MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1990, 7:30

Mayor Howes called the hearing to order, noting that Council Members Rimer and Wallace would be absent this evening.

Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Nancy Preston, Arthur Werner and Roosevelt Wilkerson, Jr. Also in attendance were Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Assistant to the Attorney Richard Sharpless and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Mayor Howes recognized Lex Alexander, owner of Wellspring Grocery. Mr. Alexander noted that his business would be opening in the former Kroger store on Elliott Road on September 22nd. He noted that Wellspring was designing a grocery store to cater to the needs of area residents. Mr. Alexander invited interested parties to attend the store's grand opening on September 22nd.

Mixed‑Use Regulations

Planning Director Roger Waldon briefly reviewed proposed changes to the mixed‑use section of the Development Ordinance, noting that attention had been focused on parcels adjacent to Interstate 40 at NC 86 and U.S. 15‑501.

Planning Board Chair Bruce Guild said that the Planning Board had extensive discussions concerning the intent of the mixed‑use ordinance, particularly phasing and parking requirements. Mr. Guild noted that there was also discussion concerning the appropriate level of ordinance flexibility. Mayor Howes inquired whether ordinance enforceability was incompatible with theory. Mr. Guild said that there were some significant deviations between the two. Council Member Andresen inquired whether the Planning Board concurred with the staff recommendation. Mr. Guild indicated that the Board was generally supportive of the staff recommendation, adding that the Board desired to minimize variances from ordinance provisions. Council Member Andresen inquired whether there had been any discussion concerning flexibility of percentages for use (residential, office, commercial) types. Mr. Guild said there had been some discussion, but alternate percentages were not recommended.

Council Member Werner asked whether the Planning Board had reviewed the applicability of mixed‑use zoning for individual parcels of less than 20 acres. Mr. Guild said yes.

Town Manager Horton requested that agenda item number one and its attachments be entered into the record of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred with the request.

Livy Veselind, representing the Northwood Homeowners Association, said she and her neighbors were concerned about piggybacking of mixed‑use applications, since it would not be possible to determine how much total land was involved in an individual application. Ms. Veselind expressed concern that this was a loophole which would limit the Council's control over individual applications. Council Member Werner inquired whether Ms. Veselind had cause for concern. Mr. Waldon responded that the Council would review all modifications to master plans and subsequent special use permits. Council Member Brown inquired about the mechanics of additions to master plans. Mr. Waldon said that master plans could be approved for sites of twenty acres or more, with smaller adjoining parcels possibly being considered for mixed‑use approval.

Ed Pizer, representing Eastowne and Associates, said he had serious concerns about the proposed changes to the mixed‑use ordinance. Mr. Pizer said it was an exercise in futility to attempt to introduce residential communities at major highway interchanges. He added that component phasing was also impractical since market forces would drive the viability of project absorption. Mr. Pizer also expressed concern about the practicality of parking caps and proposed landscaping criteria. Council Member Preston inquired about the acreage of Eastowne. Mr. Pizer said approximately 230 acres.

Adam Abram, a general partner in the Chapel Hill North Partnership, stated that proposed changes in sign regulations might impact the development of his project. Mr. Abram stated that the theater on the site would require proper signage along NC 86. He added that signage would also be required for service stations on more remote portions of the property. Mr. Abram stressed the need for signage to be highly functional and harmonious.

Joe Hakan, representing Hakan and Corley, said that the existing mixed‑use ordinance was reasonable. He stated that the proposed modifications would force developers to do things that could not be done. Mr. Hakan expressed concern that no consideration had been given to topography, planning or site design. Mr. Hakan requested that the Council only consider modifications to the sign component of the ordinance.

Livy Veselind said that the intent of the mixed‑use ordinance was to integrate development into the community. She stressed the need for sensitivity to citizens who reside near proposed mixed‑use sites. Ms. Veselind expressed concern that there was no clear sense of the number of signs being discussed. She stated that locating signs on external roads and providing lighted signs undermine the purpose of buffering.

Margo Wilkinson, representing the Cross‑County Citizens Committee, said that the proposed draft ordinance was a good piece of work.

She said that residences were a necessary component of mixed‑use development. She said that many persons, including senior citizens, would enjoy living in mixed‑use areas due to the easy accessibility of many facilities. Ms. Wilkinson suggested that clearer language concerning buffers and trees was needed.

Mike Hambersly stressed the need for adequate site signage, done tastefully and in conformity with design guidelines. Mr. Hambersly said he did not feel it was necessary to have phasing of individual property use types. Mr. Hambersly added that placing a cap on the number of parking spaces was a necessary part of making projects economically feasible.

