimum and maximum parking rate should apply to all. Based on that survey, the minimum parking requirement for restaurants is one space per 110 square feet of floor area, and the maximum is one space per 75 square feet of floor area.
It should also be noted that two super centers were surveyed which included the Lowe’s home improvement center and the Border’s book store. These centers averaged a much lower one space per 500 square feet. Based on current zoning and available land, additional super centers are not likely to occur in Chapel Hill. However, if they were to occur, a lower parking requirement than required per LUMO might be considered.
Council Member Harrison noted that on the sites surveyed for retail, that many people consider the parking lots at Lowe’s and Border’s to be the same lot. He asked Mr. Moe if they had studied only those lots to get the retail numbers. Mr. Moe responded that they had surveyed Chapel Hill North and Timberlyne, as noted. He said that when they surveyed the Lowe’s and Border’s retail area, they had counted them as two separate lots. Mr. Moe added that these lots were counted six to seven times a day during the two week survey period.
Mr. Moe continued his presentation:
1. Efficiency and one bedroom
2. Two bedrooms
3. Three bedrooms
4. Four and more bedrooms
Based on the residential parking survey, a revised set of minimum multi-family residential parking standards are recommended, as follows:
|
Recommended Parking Standards Per Dwelling Unit by Number of Bedrooms |
Efficiency & 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 or More |
|
Minimum Per Dwelling Unit |
1 |
1.4 |
1.75 |
2 |
|
Maximum per Dwelling Unit |
1.25 |
1.75 |
2.25 |
2.5 |
Due to our review of dwelling unit parking demand for facilities within the Town Center, reduced multi-family parking standards are recommended for the Town Center which is within close proximity to UNC, shops and places of employment, and where public transportation is most accessible.
It should also be noted that as part of the field review, it became evident that some multi-family housing sites did not provide visitor spaces. Instead, all spaces were assigned to individual units, resulting in visitors experiencing problems in finding available parking. It is therefore recommended that at a minimum ¼ parking space per dwelling unit should be assigned and designated for visitor parking.
The following minimum bicycle parking requirements shall apply for the appropriate use and zoning district. Bicycle parking requirements shall not apply for uses located within the Office/Institutional-3 or Office/Institutional-4 Districts:
|
Use |
Minimum Number of Bicycle Spaces |
|
Industrial and Office |
10% of auto parking spaces |
|
Commercial/Retail |
10% of auto parking spaces |
|
Multi-Family Residential |
1 space per dwelling unit, plus 10% of auto parking spaces |
|
Recreation |
25% of auto parking spaces |
|
School |
1 space per 3 students, plus 1 space per 10 faculty/staff |
|
Park/Ride, Transit Center |
10% of auto parking spaces |
Rather than tying bicycle spaces to percentages, it is recommended that they be tied to square feet of floor area. Mr. Moe noted that this had been suggested by the Planning Board, and agreed that this was preferable. He complemented the Planning Board for the suggestion.
It was noted that parking uses significantly changed from daytime use to nighttime use. During afternoon hours, it was possible to find some parking in the downtown. However, at night those spaces are filled and remain filled.
Recommendations for Town Center Parking are:
Mr. Moe noted that much data was provided in the report, but he had highlighted the most important aspects. He welcomed questions from the Council.
Virginia Knapp, Assistant Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, commended LSA for their report, noting its breadth and clarity. She said the one use the Chamber has a concern with is hotels that have restaurants or hotels that contain conference facilities, and specifically mentioned the Sheraton and the Siena Hotels. She said when those mix of uses are combined, parking becomes “tight.”
Ms. Knapp said the only other concern the Chamber had was with the section of LUMO that gives the Council the option during the Special Use Permit process, or the Planning Board during the Site Plan Review process, to adjust minimum parking requirements of a project based on whether there is transit or parking facilities. She said that the proposed language gives the impression that the Council can “sort of change the rules” during the application process, and that creates uncertainty for developers and builders and adds an amount of risk to those SUP projects. Ms. Knapp said the Chamber encouraged the Council to delete this section of the proposed language, and let stand the minimum and maximum amounts currently present. She said this would remove the uncertainty and retain the clarity.
Mary Beck, Senior Vice President for Planning at the UNC Hospitals, commented on the reference in the report on hospital parking. She said they certainly do not plan to build another hospital in Chapel Hill, but at the same time it was important to recognize that one or one-and-a-half parking spaces per bed for a hospital is “woefully inadequate.” Ms. Beck stated you must think not only about the patient, but that patient’s family as well as visitors. She said visitors include members of the clergy, doctors and doctors’ staffs, nurses, dietary and housekeeping staff, radiology and laboratory staffs, and many more. Ms. Beck said it would be “dysfunctional” to attempt to operate a hospital with one parking space per bed. She said this was an opportunity to correct or adjust this low ratio of parking per bed for hospitals.
Council Member Verkerk noted that she had encountered persons who parked at University Mall and traveled by bus to the Hospital due to the lack of parking on site, adding this was a good use of University Mall parking.
Council Member Verkerk stated that the Planning Board had made a recommendation for the elimination of minimum vehicular parking requirements and for the use of only maximum provisions. She said that Mark White, the Town’s consultant for LUMO, could comment on that recommendation. Council Member Verkerk said she had informally consulted Mr. White regarding his opinion on removing all minimums, and asked Mr. Waldon if he had had any official contact with Mr. White regarding this. Mr. Waldon responded that he had not had any recent contact, but had talked about it in the past. He said Mr. White’s opinion had been much like the Planning staff, which was that it was a viable alternative. Mr. Waldon said it would be a significant change for the community, and it would open the door to the possibility that someone would build a facility with no parking, and there were certain circumstances where that would not be a good idea. So, he said, it is certainly a possibility and the staff would consult with Mr. White to get a more formal opinion.
