MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA,

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1991 AT 7:30 P.M.

Mayor Howes called the hearing to order.

Council Members in attendance were Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, Nancy Preston, Alan Rimer, Art Werner, and Roosevelt Wilkerson. Council Members Julie Andresen and James C. Wallace were absent excused. Also in attendance were Mayor-Elect Ken Broun, Council Members-Elect Joe Capowski and Mark Chilton, Assistant to the Mayor Lisa Price, Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.

Council Member Werner noted that Tuesday, November 19 was RSVVP (Restaurants Sharing V(5) + V(5) Percent) Day. He stated that local restaurants would donate ten percent of their gross receipts to the Inter-Faith Council, and other Triangle charities. Council Member Werner urged the Council and citizenry to support this effort.

North Street Subdivision Phase IV - Preliminary Plat Approval

Parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn by the Town Clerk. Mr. Horton requested that agenda materials in the matter be entered into the record of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred with the request.

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that the proposal concerned a 5.5-acre parcel on North Street in the central Historic District. He noted that the proposal was to subdivide the tract into eleven residential lots. He said that the Council had approved Phase I of the North Street Subdivision in 1981, with Phases II and III being approved in 1987. Mr. Waldon briefly reviewed the proposed landscaping and roadway plans for North Street Subdivision, Phase IV.

Mr. Waldon said the application involved several key issues including the use of flag lots in subdivisions. He noted that the Town's Development Ordinance discourages the use of flag lots. Mr. Waldon stated that the applicant was proposing that lots seven and eight be flag lots. Mr. Waldon added that there had been considerable debate about the pedestrian easement adjoining Tenney Circle. He noted that the Manager's preliminary recommendation did not include provision for such a pedestrian easement.

Mr. Waldon noted that there were significant trees on two of the lots. He stated that no condition was included in the preliminary recommendation to require this area to remain untouched. Mr. Waldon also stated that the standards for construction of the street were less than normally required, to minimize land disturbance. He noted the main reason for this recommendation was the steep banks along this area.

Council Member Werner asked whether Phases I, II, and III of the subdivision were complete. Mr. Waldon said yes.

Council Member Werner asked whether the recommendations for Phase IV were consistent with the recommendations for the earlier phases. Council Member Werner noted that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was against the use of flag lots. He inquired about the impact of this recommendation. Mr. Waldon said that four lots could be combined into two. Council Member Werner asked why a T-turnaround was being proposed instead of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Waldon replied that turnaround space was needed for garbage trucks and emergency vehicles.

Council Member Rimer asked whether concerns with the Burns' lot had been addressed. Mr. Waldon responded that the end of lot 7 was the area in question. He said that vehicular access to this lot from Tenney Circle would be prohibited under the terms of the Manager's preliminary recommendation. Mr. Waldon added that such pedestrian access would also be prohibited.

Gerry Barrett, the developer of the North Street Subdivision, stated that the original subdivision had been approved on October 9, 1981, rather than 1991 as stated in the staff memorandum. He added that the original approval was not for twenty-nine lots. Mr. Barrett said that phase one consisted of only one lot, with lots two through six being developed later to complete Phase I. He also said that the memo stated that the Council had approved fifteen lots on June 10, 1987. He said this was incorrect, since only ten lots had been approved in Phase III. Mr. Barrett said that a sixty foot easement deeded by the Coker family provided a feasible means of secondary access to Tenney Circle. He also noted that the Burns' driveway was sixty feet from the Wilkin's house, rather than twenty feet, as stated in the staff's memorandum.

Mr. Barrett thanked the Town's planning staff for their efforts in developing a workable alternative for the subdivision. He said the proposed plan was sound. Mr. Barrett said he disagreed with the staff on the issue of flag lots. He stated that the Development Ordinance provided for the use of flag lots when reasonable uses were proposed. Mr. Barrett said his intent was to design a road which resulted in minimal site disturbance. He said area topography posed a significant challenge in this regard. Mr. Barrett said that use of a cul-de-sac instead of a T-turnaround would have resulted in greater site disturbance. He also noted that the Design Review Board did not object to the use of flag lots. Mr. Barrett displayed an exhibit map depicting existing flag lots in the area. He said that a precedent had been set for flag lots in the neighborhood.