Robert Joesting said he was confused about the intent of mixed-use zoning. Mr. Joesting emphasized the importance of permitting people to live, work and shop in the same area. Mr. Joesting suggested that properly planned mixed‑use areas could be instrumental in reducing the volume of automobile traffic.

Jim Steele, manager of the Varsity Theater, stated that a marquee is an integral part of theater operations. Mr. Steele noted that while two smaller marquees might be more aesthetically pleasing, one large marquee would best serve the needs of theater operators, such as the proposed theater in Chapel Hill North.

Town Manager Horton noted that this evening's speakers had raised many questions which would require extensive follow‑up by Town staff. Mr. Horton said that the staff would examine the mixed-use concept, particularly parcels currently having MU zoning.

Council Member Andresen suggested that the Appearance Commission could establish performance standards for signage. Council Member Andresen stated that buffering standards could be made more flexible if developers met other conditions of approval. Council Member Andresen inquired whether Ms. Veselind's concerns about piggybacking of applications would be addressed in the staff response. Mr. Horton said yes. Council Member Andresen stated that density bonuses were somewhat suspect. She suggested that the staff explore the feasibility of a sliding scale for density bonuses.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND PLANNING BOARD.

Council Member Werner said that the Council had been discussing mixed‑use zoning and master plans since 1986. He added that one master plan had been approved and one was withdrawn during this time period. Council Member Werner noted the importance of developing a mixed‑use/master plan ordinance which would be workable. Council Member Werner added that the development of a uniform mixed-use policy might not be possible, given the unique characteristics of several mixed-use parcels. Council Member Andresen stressed the need for evaluating traffic impact and pedestrian circulation issues.

Council Member Wilkerson noted the need to develop workable signage guidelines. Council Member Wilkerson also requested that the staff evaluate the economic viability of residential components in mixeduse developments.

Council Member Preston suggested that major interchanges were ideally suited for office and related uses. She stressed the need for attractively integrated and developed mixed‑use development. Council Member Preston expressed concern about some elements, such as the residential component, might not be practically feasible.

Council Member Brown said she was concerned that environmental impacts had not been addressed in proposed mixed‑use/master plan regulations. She stated that air and water quality, energy and pollution issues needed to be addressed in this context. Mayor Howes suggested that the Council could possibly hold a joint session with the Planning Board in the future to address mixed-use issues.

THE MOTION TO REFER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND PLANNING BOARD WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

UNC Tennis Facility

Town Manager Horton requested that the agenda item and its attachments be entered into the record of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred with the request.

Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed the development application, particularly noting that the facility straddled the Orange/Durham County line. He also noted that the Finley Forest residential development was located on the northern boundary of the site. Mayor Howes inquired whether residents of Finley Forest had been notified of the application. Mr. Waldon said yes. Mr. Waldon noted that buffers around the facility ranged between twenty and thirty feet around the facility, and approximately one hundred feet adjoining Finley Forest. He added that the Appearance Commission had reviewed the tennis facility project and recommended its approval. Mr. Waldon noted that the University had requested that condition number five, relating to utility approval, be excluded since the University would provide its own services. He stated that tree protection fences would also be required as a condition of approval.

Gordon Rutherford, Director of Facility Planning for the University, requested that a copy of the proposed site plan be entered into the record of the hearing. He showed a topographical map of the area, noting that the site contained twenty‑one acres with limited development potential, due to environmental and topographic considerations. He said that facility construction costs would be paid by friends of the University. Mr. Rutherford noted that Jeff Elliott, representing the Athletic Department, was also in attendance this evening.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether usage of the park and ride facility would be encouraged. Mr. Rutherford said that Town staff comments did not recommend use of the park and ride lot. Mr. Rutherford stated that the forty‑eight spaces on the site would be adequate for most events.

Planning Board Chair Bruce Guild noted that the Planning Board, at its December 5, 1989 meeting, recommended the adoption of Resolution A to the Council. Town Manager Horton noted that adoption of this resolution was his preliminary recommendation to the Council.