Council Member Verkerk said she realized that this was not just a parking ordinance, but was a “cultural change” that they were asking people to accept. She said one of the reasons the University had been so successful is that there is just no place to park, and that is just a fact of life. Council Member Verkerk said that there are plenty of places to park in Town, noting that Timberlyne Shopping Center stayed “half empty.”
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL, AS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE, CONSIDER REMOVING ALL MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT IT BE INCLUDED IN THE MATERIALS THAT ARE PROVIDED TO THE ADVISORY BOARDS AND THAT COMES BACK TO THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Harrison stated that the Town still has maximum numbers to deal with, and referred to the comments made by Ms. Knapp regarding hotels and that Ms. Beck had made regarding hospitals. He said he would be interested in seeing examples from other cities that did not have minimum standards but did have maximum standards. Council Member Harrison said the Council does not have any information other than what Mr. Moe had provided. He said it was his experience that hotels below a certain size were mild traffic generators because generally their peak hours don’t coincide with the rest of the commuting travelers. But, Council Member Harrison said, hotels with conference centers, such as the Sheraton here and the one at Research Triangle Park, could be significant traffic generators. He said that he had known the RTP-area Sheraton to cause major traffic jams, particularly on Interstate 40.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Moe if he could offer examples from other cities that did not have minimum standards but did have maximum standards. Mr. Moe responded that the data he had provided was based on the number of rooms, and said what was being referenced here were the ancillary uses like the restaurants and conference centers. He said that some communities would look at the rates associated with the rooms, then add to that the uses such as the restaurant or conference center.
Council Member Harrison said he would recommend doing that. Mr. Moe said for example, the Holiday Inn in Chapel Hill is a small hotel with a restaurant, so if he was to look at the parking rates for that hotel they would most likely be appropriate. He said that if other uses were present, such as at a larger facility, then that could be clarified by wording in the ordinance. Council Member Harrison noted that the uses at the Sheraton would certainly be different. Mr. Moe agreed.
Council Member Harrison said regarding the hospital, he certainly understands Ms. Beck’s comments regarding the number of spaces required per bed. Mr. Moe said that was not an area they had focused on, but could certainly do so. Council Member Harrison asked if the Council would be interested in having Mr. Moe look at the data for hospital parking, as Ms. Beck was contesting the numbers and he would like to see some additional data.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would be interested in that data for academic reasons.
Mr. Waldon clarified that the way Town parking regulations work now, if a hotel were to be proposed that had rooms and also had a restaurant and conference facilities, that the way minimum parking requirements would currently be calculate was to take the number of rooms and multiply the ratio times that number, and do the same for the restaurant and conference center.
Council Member Harrison said if the Town no longer had a minimum, would the maximum be calculated the same way. Mr. Waldon responded yes.
Council Member Strom said Mr. Moe had looked at the Town’s parking situation and had prepared a report to meet those needs. He asked if the Council had said to him to make recommendations that over the next 15 years would maximize the use of the transit system, would his numbers have looked a little different. Mr. Moe responded that there is a difference between the Town and the rest of the community. He described a project they had worked on in the past, where a court building was being built in the downtown and the parking for that facility was being dramatically decreased. Mr. Moe said the city had embraced that because they had heavily invested in their transit system and saw this as an opportunity to promote its use as well as to promote the use of other parking areas. He said that many communities practice this technique.
Mr. Moe said their recommendations reflect that parking is still needed, but that some areas of Town have more parking than others. He said that their recommendations would allow the Town to begin to “ratchet down” the number of parking spaces in a gradual process. Mr. Moe said that was why the recommendations for the downtown suggested “partnering” spaces, so that those spaces are available to everyone rather than for just one use. He acknowledged that this would be more difficult in outlying areas that tend to be more along the lines of shopping centers.
Council Member Strom said he had an interest in understanding that we have an urban growth boundary and we want to more densely fill in our urban service boundaries, and we’ve made transportation and utility plans to facilitate that. He said that in looking at the report’s numbers, he realized that in some cases the report was really facilitating significantly more parking. Mr. Moe said that around banks and restaurants, that was true. Council Member Strom said that was not “ratcheting down,” rather it was working in opposition to the Council’s transportation philosophy. He said that was why he had proposed the “15 years” scenario.
