SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2005, AT 8:00 P.M.
(Rescheduled from January 19, 2005)
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Senior Planner Kay Pearlstein, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment:
Demolition by Neglect in Historic Districts
Mr. Horton said this was being brought before the Council at the specific request of the Historic District Commission (HDC), who had been concerned about this for some time and had prepared a proposal for the Council’s consideration. He said the staff had prepared an alternate proposal that we recommend, and believe the alternate proposal accomplishes all the purposes that were originally envisioned and would be defensible in court.
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper stated that this public hearing was called to consider changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) regarding the possibility of enacting a demolition by neglect regulation in the local historic districts to help avoid the deterioration of historic buildings.
Ms. Culpepper said the draft ordinances being considered tonight would authorize the Town to require maintenance of deteriorating buildings in our local historic districts. She said we recommend enactment of Ordinance A, which builds on the thoughtful work of the HDC. Ms. Culpepper said Ordinance A directs enforcement through our standard mechanisms and requires consultation with the HDC as decisions are made regarding enforcement. She said Ordinance A includes a provision to allow relief, working with our Board of Adjustment, if the new regulations were to cause undue economic hardship.
Ms. Culpepper said we were appreciative of the work provided by the HDC. She said they believe that Ordinance A provides a defensible version of the proposed demolition by neglect regulations.
Council Member Harrison stated that the recommendation summary on page 3 of the materials does not seem to match what is in the packet from the HDC. He said they did not seem to recommend any alternative, and the Planning Board was recommending Ordinance B. Ms. Culpepper said in the summary of the Planning Board recommendations, that at the time the Planning Board had discussed the text amendments Ordinance B was the Manager’s recommendation. So, she said, there was some confusion there.
Council Member Verkerk said for Ordinance A in the Procedure for Enforcement stipulations, it reads “If the Town Manager makes a preliminary determination that a property in a historic district is being neglected…." She asked how is that going to come to the Manager’s attention. Ms. Culpepper said there were a variety of ways it could come to the Manager’s attention, such as calls from citizens or others to enforcement staff or through inspections.
Mr. Horton stated that one of the ways we would expect this to come to our attention would be through persons complaining either directly to the staff or to the HDC. He said the HDC members were very vigilant and care deeply about their duties and responsibilities, and believed we would be able to depend on them to let us know of any potential problems, in addition to other citizens.
Council Member Verkerk said that was one reason she favored Ordinance A rather than Ordinance B.
Catherine Frank, the Director of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society, a former member of the HDC and a resident of the Cameron-McCauley Historic District, said she supported the enactment of Ordinance A as a system and a tool to prevent demolition by neglect. She said that such a tool allows the preservation of architectural and historically important features of buildings in a way that minimum housing codes do not. Ms. Frank said relying on housing codes could lead to the unintended effect of offering a reason for condemning and demolishing properties.
Ms. Frank said she had two suggestions for improvements in terms of the LUMO regarding demolitions. First, she said she would like to see clarification in the LUMO for the end point, or permissions to demolish buildings. Ms. Frank said there was formerly and “end point,” meaning that permissions to demolish expired after a year, but did not believe that was clear in the new LUMO. Secondly, Ms. Frank also asked for regulations to require a plan for the safety and appearance of properties where demolition had occurred. She said there were some regulations in LUMO but not enough, adding that properties that had undergone demolition sometimes remained unsafe and were unattractive.
Ms. Frank commented she believed that when looking at the desirable land closer to campus, that as that land diminishes we may see owners who see demolition as an alternative, or who may want to allow buildings to deteriorate to force certain issues.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 2 – Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment:
Implementation of Legislative Changes Regarding Reservation of School Sites
Ms. Culpepper stated this public hearing was for a Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) Text Amendment regarding implementation of recent legislative changes for reservation of school sites. She said that Chapel Hill had authority to designate potential school sites on the Town’s Land Use Plan and once sites are designated, applications for development on any of the designated sites may be deferred at the request of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board. Ms. Culpepper said the purpose of the reservation period was to give the School Board time to acquire the site from the property owner.