Jeanine Williams, speaking on behalf of residents of Finley Forest, requested assurances that trees adjoining the site would remain undisturbed. Ms. Williams also expressed concern about the adequacy of setback, lighting and security, and parking requirements for the facility. Council Member Andresen inquired how many feet of trees would be located between the tennis facility and Finley Forest. Mr. Rutherford responded that Finley Forest units were within eight feet of the property line at its closest point. He noted that some trees on University property had been cleared during the development of Finley Forest. He noted there would be eighty‑five to one hundred feet of undisturbed trees in most places.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO OCTOBER 8. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

Morgan Run Cluster Subdivision

Planning Director Roger Waldon said the proposed subdivision was composed of thirty‑one lots on twelve acres. Mr. Waldon noted that the applicant was requesting the approval of a cluster subdivision due to steep slope and stream considerations. He noted that the parcel was zoned R‑2 and was located in the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Referring to a slope map of the area, Mr. Waldon noted the existence of a rough‑graded road and outlined the applicant's proposal for open space.

Mr. Waldon said that the Town staff did not concur with the Transportation Board's recommendation concerning a bicycle lane along Culbreth Road, since building a portion of a bicycle lane would have limited value.

Daniel Jewell, representing First Federal Savings and Loan of Raleigh, said he agreed with the Manager's conditions of approval for the project. Mr. Jewell said one of the project's objectives was to provide affordable housing. Mr. Jewell noted that the site was within the resource conservation district and flood plain. He said that over one‑third of the site would be dedicated to open space. Mr. Jewell said that possible improvements to Culbreth Road could add between $2,500 and $3,500 to the cost of each home. Mr. Jewell said that First Federal objected to the roadway improvements along Culbreth Road, but would complete them if necessary. Planning Board Chairperson Bruce Guild stated that on July 10, the Board had voted to recommend adoption of Resolution A to the Council. He added that two dissenting voters had expressed concerns about cut and fill of trees and the application of cluster subdivision standards to a parcel with unusable land. Town Manager Horton said his preliminary recommendation was the adoption of Resolution A.

Council Member Werner inquired about proposed lot sizes. Mr. Jewell said that most lots would be fifty to sixty‑five feet wide and one hundred and twenty feet deep. Council Member Werner inquired about the cost of each lot. Mr. Jewell said approximately $30,000. Council Member Werner inquired whether the homes could possibly be offered as affordable housing. Mr. Waldon said he was unable to comment on this matter. Council Member Andresen said she was concerned about the small size of the lots (1/5 to 1/8 acre). Council Member Andresen inquired about the topography of the site. Mr. Waldon observed that very little of the site is flat.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether a class B or C road would be used in the development. Mr. Jewell said that a class C road would be utilized. Council Member Andresen stated that it appeared unrealistic to have a bicycle lane only covering a portion of the property. Mr. Waldon stated that the Transportation Board had recommended the inclusion of four additional feet of paving for a bicycle lane. Council Member Brown inquired about the anticipated cost of the houses. Mr. Jewell said that industry standards suggest that lot costs would be 25% to 30% of total home costs, meaning that most homes would cost between $100,000 and $120,000. Council Member Brown inquired how much the installation of bike lanes would add to these costs. Mr. Jewell said he had no estimate of this additional cost.

Council Member Preston said she was not concerned about the size of the proposed lots. Council Member Preston inquired about the possibility of including a small neighborhood shopping area in the applicant's proposal. Council Member Preston noted that there would be approximately sixty homes between the proposed Culbreth Park and Morgan Run subdivisions to support the neighborhood center.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO RECESS THE HEARING AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

Dixie Drive Paving Petition

Town Engineer George Small noted that the portion of Dixie Drive under consideration this evening was the last portion of that street requiring paving. Mr. Small said that the petition requesting paving had been received over one year ago. He added that notices of the hearing had been mailed and a notice had been published in The Chapel Hill Newspaper. Mr. Small stated that engineering for the project would be accomplished in‑house, with assessments being handled on a pro‑rata basis.

Bill Standish expressed concern about the proposed cost estimate for paving of Dixie Drive. Mr. Standish stated that the estimated cost of $70 per foot was much higher than the initial estimated cost of $50‑$60 per foot. Mr. Standish said that special treatment was needed for handling a steep embankment at the creek on Dixie Drive. Mr. Standish suggested that the installation of guard rails would be less expensive and would address possible safety problems and tree protection. Mr. Standish requested that the project be redesigned using guard rails.

Bob Arnel said that the Town should take any necessary steps to protect personal property while paving Dixie Drive. Mr. Arnel urged the Council to approve the paving of this portion of Dixie Drive as soon as possible. Mr. Arnel read two letters from Patrick Conway and Carol Holcomb into the record of the hearing. Copies of the letters are on file in the Town Clerk's Office.

Town Engineer noted that one of the objectives of designing Dixie Drive is to keep project costs down. Mr. Small noted that the proposed fill would be less expensive than the installation of guard rails.

COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7‑0).

The hearing ended at 10:20 p.m.