Mr. Moe said if you look at the areas as centers, rather than as individual lots and uses, he believed the Town could reach its goal. For instance, Mr. Moe said, if you look at the Town Center as a whole and look at strategies and how to address that in a larger perspective, you could start to introduce lower rates in those locations. Council Member Strom said, then, that this could be important as we produce our master transit planning for the future. Mr. Moe responded absolutely.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was attracted to the idea of removing minimums, but he saw some potential problems with doing that. For example, he called attention to the report’s suggestion regarding a $3,600 per space payment-in-lieu option in the Town Center. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that if someone placed a building on a small lot, there really is no room to provide parking and they would pay the fee instead. He said when a proposal comes back to the Council to eliminate the minimums, he would like to see how that would affect such cases.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when looking at the restaurants in the Town Center, how did the small restaurants with no parking figure into the results. Mr. Moe said there were some restaurants that did provide parking, such as Mama Dip’s, but when he looked at other restaurants, such as 411 West, it was obvious that the public parking lot nearby was considered “their” lot, since it was the first place people go who want to eat there. Mr. Moe said if you had some of the consolidation they had talked about, and had those available to the general public for a lot of different uses and shared the daytime uses and the nighttime uses a little better, he believed you would see that there is plentiful parking in the Town. He said it was all in the way it is utilized.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the report was actually proposing that the parking provided in the downtown for restaurants be increased. He said that what confuses him is that when he goes downtown, that three very popular restaurants virtually located next to or across for each other are packed with people who are traditional non-bus riders. Council Member Kleinschmidt said they are not all parked in Lot #3, but are finding parking elsewhere. He asked how that is being figured into the recommendations, and why does that necessarily mean that we need more parking when every seat in the restaurants are filled? Mr. Moe responded that many people don’t mind walking a few blocks to get where they want to go. He said the Town Center is unique and to look at it “as a whole,” that is look at all the activities, not just the restaurants, and then sum up what the total need for parking might be. He said their survey took different parts of the Town and summed up what the parking need would be for that area based on all uses.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that nearly all of the restaurants downtown had a body in every seat, which means that people are finding ways of getting there and are finding places to park. So, he asked, why is the recommendation to lower the parking provided rather than leaving it as is. Mr. Moe said that was a good point, and that may be a case for eliminating minimums and having maximums only, giving a wide range to work with. He added that the current rate of 400 parking spaces as a minimum is not what the restaurants are providing, rather it is a lot more than that.
Council Member Ward said he shared Council Member Kleinschmidt’s concern of losing payment-in-lieu if that is connected with minimum parking. He stated that the materials state that the payment-in-lieu is $3,600, but in the same sentence notes that a parking space costs $10,000. Council Member Ward asked how we arrived at the $3,600 figure. Mr. Moe responded that $3,600 is what the ordinance states at this time. Council Member Ward said when this comes back to the Council, he would like the staff to respond to that question.
Council Member Ward said he would like West Franklin Street to be studied to see if additional on-street parking could be provided in that area. He said he believed it would not only add additional parking, but would contribute to traffic calming as well. Council Member Ward said he believed the areas now used for on-street parking are appropriate and attractive to the retailers in the area. He said he supported the concept of adding some sort of number, such as the ¼ space per visitor, to LUMO, saying he believed that demand had been overlooked and it should be included in the Council’s discussion.
Council Member Ward said regarding bicycle parking, he feels good about the Town’s approach as it is now, stating that it was an attempt to enrich that mode of transportation by making it attractive and making sure the facilities are available. Council Member Ward said those facilities might be underutilized now, but the Town was building a transportation system that would provide less parking spaces but would provide rich alternatives to driving a car. For that reason, he said, he did not support the recommendation to reduce the bicycle facilities. Council Member Ward said that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendation used a different unit of measurement, and asked that the staff find a way to use the same units for all the recommendations so that the Council and the public could better understand the recommendations.
Council Member Ward said from his perspective, the Council was requesting that the density of bicycle parking spaces meet not only the current need but anticipate the future need as well. He said he did not want to deviate from that, noting that Mr. Moe’s recommendations are significantly less.
Mayor Foy commented that he believes that some Council members think these numbers for vehicles are “timid,” and as we redevelop these are the numbers that will actually produce what we see 20 years from now. He said it doesn’t seem very forward thinking to say “here’s the median between the best and the worst.” Mayor Foy said he was frustrated by that, adding he did not know how we get to a point where we accommodate to the extent that we can the current needs, but we build toward a better transportation infrastructure for the future.
Mayor Foy said the Town had recently been in several discussions with the University regarding growth on campus, noting they are growing in a way that increases the amount of parking but decreases the ratio. He said he did not know if they would be successful, but it seems they are moving in a direction that we are not, and he would like to see us move in a direction that is more aggressive.
Mayor Foy said he had listened to what Mr. Moe had said regarding how the Town Center is unique in many respects, and had asked the Council to look at outlying areas. He said an outlying area is Ram’s Plaza, stating that if it was redeveloped in a way that had been suggested then there may be mixed use at that site. Mayor Foy asked how would these proposed parking requirements change what was available there. He said when he looks at these proposed numbers it did not look like there would be much left. Mayor Foy said this site was a major redevelopment opportunity located on a corridor where there is already heavy vehicular traffic, where we have the ability to provide public transportation, and where you could walk to other retail establishments. He asked what impact these proposals would have on that site.
Mayor Foy said another site of concern is on Eubanks Road where the biggest piece of undeveloped land is located, and that development would come in as a mixed-use proposal. He asked how these numbers would affect that site. Mayor Foy said his feeling was it would not look much different. Mr. Moe responded that the way LUMO is designed, it speaks to a parcel, a land use, and a parking generation. He said what the Mayor is describing is what he believes the Town is trying to move to, which is a lot of mixed use type centers.
Mr. Moe said he believed they had a lot of data that looked at the ebb and flow of parking requirements by time of day and type of use that could be melded into a mixed use plan. So, he continued, he would never propose that you take the minimum suggested for residential, theater or office use and try to make them fit a mixed use center. Rather, Mr. Moe said, he would meld all of those uses together to arrive at an appropriate number. He said such areas have different dynamics, very much like the downtown area, and that is how mixed use centers should be planned. Mr. Moe said he believed the Town was on the right track by looking at the dynamics of all the different types of centers and the goal of calculating the shifting modes in travel.