Council Member Preston asked whether the lots across from the Manning and McAllister homes were flag lots. Mr. Barrett replied yes, noting that these were flag lots because the houses did not front on an approved street. Council Member Preston said that she did not agree with his interpretation of "flag lot" in all the cases noted.

Mr. Barrett said the staff had responded to many of the issues of major concern, including steep slopes of twenty percent or more. He stated that if slopes exceeded fifteen percent, there should be greater flexibility in development standards. Mr. Barrett also requested modification of cut and fill standards.

Mr. Barrett said he did not understand the need for a guard rail on the lower half of the street. He expressed concern that the guard rail would set a negative precedent. Mr. Barrett expressed concern that the section of North Street in question was narrow and dead-ended, making the use of guard rails unwise. Mr. Barrett said he favored a forty-five foot T-turnaround, rather than the fifty-five foot turnaround being recommended by the staff. He stated that the shorter turnaround would minimize the need for land disturbance. Mr. Barrett said he opposed proposed condition of approval number seven, calling for prohibition of vehicular access to Tenney Circle. Mr. Barrett said the proposed condition would provide a private, rather than public, benefit. Mr. Barrett said he was legally entitled to use the easement as a means of vehicular access.

Bruce Guild, Chair of the Planning Board, stated that the Board considered the application on September 3. He noted that the Board questioned how the houses would be sited and how driveways would be placed. Mr. Guild said the Board considered the proposal again on October 1 and voted 9-1 for the approval of Resolution B. He noted that the issues considered at that meeting were steep slopes, driveway placement, width of the street, and the pedestrian easement. Mr. Guild stated that the majority of the Board did not feel it was absolutely necessary to have a pedestrian easement. He also noted that the majority of the Board did not believe that the applicant had adequately demonstrated a need for flag lots; and, that eliminating flag lots did not mean that the T-turnaround was necessary, as one is not dependent on the other. The Planning Board expressed preference for the termination of the road into a cul-de-sac.

Council Member Werner asked whether the Planning Board was convinced that flag lots were not needed. Mr. Guild replied yes, noting that the Board had chosen to approve Resolution B. Mr. Waldon stated that Resolution B approved this configuration only if the applicant could successfully demonstrate the need for flag lots. Mr. Guild noted that the Resolution A had not been presented to the Planning Board, and therefore was not considered by the Board.

Bruce Ballentine, Chair of the Design Review Board, noted that the Board reviews conceptual development proposals. He said some of the board's concerns were single versus dual access of the road, the topography of the site, proximity of lots to drainageways, and the provision of a cul-de-sac rather than a T-turnaround. Mr. Ballentine said the Board suggested some alterations to the lots which affected the drainageways. Mr. Ballentine said he felt that the concerns of the Board had been adequately met by the applicant and the Board recommended that the project proceed with conditions. Mr. Ballentine noted that the Board felt additional information should be provided on how the T-turnaround would be sited, how the houses would be sited, and on related driveway and drainageway concerns. Mr. Ballentine said the Board encouraged the use of joint driveways. Mr. Ballentine suggested that because of the number of changes which might take place during deliberations, that the proposal be returned to the Design Review Board after staff and the applicant completed their review.

Mr. Ballentine stated that the applicant had already addressed a number of the Board's concerns, but the main issue now was the roadway. He said that the Board had debated at great length and favored the lower roadway with houses on the upper side. Mr. Ballentine also stated that vegetation would be saved in either case. He also noted that only one house would need a sewer pump with this configuration. Mr. Ballentine said the board felt that a tree protection plan would be a very important component. He noted that the Board favored having the area between the road and the drainageway protected as a landscape easement.