Ms. Culpepper said the recent legislative change would allow an extension of the time for deferral in some circumstances from 12 months to 18 months. She said the local legislation that was enacted by the General Assembly allowed a change in the time period from 12 months to 18 months for Special Use Permit, Special Use Permit Modification, and Site Plan Review applications. Ms. Culpepper stated that Subdivision provisions in State law already allows reservation of school sites for an 18-month period.
Ms. Culpepper stated their recommendation was that the Council enact the ordinance to change the LUMO provisions for reservation of school sites to allow a deferral from 12 months to 18 months in the case of Special Use Permit, Special Use Permit Modification, and Site Plan Review applications.
Ms. Culpepper said they were also recommending that the Council adopt the resolution to call a public hearing for April 18 for the purpose of considering amending Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan to re-designate potential school sites on Chapel Hill’s Land Use Plan. She said that once the Land Use Plan had been amended the new ordinance language regarding reservation of school sites can become operational.
Mayor Foy asked if that meant that sites that had previously been designated would be re-designated. Ms. Culpepper responded yes, adding we would need to re-designate the sites under the new law. Mayor Foy said that this would not designate any new properties. Ms. Culpepper said that was correct.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 – 229 N. Graham Street, Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment
Item 4 – 229 N. Graham Street, Application for a Special Use Permit
Mayor Foy asked if this item and the next would be considered together. Mr. Horton responded that he would recommend that citizens and the applicants be allowed to comment on the Zoning Atlas Amendment and the Special Use Permit (SUP) application at the same time.
Ms. Culpepper said that before the Council tonight is two applications. The first, she said, is an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone approximately 0.27-acres of land at the intersection of Graham Street, Nunn Street, and Whitaker Street from Residential-3 (R-3) to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district. She noted that the lot is located within the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District. Ms. Culpepper said the second application is a request for a Special Use Permit for the development of 2 residential lots. She said the application proposes to divide the existing lot and construct two single-family homes.
Ms. Culpepper displayed an area map and pointed out the location of the property. She said they believe the proposal complies with the provisions of that new overlay conservation zone. She said the proposal would apply the R-SS-C zone to this property.
Ms. Culpepper said when the Council created this zoning district it was with the intent to encourage development of affordable housing and flexible design standards. She said the applicant in this case had committed both units to the Land Trust with these applications. Ms. Culpepper said we recommend approval of both the rezoning and the SUP applications.
Council Member Greene asked if the design standards for Northside would apply even though there is a rezoning, and, that the overlay would still apply. Ms. Culpepper responded that was correct.
Jeff Caiolo, of EmPOWERment, Inc., said this was the first time the Council had considered a rezoning under the newly-created R-SS-C zoning. He noted that this area had been identified as experiencing drug-related and other crime activity, and had been nicknamed “the peninsula,” since it was a key logistical area. Mr. Caiolo said that residents had wanted for some time to address the problems with loitering and criminal activity that was occurring on a regular basis.
Mr. Caiolo said that eventually the Land Trust had obtained the property. He said that once the R-SS-C zoning became available, the idea was formed for developing two affordable homes on this lot. Mr. Caiolo said he believed this would improve the area and help to remove the loitering and other activities now occurring. He stated that the design architect would incorporate similar designs to that of other properties in the area in order to allow the new homes to fit into the neighborhood.
Mr. Caiolo said one of the homes is planned to be about 1,200 square feet, with the other home about 979 square feet. He said the larger home would have three bedrooms with two baths, and the smaller home would be two bedrooms with two baths. So, he said, they are comparable in size to the surrounding homes.