Mayor Foy said, as an example, if we had a site that had 80 residences along with retail or other uses, would you take the maximums for each use as a ratio. He said it seemed to him that in places like the downtown we are saying to add more parking and then we would have a good mixed use. Mr. Moe said he would propose looking at a time-of-day type model, say from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and look at the various types of land uses. Then, he said, you would look at all the various statistics for the different types of uses and look at their ebb and flow of use.
Mr. Moe said for example, in residential areas their use dissipates in the morning so many spaces are sitting vacant. On the other hand, he said, banks are opening in the morning so that use begins to increase but then dissipates in the late afternoon. Mr. Moe said restaurants are peaking at the noon hour, then decreasing in the afternoon, but peaking again in the evening. He said with movie theaters, they are not peaking at all during the day, but are peaking in the evening. Mr. Moe said when you put all the rates together, what is missing is the time of day or the percentage of utilization at different times of day. He said that needs to be factored into the mix of uses so that the sharing of parking could be determined.
Council Member Strom said what he was trying to get to, and what he believes the Mayor was trying to get to, was how do we make a policy that through these proposed maximums parking numbers is going to push hard our transportation goals that are routed in carbon emission reductions, less congestion, and trying to maintain a livable community in Chapel Hill. He said it seems that we may need another set of numbers that would be a transit-enhanced parking number that the Council could discuss. Council Member Strom said it might be that this could only be done in targeted growth density areas, but we need some other tool to have our staff respond to and have the Council and citizens discuss.
Mr. Horton said his understanding of what Mr. Moe has done is studied the existing conditions and made proposals as the Council requested reflecting those existing conditions. He said Mr. Moe had used average successful conditions based on what we see in Chapel Hill, taking into account some reasonable information from other places. Mr. Moe agreed with Mr. Horton’s assessment.
Mr. Horton stated that if the Council wished to achieve conditions that were better than the average existing conditions now, then one way to achieve that would be to factor these numbers so that you impose a challenge on it intentionally. He said you could factor it by 10 percent or 20 percent, or factor it only in those cases where transit service was so substantial that it made sense to do so, or do it across the board. Mr. Horton said if that is the kind of thing that would more directly address the Council’s interest, he believed Mr. Moe could assist us in doing that, and do it in a reasonable way. He said we could give that to the Council as an option that would move in the direction that this Council has wanted to go, that is moving towards more use of alternate modes of travel and less use of cars.
Mayor Foy said he believed that would be helpful, and Council Member Strom agreed. Mr. Moe said he would be happy to do that, but wanted to stress that we have individual land uses that we can factor, but what he is hearing is something that is more of a mix of activities and mixed uses at particular times of day. Mayor Foy said he believed it was both. Mr. Moe agreed, saying they should be both so that he could come back to the Council and explain the reason why, for instance, restaurants work in the downtown is because of the other dynamics that are taking place.
Council Member Verkerk said she had become nervous when Mr. Moe used the word “conservative,” because to her that meant maintaining the status quo. She said she believed they wanted to be more progressive, and progress towards their transportation goals. Mr. Moe responded that his use of the word “conservative” was more in minimizing the number.
Council Member Harrison said regarding bicycle parking, he believed something between what Mr. Moe is recommending and what the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board was recommending would be preferable. He said that in some cases less bicycle parking may be needed because of the use, such as at an elementary school that is not easily accessible by bicycle. Council Member Harrison said that as architects design buildings, more thought and planning should be devoted to bicycle parking, such as providing a shelter rather than more spaces. He said that as a user, he did not care how many spaces were provided, but at least some of them should be under a cover. Mr. Moe said some communities do regulate how many spaces should be near bike lockers or under bike covers.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED TO RECESS THE HEARING TO MAY 9TH, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4 – Public Forum: Proposed Revisions to the Town’s
Energy Conservation Ordinance
Mr. Horton noted that Senior Planner Phil Hervey had worked on this issue with the Committee and with the staff, and would make tonight’s presentation.
Mr. Hervey stated that the forum was called to receive public comment on a proposal from the Council Committee on Sustainability, Energy and Environment (SEE) to revise the Town’s Energy Conservation Ordinance, adopted in May 1997. He said the Committee and staff had looked at the existing energy ordinance and identified several issues:
Mr. Hervey said the proposal from the Committee would institute a LEED process:
Mr. Hervey outlined the LEED process:
Mr. Hervey reviewed the criteria the U.S. Green Building Council uses to determine if a project achieves the necessary points. He said that some of the comments in the proposal are as follows:
Mr. Hervey outlined the Manager’s preliminary recommendation:
Council Member Verkerk said she had three items to bring forward, the most important one being that she believed the LEED certification process should be an ordinance rather than a policy. She noted that she believed, through her discussions with Committee members, that the SEE Committee agreed with that.
Secondly, Council Member Verkerk said that in the first “Whereas” in the proposed resolution, the last line should read “…the use of solar and other renewable energy sources…” She said that the Council had agreed earlier that the word “renewable” would be included.
Council Member Verkerk said the last item was that if the Council takes the Silver standard for LEED, there needs to be third party confirmation. She said it was important to make sure we were meeting our goals.
Council Member Greene noted that the Planning Board had felt strongly that it should be an ordinance and not a policy, and she agreed.