Mr. Ballentine noted another issue of concern to the board was the guardrail proposed on the lower side of the road. He said the board felt that guard rails were undesirable. He suggested that if the Council required guardrails, that they be wooden instead of metal. He noted that the Board had not looked at the issue of flag lots in any detail, but did review the standards and felt that the irregular shape of the lots indicates that flag lots could be justified. Mr. Ballentine also noted that shared driveways would be consistent with the Town's Design Guidelines. He said the Board also requested that staff reconsider the 55-foot length of the T-turnaround. Mr. Ballentine said this size turnaround would require the sacrifice of additional trees. He suggested that this matter be reviewed again. Mr. Ballentine said that the board did not favor the use of guard rails. Mr. Ballentine said the Board had voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed project, with conditions.

Barbara Roth, a resident of Lone Pine Road, said she resided on a two acre lot. Ms. Roth said she objected to the project based on environmental priorities. Ms. Roth said the topography was exceedingly steep in places. She expressed concern about the negative impacts of air pollution caused by additional development. Ms. Roth said the neighborhood was home to many mature poplar, hickory and pine trees, with a variety of wildlife, including birds, which found refuge in the trees. She expressed concern that the removal of trees would negatively impact the migration of birds through the area. Ms. Roth also expressed concern about erosion due to steep slopes in the area. She stated that if the area were developed to have water draining down the street, trees in the area may not have sufficient water to survive. Ms. Roth requested that the Council seriously consider the preservation of open space, as opposed to developing additional homes in the area. She also expressed concern that additional cars in the area would contribute to further congesting narrow streets.

Jean Wilkins stated that at the time her house was built in the 1920's, it was built on or near the property line, leaving no buffer. Ms. Wilkins noted that the Burns' driveway was located only about twenty feet from her home. She expressed concern that if vehicular access were granted to lot seven of the proposed subdivision, it would be necessary to tear down an old stone wall next to her home. Ms. Wilkins also expressed concern that cutting and filling of the area would place automobiles closer to her house. She also said that approving a pedestrian easement would mean that pedestrians would be walking within twenty feet of the windows of her home. Ms. Wilkins urged the Council not to approve the proposed easement.

W. Woodrow Burns said that the easement no longer belonged to the University, but crossed his property. Dr. Burns said his driveway was only twenty feet from the Wilkins' residence. Dr. Burns said he opposed the vehicular and pedestrian easements for the reasons outlined by Ms. Wilkins. Dr. Burns said there were several mature, botanically-significant plantings on his lot. Dr. Burns noted that he had dedicated several preservation easements to the Chapel Hill Preservation Society, meaning that his lot could not be subdivided. Dr. Burns noted that plantings along the easement would probably be lost due to the provision of a pedestrian or vehicular easement.

Mary Jane Burns stated that her 2.84 acre lot was a remaining portion of Dr. Coker's old estate. She noted that Dr. Coker was a botanist, and that the property was of historical and botanical significance. Ms. Burns said that covenants had been placed on this property to preserve it.

She also noted that the University had an easement on the North Street portion of the development. Ms. Burns pointed out that this area had an abundance of rock outcroppings, and that the public used this area for picnicking. She said that by informal agreement, children use the front part of the property as a playground. Ms. Burns stated that the since the property was of botanical significance, she would like to see it preserved as such. Ms. Burns requested that the Council give the area the opportunity to be developed botanically.

Roland Giduz said he appreciated what Mr. Barrett was attempting to do, but was concerned about the five hundred feet of area behind the Wilkins' home. Mr. Giduz stated that he purchased this land from the Wilkins' family twenty years ago and hoped to keep it as open space, that he had no interest in developing it. Mr. Giduz said he supported the Manager's proposal that flag lots not be added to this configuration, and that no pedestrian access be granted. Mr. Giduz said he hoped some amicable compromise could be reached.