Mayor Foy asked when, or how, we would know what the effects of this would be on the Town Operations Center. Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin said they had asked the design team to look at the project using the LEED rating process. He said they believed, and were trying to confirm definitively, that this late in the design process you cannot actually achieve a true LEED rating because part of the process is looking at the early design criteria that are applied and looking at an individual project from its inception to its end. Mr. Heflin said they do believe that they would be able to get a “pretty close reading” on the relative energy efficiency and sustainability of the project as compared to the LEED criteria. He said the difference in this case was that it would not be done by an independent assessor. Mr. Heflin said he believed that information would be available in the next few weeks.
Council Member Harrison congratulated Mr. Hervey and the Committee on the staff report to the Council, noting “it was a really nice piece of work.” He asked what makes the LEED certification process so expensive, noting that UNC Sustainability Coordinator Cindy Shea had stated that the LEED certification process need not be more expensive if integrated design strategy is adopted and long-term cost savings due to reduced energy bills are considered design decisions.
Council Member Harrison noted he keeps hearing that it’s more expensive, and that one alternative a citizen had suggested was that we look at the high quality building guidelines from the Council of Governments. Mr. Horton responded that we have not said it was expensive; we have said that using LEED criteria would likely add some percentage to the construction cost. He said the Town Operations Center was a good example of where the Town’s present policies are very likely to meet LEED requirements and therefore would argue that using LEED criteria would not have added anything to the construction costs. Mr. Horton said our current policies nearly equal that. He said it was also likely true that when you take into account the long-term operation cost, the environmental cost and the social cost that the community as a whole is probably better off. Mr. Horton said he was not prepared to argue that it was no more expensive than what the Council would have wished to do if there were no LEED criteria.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Horton if having this in the form of an ordinance would make it more expensive than if it was a policy. Mr. Horton responded that having it in an ordinance would give the Council no discretion, and he would have to bring every project to them with a LEED certification. He said that would be troublesome on occasion. Council Member Harrison asked what Mr. Horton meant by “troublesome.” Mr. Horton said he believed the Council may have to do some things they may not wish to do on occasion, particularly for smaller buildings.
Council Member Harrison asked if other aspects would suffer. Mr. Horton answered that for example, if we had to build a garage/storage building, it would be very hard to make such a simple building meet all LEED requirements.
Mayor Foy noted that this item would be referred back to the Manager, the Attorney and the SEE Committee. He asked Council Member Strom what the SEE Committee would do at that point. Council Member Strom said it would be helpful to have some definitive direction from the Council. For example, he said, does the Council want the Committee to develop ordinance language that would give the Council certain flexibility to avoid being put in situations that “we ought not be put in” but does not leave this LEED certification as too much of an option for staff or future Councils, unless they wanted to change the ordinance. He said the SEE Committee had felt strongly that they wanted to hear from the balance of the Council if that was the direction they wanted to go in.
Mayor Foy asked the Council how they wanted to proceed. He said he believed there was support for an ordinance, but they needed to take into consideration the Manager’s concerns.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated it appeared to be more than just a square footage issue. Mayor Foy agreed, and said maybe the Committee would help figure that out. He asked if Attachment 6, which lists LEED certification criteria, is the checklist that we would use. Mr. Hervey said that was the checklist with the various criteria that the LEED certification process looked for, but there was some backup material that explained the criteria.
Mayor Foy said it appeared to him that one way to deal with this is that if you can’t get the 100 points because only 50 were possible, then you should only have to get whatever the ratio is.
Council Member Ward said he would like to have the Manager look at some alternatives to prevent the Council from getting into a corner that we don’t want to get pinned into, and still keep this as strong as possible. He said that based on the Botanical Garden going through the LEED process, he did not think that approach was one we wanted to take.
Mr. Horton said we might want to use the same device we have occasionally used when the Manager is given discretionary authority. He said that established standards would have to be considered by the Manager and would have to be met, and perhaps we could develop some standards the Council could apply to determine whether or not an exception to the ordinary rule would be justified. That way, Mr. Horton said, you would have something predetermined that you could utilize. He said it might be easier to write those kinds of standards about circumstances than it would be to try to gauge them by the LEED criteria themselves.
Council Member Verkerk said she wanted to remind everyone why the LEED criteria was chosen, that being because our old ordinance had become obsolete because it was tied to time-sensitive material. She said the LEED process gives the Council a lot of flexibility.
Council Member Ward asked did we know when we could expect this to come back to the Council. Mr. Horton said it would depend on the Committee’s determinations and the speed with which the staff could develop some possibilities for the Committee to consider. He said with the present work load it may be a couple of months before it could come back.
Mayor Foy suggested that an update come back on April 5. Mr. Horton suggested that May 9 would be a better time.
Council Member Strom said it would be nice to have something to vote on before the Council takes its summer break. Other Council members agreed. Mayor Foy said he believed that would be possible.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER, ATTORNEY, AND THE SEE COMMITTEE, WITH A REPORT TO COME BACK ON MAY 9.
Item 5 – Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment
for Changes to Subdivision Plat Certification Provisions
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper stated that this public hearing was to consider the change to the subdivision certification provisions. She noted that recordation of a final subdivision plat is the step in the subdivision process that legally creates the separate lots shown on the plat, allowing them to be sold and developed. Ms. Culpepper said the proposed amendment is to Section 4.6.11 of LUMO, which would require the party who signs the final plat prior to recordation to verify under oath that he or she is the owner of the property described and shown on the plat.
Ms. Culpepper said that the Manager recommends that this amendment be adopted, adding that they believe it is a reasonable additional step to the Town’s land use regulatory procedures that will improve the Town’s monitoring and enforcement of subdivision conditions of approval established by the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
THE COUNCIL REFERRED THIS ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY BY CONSENSUS.
Item 6 – Concept Plan: Homestead Road Property - Residential Development
Ms. Culpepper said the proposal is to construct a residential development on Homestead Road. She said the proposal involves construction of 36 buildings with 72 dwelling units totaling approximately 125,000 square feet of floor area with 137 parking spaces. She said the site is located at the southwest corner of Homestead Road and Seawell School Road. Ms. Culpepper displayed a map pointing out the location of the proposed development.
Ms. Culpepper noted that the Council had first reviewed a Concept Plan for this site on June 21, 2004, but the proposal had changed. Ms. Culpepper called the Council’s attention to a chart on page 4 of the materials that highlighted the changes made to the Concept Plan since the Council saw it last June. She said the applicant had obtained additional property so the boundaries had been adjusted.
Ms. Culpepper said the Concept Plan proposal had returned to the Community Design Commission (CDC) in January and again on February 16. She noted that the CDC’s comments were included in the materials.
Ms. Culpepper said that the Concept Plan process does not include a staff review. But, she said, they do believe that when this proposal becomes an application, it will require a rezoning and a Special Use Permit. The staff recommends that the Council hear from the applicant, from citizens, and adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant.
Eric Chupp, of Capkov Ventures, Inc., said they were back before the Council after almost a year of revisions to this project. He stated that they had tried to incorporate the Council’s earlier comments as well as those from the CDC, whom they have appeared before on three different occasions. Mr. Chupp said they believe they now have it right and will be able to bring this forward as an application in a month or so.
Mr. Chupp said when the Council reviewed this project the first time, the feedback was twofold. First of all, he said, it was acknowledged that the plan was too dense, and displayed a site plan map of the property. Second, he said, for the affordable housing component they had offered size-restricted housing, but that had been modified to expand that but with the same amount of units. Mr. Chupp noted that the street structure had been significantly modified from the previous proposal.
To address the affordability component, Mr. Chupp said they had modified the plan to include 20 percent affordable housing as opposed to size-restricted units previously proposed. He said this type of community allows them to seamlessly integrate affordable housing in with market rate housing by way of the duplex configuration. Mr. Chupp said their goal was that the “casual observer” would not be able to tell the difference between the affordable units and the market rate units.
Mr. Chupp said one of the most important elements of the affordable housing component in this project is that it places the affordable housing within walking distance of the three primary schools, noting that part of the plan calls for providing a sidewalk that attaches to existing sidewalks.
Mr. Chupp said other attributes of this location include the new park and eventual aquatics facility that will be located on Homestead Road, the Senior Center that will also be located on Homestead Road, and eventually the development of the Horace Williams site which is very close to this property.
Mr. Chupp said the market rate housing would be moderately priced by Chapel Hill standards, and may well be the lowest priced family housing built in Chapel Hill at that time. He said they hoped to maintain a price level of $250,000 for market rate homes. Mr. Chupp said they believe that this is the right community in the right spot.
Mr. Chupp said they had addressed the density issue by retaining the same amount of homes at 72, or 36 duplex units, and have added 66,000 square feet of usable land to the previous site. He said this had been accomplished by a well thought out trade between Capkov Ventures and the Gallitano-Burch family, with the additional land also allowing us to add a more interesting street layout that gives the project a more community feel, and affording more room between homes. Mr. Chupp pointed out the land swap on the map displayed of the site. He noted that the additional land had also allowed them to consolidate the stormwater facilities and the detention facilities into one facility, which they believe has numerous benefits from a water quality standpoint.
Mr. Chupp said they believe this is a good project, and believe that the CDC agrees with them. He said another thing worthy of note is that there has been little community opposition to the project.
Phil Post, speaking as a representative of Capkov Ventures, said they had one question on the development side and would appreciate having an answer this evening. He said as you read through the chart provided in the materials there is one area in which they exceed the ordinance requirement, and that is in the floor area. Mr. Post said that Ms. Culpepper had mentioned in her opening remarks that they may need a rezoning, but he would like to suggest that there may be another alternative. He said there is a portion of the Town’s ordinance that allows the Council to modify one of the rules, such as in this case where the proposed development meets all of the requirements but one, with the ordinance allowing the Council to grant an exception in such a case.
Mr. Post gave a brief overview of how the development was placed on the site, the amount of open space that would be retained, its close proximity to the schools, and several other factors. He said that because of these facts, the project meets the threshold for the “public purposes” as specified in the ordinance. Mr. Post said if a project meets the public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree, then the Council can grant an exception. He said they were not asking for that exception tonight, since they must prove it, but did ask that the Council give them some direction as to how to proceed. Mr. Post said in the area of floor area, they need to know if the Council would like them to proceed on the basis of the ordinance provision that allows the Council to target the floor area “like a laser beam," or did they want then to come in with a request for rezoning. He said they needed to leave here tonight with some indication of how the Council wanted them to proceed.