Council Member Rimer asked Mr. Waldon inquired whether the Planning Board had concerns about the number of lots proposed when the proposal had been initially reviewed four years ago. Council Member Rimer said his recollection was that there would not be four lots at the end of the road. Mr. Waldon stated that the original proposal had called for a shorter street, ending with a cul-de-sac, and a total of five lots. Council Member Rimer said it was interesting that the number of lots and length of the roadway had been expanded since the initial proposal. Council Member Brown stated that there were so many contradictory assertions, these needed to be reconciled and that documentation needed to be provided.

Council Member Preston said it would be a good idea to refer to past minutes of Council and Planning Board meetings to 1981, when the property was originally subdivided. She said the Council was very concerned about how the land would be developed. Council Member Preston said the original proposal was for three lots in this final phase. Council Member Preston inquired what had happened to this proposal. She noted that when the Council had discussed the proposal in 1987, five lots were proposed in this area, accompanied by a variety of conditions of approval. Council Member Preston stated that the current proposal called for eleven lots instead of five. She commended Mr. Barrett for his work on sidewalk and roadway proposals, but expressed concern that the proposed development was too intense for the fragile area.

Council Member Preston questioned the use of guardrails and the proposed use of curbside garbage collection. She asked whether these stipulations were present in the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Waldon responded that it would be unwise to create a situation where garbage collectors would have to traverse steep driveways. He noted that engineers were studying the steep slopes in the area. He said that one of the tradeoffs in minimizing land disturbance was to permit some steeper cut and fill slopes. Mr. Waldon said that requiring guard rails was related to vehicle safety. He noted that the Planning Board had discussed the use of guard rails at length and wanted the developer to have some flexibility concerning the types of material employed.

Council Member Preston expressed hope that the pedestrian easement would not be needed.

Council Member Werner inquired about the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Waldon said he did not know the exact length, but it was much longer than the Town's standard. Council Member Werner requested additional information regarding the proposed easements. He also requested that Mr. Waldon summarize past discussion concerning applications for previous phases. Council Member Werner inquired about stormwater flows from the site. He also requested the provision of better maps of the area.

Council Member Herzenberg pointed out the value of flag lots. Council Member Herzenberg noted that he was aware of the policy against flag lots, but felt that perhaps now was the time to reconsider flag lots. He requested that the Council be open-minded in the consideration of flag lots.

Mayor Howes requested that applicant's statement concerning proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Barrett expressed his opposition to proposed conditions of approval one, four, six,seven and eighteen. He indicated that the balance of conditions were agreeable.

COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ON JANUARY 14, 1992. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Top of the Hill - Special Use Permit Application

Persons wishing to testify in the matter were sworn by the Clerk.

Town Manager Horton requested that agenda materials related to the application be entered into the record of the hearing. Mayor Howes concurred with the request.

Mr. Waldon stated that the proposal involved 33,000 sq. ft. of mixed-use retail office space located on the corner of South Columbia Street and East Franklin Street beside the old Carolina Theater building. He stated that the development would fill the lot since no setbacks were required in the Town Center. He indicated that there would be a service access area behind the building. Mr. Waldon said the applicant was requesting modification of three of the Town's requirements. He said the Council had the flexibility to modify specific requirements if it found that public purposes were served. He stated that staff believed that there was adequate justification for this request, due to its potential to increase the vitality of the Town Center. Mr. Waldon expressed the staff's belief that there was no room for a parking area. He suggested that this requirement be waived. Concerning floor area, Mr. Waldon noted that the proposed building fits well on the lot and into its surroundings. He noted that the proposed building did slightly exceed existing building height limits for the downtown area.

Mr. Waldon said the Manager's preliminary recommendation was for approval with conditions as outlined in Resolution A.

Mark Zack of Hakan/Corley and Associates, noted that this corner was an important intersection. He said the applicant wanted to build a building which fit in with the architecture of surrounding buildings. Mr. Zack stated that the three-story section of the building on Columbia Street was no higher than the highest point of the church across the street. He pointed out significant architectural features of the building, which were in keeping with other buildings in the Town Center.

Council Member Wilkerson inquired about the Planning Board's concern that the building would detract from the Ackland Art Museum. Mr. Zack displayed a drawing of the entire area and said that when taking the entire street as a whole, the proposed building in no way detracted from the Ackland Art Museum or any other building in the area.

Bruce Guild, Chair of the Planning Board, indicated the Planning Board's approval of the plan. He expressed the board's feeling that the potential gain to the Town Center was more than enough to warrant approval of the proposal.

Bruce Ballentine, Chair of the Design Review Board, indicated that the Board was excited about the proposal. Mr. Ballentine said the Board felt the proposal was well-prepared and that the application adequately addressed the details and concerns discussed. He noted that the Board felt the proposal complied with the surrounding streetscape and architecture and that the development was appropriate. Mr. Ballentine said the Board felt the proposal was a considerable improvement due to the closing of existing driveway cuts. Mr. Ballentine said the Board's only concern was with the architectural elevation, but the architect had satisfactorily reviewed this concern with the Board. He said the board had indicated that the proposal was very attractive and had unanimously recommended that the project proceed with priority status.

Nancy Gabriel, representing the Appearance Commission, noted the Commission's unanimous approval of the project. She said the Commission had some slight concerns, one of which was newspaper racks. Ms. Gabriel noted that the current development ordinance limits banners to eight feet. She suggested that this requirement be relaxed because the proposed banners were so attractive. She said that the Appearance Commission recommended approval of the proposal.

Mickey Ewell, a neighbor of the proposed project, expressed his pleasure at the enthusiasm in which this project was being received. He said that in his conversations with other merchants, their only concern was parking. Mr. Ewell noted that the Council should consider the current parking ordinance so that it did not discourage development in the downtown area, and that the Council should encourage provision of additional transient parking.

Scott Radway requested an explanation of the notched corner and the glass canopy on the proposed structure. Mr. Zack explained that the store front would turn back so that a projecting canopy could be utilized. He noted that safety glass would be used and mounted on metal rods. Mr. Zack expressed the applicant's desire to do something unique with the corner. Mr. Radway asked how far the canopies projected out and how large they were. Mr. Zack said they projected out about four feet and were approximately twenty-six feet long. Mr. Radway indicated his support for the canopy idea, since this was a non-threatening space. Mr. Radway stated that he wanted to see the project on this corner, but wanted more evidence that it would work.

Council Member Preston asked about the square footage overage. She asked whether it was a result of having to dig out the gasoline tanks underneath the building. Mr. Waldon responded that because the tanks had to be dug out, a huge hole would be left, so the developer decided to utilize the area as a basement.

Council Member Preston asked whether the area had been considered for underground parking. Mr. Waldon replied no. He said staff agreed that closing off the driveway cuts would be a definite improvement to the site. Council Member Preston agreed, but felt that cars might enter through the same area as garbage trucks and service vehicles into an underground parking lot. Council Member Preston asked whether this had been considered or if it was even desirable. Mr. Zack replied that it had not been considered. He stated that the building was only seventy-five feet long, and approximately one hundred and thirty feet of space would be needed to provide enough parking with a turnaround space under the building, so it was decided early on that this was not within the realm of practicality.

Council Member Preston asked whether other buildings in the downtown area were out of conformity with the square footage standards. Mr. Waldon replied that he did not have this information readily available, but would research the matter.

Council Member Preston also noted that several citizens had asked whether the University had been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr. Waldon replied that this wasn't the Town's project. He indicated that notices had been sent to the University in several different ways, including as an adjacent property owner.

Mr. Horton stated that the University had the opportunity to come to the meeting tonight to comment if they had chosen to do so. Mr. Zack indicated that Gordon Rutherford of the University's Office of Facilities Planning, had reviewed the plans with him at some length.

Council Member Preston said she also had some concerns regarding the streetscape details, such as the placement of outdoor furniture and newsracks. Mr. Zack replied that until he studied the Town's final Streetscape Plan, he would not know exactly what would be required. Mr. Zack expressed his willingness to address concerns about newsracks.