Mayor Foy asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos to respond to Mr. Post’s request. Mr. Karpinos said his concern with Mr. Post asking for that commitment tonight is that that decision is for the Council to make at the Special Use Permit stage, and he did not believe the Council was in a position to give that type of commitment to an applicant now because it has not received the evidence. He said he had not studied the Concept Plan so he did not yet have an opinion of whether the proposal would meet that criteria or if the Council would have that discretion. But, Mr. Karpinos said, he did not think the Council was in the position at the Concept Plan review to tell an applicant what it is going to do when a Special Use Permit application comes back.
Mr. Karpinos said he understood that what the Council wanted when they established the Concept Plan review process was to help the applicant, but he did believe the kind of commitment the applicant is requesting is one the Council can make.
Mr. Post said he believed his request had been misstated. He said they were not asking for a commitment, rather they were asking for guidance as to whether their application should be a rezoning application or would it be more convenient to discuss their request for additional floor area under the proviso that might allow the Council to adjust a single element of the ordinance criteria under the paragraph he had distributed earlier to the Council.
Mayor Foy asked if under either scenario, would there be a Special Use Permit application. Mr. Post responded that was correct, adding they needed to know if they had a Special Use Permit, or a Special Use Permit with a rezoning. Mayor Foy said he did not understand why that was important at this stage in the process. Mr. Post answered because they need to know if they need to ask for a rezoning, or was the Council going to handle their request for additional floor area as an exception to the ordinance, which would require only the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Karpinos reiterated that he believed the applicant was asking for the Council to commit that it would be willing to make a determination that the public purposes would have been found to be met to an equivalent or greater degree. He said that was the determination that needed to be made to modify the standards.
Mayor Foy, based on the comments from Mr. Karpinos, informed Mr. Post that the Council would not be making that determination at this time.
Council Member Harrison asked Ms. Culpepper to account for the sentence about “we will anticipate this might require a rezoning.” Ms. Culpepper stated that they will encourage the applicant to file a rezoning request and a Special Use Permit application because the intensity imposed meets the Residential-2 requirements, but the intensity does not meet the intensity allowed with the floor area ratio within the R-2 zoning district.
Council Member Harrison asked if the applicant would “pick” which zone that would be. Ms. Culpepper responded that the applicant would have to look carefully at the floor area ratios, and because the staff had not yet conducted a review of the proposal, she did not know what the R-3 or other zoning would do, especially considering the Resource Conservation District line running through the property. Council Member Harrison said he did not want to make any sort of commitment tonight either, but as a Concept Plan it was difficult for him to keep a concept of it without knowing if there would be a rezoning. He said he had brought this up because we don’t normally make such a statement as “we will anticipate this might require a rezoning.”
Louis Taft, a resident of Homestead Village, wanted to make sure the position of Homestead Village was represented fairly. He said that when this had come before the Council in June, a representative of Homestead Village had indicated that the residents in the neighborhood had a strong preference for single family detached homes. But, Mr. Taft said, they would not oppose this proposal, mainly out of fear that an even higher density proposal might be made if this one is rejected. He said that at the meeting of the CDC last week, it was noted that the entrance to this proposed development was on a curve. Mr. Taft said that traffic moves quickly in this area and there was some concern about potential accidents there. He said there was also some concern about run-off from the site and the effect on Bolin Creek.
Mr. Taft said that finally, there was some concern regarding the bus service that recently began in Homestead Village, and that that service might eventually be extended into this project. He asked the Council to make sure there were plenty of room for buses to make the necessary turns and that the streets were wide enough.
Bill Burch noted that the property Mr. Chupp had described as being acquired to add square footage on the site was property previously owned by him and his sister. Using the site map, Mr. Burch indicated the property. He asked for some assurance from the Council that at whatever time his family decides to do something with the neighboring tract, that they will not experience any difficulty in putting in a street on the 50-foot width that borders the school property. Mr. Burch said they endorsed this proposed development, adding it was well thought out and would be an asset to Homestead Road.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Post to comment on the proposed 137 parking spaces, and asked if that included on-street parking. He said it looked like there was specific on-street parking. Mr. Post said there were 38 garages and 38 pull-off paths. He said that the minimum number of parking spaces required by the ordinance is 137, so what we are proposing is on-street parking for about half of the requirement, then paths or garages for the other half.
Mayor Foy said he had looked at the CDC’s comments from last year, where they said they were concerned about the design, and had made suggestions for revised building design to “provide a diversity of building types and sizes.” He said this proposal did not look like it was a diversity of building types and sizes. Mr. Post said the drawings may be deceiving. Using the map, he indicated the different styles of housing, and reminded the Council that some had garages. Mr. Post said that there would be differing views, with some having front doors or side doors, and some with front porches or side porches. He said there was building to building diversity and scale diversity, as well as streetscape.
Council Member Greene said that when looking at the Council’s minutes of June 21, 2004, one of the other things they had talked about was setback diversity, and asked had that been addressed. Mr. Post said yes, noting that the former proposal was sort of a “cookie cutter” design, so they had broken that up with several large tree preservation areas. Using the map, Mr. Post indicated several areas of trees, and indicated road patterns and other aspects of the project.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Chupp how many of the total units would be affordable. Mr. Chupp responded that 15 of the proposed 72 units would be affordable. Mayor Foy asked if those units would be in the Land Trust. Mr. Chupp responded that they would be in the Land Trust.