Council Member Werner said the proposal was an excellent start in revising the Town's downtown parking ordinance. He said the proposal was trading inappropriate parking for additional square footage. Council Member Werner said this was a good idea. Council Member Werner stated that it was not desirable for cars to turn in and out of the existing driveways on to Franklin and Columbia Streets.

Council Member Brown said other developers had been required to provide parking at great expense and that in relaxing this requirement we should get some strong transportation management planning in return. She asked whether the Manager had an estimate of the cost of a parking space in the downtown area. Mr. Horton replied that the payment-in-lieu of providing parking is about $7,000 a space. Council Member Brown also noted that condition #8 was not strong. She encouraged the Council to have a stronger traffic reduction policy, other than just requiring bus passes, such as carpooling. Council Member Brown suggested that the staff return to the Council with stronger requirements for traffic reduction. Mr. Horton stated that some stronger requirements could be considered and brought back before the Council.

Council Member Brown asked whether a portion of the sidewalk would be brick. Mr. Horton said yes, adding that a portion would be concrete and another portion brick, to allow for drainage. Council Member Brown inquired whether the proposed alley would be large enough for refuse collection trucks as well as recycling containers. Mr. Horton replied that this depended on the final design details, which were not yet available. Council Member Brown requested a clarification concerning wiring for traffic signals in the downtown area. Mr. Horton said that the applicant was being asked to provide underground wiring to handle the traffic signal. He added that the applicant was also being asked to provide benches and other street amenities that were in keeping with the Town's streetscape plan.

Council Member Rimer noted that the provision for recycling was adequate. He stated that the Town does not now provide service to roll-off containers but should not preclude future service to the proposed project. Mr. Horton commented that roll-off equipment would be required to service this development. He noted that the Town does not have this equipment at present. Council Member Rimer agreed, adding that the Town might have this equipment in the future. He also stated that the Town should be consistent in how various stipulations are listed in applications. Council Member Rimer noted that conditions of approval tended to vary between applications. He inquired whether the staff could come provide a standard list of conditions of approval. Mr. Horton replied yes.

Mayor Howes noted that he would be unable to vote on the project since his term ended on December 2nd. Mayor Howes said he was wildly enthusiastic about the proposed development and felt that there was no better use for the property. Mayor Howes said the proposal was a sensitive redevelopment of the property. Mayor Howes stated that he was pleased with the expression of support from advisory boards and members of the Council. Mayor Howes said he hoped that the newly-seated Council would look with favor on the project.

Mayor Howes requested the applicant's statement concerning the proposed conditions of approval. Mr. Zack expressed agreement with all proposed conditions except number nineteen. He requested that this condition be modified to include the phrase "substantially completed", rather than "completed".

COUNCIL MEMBER RIMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HERZENBERG, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Height Limitations in Mixed Use OI-1 - DOTA

Mr. Waldon stated that the area under consideration, located in Eastowne Office Park, was zoned mixed-use. He noted that the owner had been examining the possibility of development. The applicant, Ed Pizer, requested that the Town evaluate height limitations and positions of setbacks establishing building envelopes. Mr. Waldon stated that the applicant indicated that these types of buildings might have to be set back further than necessary. Mr. Pizer requested greater flexibility for parking behind, rather than in front of, buildings. Mr. Waldon said the staff's preliminary recommendation was to adopt Ordinance A, adopting the proposed revision.

Joe Hakan of Hakan/Corley and Associates, representing the applicant, indicated it was apparent that height limits on this property make it very difficult to site parking appropriately. He said that the modification could make all the necessary changes to

present a development proposal for Mr. Pizer's property in the near future.

Bruce Guild, Chair of the Planning Board, said the Board felt the proposal was a basically good one, although some members were concerned about locating higher buildings closer to roadways. He noted that the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed ordinance.

COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

The hearing stood adjourned at 9:50 p.m.