Council Member Strom stated it was unusual for an applicant to bring a Concept Plan back to the Council for a second time. He asked Ms. Culpepper if that was an option for any applicant. Ms. Culpepper responded that whenever changes are made to a Concept Plan, and in this case the boundaries have changed as well as some other elements, we encourage the applicant to the return to the Council, especially if significant changes are being proposed. Council Member Strom stated he found it to be useful to see such projects a second time. He said it would have been helpful to have seen the proposal for the Wilson Assemblage a second time. Mayor Foy agreed.
Mr. Chupp thanked the Planning Department for their guidance on this. He said they had come back to them to ask should they or should they not appear before the Council a second time, and they had advised them to do so. Mr. Chupp said that had led to the appearances before the CDC, all of which had been productive.
Council Member Ward asked what the dimensions were of the interior streets proposed to have on-street parking. Mr. Post responded that near the entrances the streets would be three lanes wide or more, and other streets would be 27 feet wide. Council Member Ward asked would there be on-street parking on both sides of the street. Mr. Post responded that the Town’s standard for public streets was 27 feet in width, which allowed for on-street parking on one side only. He said that although these streets would be “private” streets, they would be built to Town standards.
Council Member Ward said he would be concerned with sight distances when you allow on-street parking near driveways, and there appears to be a continuous curve in this interior road. He asked the applicant to be conscious of this, particularly since children would be coming out into the road. Mr. Post said when this was brought back they would fully address this issue.
Council Member Ward said there was an earlier comment by an advisory board, and he agreed, that there was not a sidewalk on Homestead Road and he believed that was important to the connectivity the Town was trying to achieve. He said we were achieving it in part with this kind of plan, but we need pedestrian mobility improved along Homestead Road.
Council Member Ward said this was a Concept Plan, but the “huge” intersection off of Seawell School Road where the entrance looks like it was designed to allow “a couple of school buses to pass each other while a dump truck is doing something,” and is not designed for the people who are going to be living there. He asked the applicant to consider slowing down traffic with a tighter curb radius, and making it more user friendly for people not in cars, while still maintaining the traffic that you need. Mr. Post said there were engineering drawings that showed that the curb radius was much tighter, but it was difficult to see in these conceptual drawings.
Council Member Ward said he would look for much richer connectivity beyond the two entrances in terms of getting into and out of this development on a bicycle and on foot, and whether there are public paths on the perimeter so that people can get to where they want to go. He said he was curious what the access is to the central open space and the open space along the creek and making sure that it is clear and public, or a least community access to these.
Council Member Ward said he was concerned about putting 72 homes times how ever many people that turns out to be surrounding these “wonderful” trees. He noted that off of Erwin Road there was a beautiful oak tree that he believes the applicant was involved in, and now that tree is a skeleton. Council Member Ward said it takes a lot to protect these old trees, and if that is indeed a goal then it takes going beyond the minimum. He said they have to be protected not only during construction, but in terms of the use around them. Council Member Ward suggested looking at the trees around a playground, noting that kids with size 13 shoes can compact soil just like a tractor trailer. He said those trees would be gone if this was not considered carefully.
Council Member Ward noted that as the Council had said with other developments of this sort, an effort should be made to save the existing houses. He said there are two houses located on this site and he would be interested in having the applicant explore the opportunities for their relocation and offering to assist in that effort if it was at all appropriate. Mr. Chupp said that they had purchased a lot down by the Habitat development on Rogers Road, and that both of the existing houses would be moved to that lot.
Council Member Harrison said Mr. Post had referred to the streets as “private.” He asked if all of the streets would be private. Mr. Post responded that was the current proposal, but they would be built to public street standards. Council Member Harrison said taking into account Mr. Taft’s comment on bus usage, would you run a bus in and out of a private street? Mr. Post answered that they had not been before the Transportation Board as yet, but if the Town were to run a bus route through the development then they may have to rethink that. He said they had been encouraged by the CDC to bring the houses as close to the street as possible so that the appearance of the development was not dominated by long driveways. Mr. Post said this “doesn’t comport” to a public street right-of-way and front setbacks off of a public street right-of-way.
Council Member Harrison said that makes it “tough” for buses to do anything other than pull in and out of the development. Mr. Post said there would be substantial widening improvements along Homestead Road and Seawell Road. He said they had not yet vetted this through “bus route” thinking, but if the Town wants to run a bus route through then they would rethink the proposal. Council member Harrison said it sounds like the secondary roads could handle it. Mr. Post said their earlier thinking was bus stops and widenings would fully accommodate that along the two parameters.
Council Member Harrison said regarding the request for guidance from the Council, he did not know how other Council members feel but he believes this proposal looks like it would need a rezoning.
Council Member Ward said regarding the exchange of land between the applicant and the Gallitano-Burch family and the RCD running through it, he did not want the family to think there was any certainty of what can or cannot be done with that site. He said at this point he did not understand it well enough to give anyone any certainty as to that corridor being a guarantee to get to that property. Mr. Chupp responded that what he believes they should do is represent that corridor as a right-of-way on the next plan when they submit it so that it could be recognized as part of the SUP application. He said that might give the land owners the assurance they are looking for. Mr. Chupp said without having a concept in mind of what their future use might be, although they have floated a few such as several retirement homes for family members and that kind of thing, he believes that when we submit the next plan we will show this as a dedicated public right-of-way.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE HOMESTEAD ROAD PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (2005-02-21/R-1)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Homestead Road Property-Residential Development; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on February 21, 2005, and reflected in the minutes of that meeting.
This the 21st day of February, 2005.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m.