Mr. Caiolo said one other key issue in the development of this project is the stormwater performance requirements normally required for new developments. He said they are asking that an exemption be applied in this case because they feel there are some standards for exemption. Mr. Caiolo said their reason for requesting the exemption to the stormwater performance requirement was that this is a small, level, flat lot. He said the impact of houses would be minimal in terms of impervious surface and there are statutes for exemption. Mr. Caiolo noted that as long as the development does not disturb more than 5,000 square feet of land area, and that it is not part of a larger single-family development, then it meets the grounds for exemption. In this case, he said, the lots after dedication of the right-of-way would be just over 3,000 square feet for one lot and the other just a little over 4,000 square feet, both under the threshold of 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Caiolo stated that they had gotten some preliminary cost estimates from an engineer to discover how much it would cost to do stormwater controls on this lot. He said the estimate had come in at $5,000 to $7,000, noting the reality is that sometimes the smaller the lot, the more mitigation that must take place. Mr. Caiolo stated that with their planned improvements to the lot, including planting vegetation and grading, they believe the small amount of stormwater that would be produced on the lot would be controlled to a large extent.
Mayor Foy stated he was not commenting on Mr. Caiolo’s particular request for exemption from the stormwater regulations, but as a general rule he did not think it was wise for advocates of affordable housing to make that argument, because from his perspective we all need to be held to the same high standard without regard for particular situations. Rather, Mayor Foy said, we need to recognize the need for investment in environmental mitigations like stormwater management for the benefit of the entire community, and not to have lower standards for affordable housing.
Mr. Caiolo agreed with the Mayor that the fact that it is an affordable home should not automatically give it an exemption nor should the fact that it was affordable be a primary point. He said it was not his intention to give that impression. Rather, Mr. Caiolo said, they were asking for the exemption primarily because the size of the lot was under the 5,000 square foot threshold for land disturbance as well as not being part of a larger single-family development.
Michael Neal, the engineer consulted on this project, agreed that they should be held to the same standards as everyone else, adding they were not asking for an exemption. Mr. Neal said what they were asking for was that the provisions of LUMO be applied.
Mr. Neal said that LUMO provides certain incentives to keep land disturbance to a minimum. One of those, he said, was contained in Section 5.42, paragraph 2, subparagraph (b), which states “single-family and two-family developments and redevelopments that do not disturb more than 5,000 square feet of land area, provided they are not part of a larger development.” Mr. Neal said what they are asking the Council to do is to make the finding that the creation of these two lots are not part of a larger development, that both lots are under the 5,000 square foot threshold, and allow them to use the incentive to keep their land disturbance at a minimum.
Mr. Neal stated they had revised their Project Fact Sheet to reflect that request. He reiterated that they were not asking for any exemptions, nor are they asking to be treated in any fashion that differed from the way others are treated.
Council Member Greene said she thought this issue had been resolved but in reverse. She said while serving on the Planning Board, they had a property owner who wanted to take his lot that had a house on it and create two new lots behind his house, neither of which amounted to over 5,000 square feet, but together they did total over 5,000 square feet. She said the Planning Board had concluded that this person was developing more than 5,000 square feet, and the LUMO regulations should apply. Council Member Greene said her recollection was that when you have a situation like this then you do add the square footage together. She said she was not willing to make that finding at this time.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if he had any thoughts on this. Mr. Horton responded that he believed Council Member Greene was correct in her uneasiness at making a finding this evening, and he would not recommend that the Council do that. He said he believed this was a complex matter but there was some history, and he would include that in the staff report when this issue comes back before the Council.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Neal if he was suggesting that one or more of the stormwater stipulations be deleted. Mr. Neal said they were simply suggesting that there were incentives built into the regulations, one of which is to minimize land disruption. And, he said, if you disturb less than 5,000 square feet, that in itself tends to limit stormwater. Council Member Harrison said we have a set of regulations, and what he believes the applicant is asking is that they not be required to abide by some of the regulations in order to obtain the SUP. Mr. Neal responded that was one way to look at it, noting that they were asking that this small lot not be considered under particular regulations in the LUMO.
Council Member Harrison said in the draft resolution, stipulation 7 requires a Stormwater Management Plan, and stipulation 9 requires a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan. He said when the resolution is adopted, either the stipulations are there or they are not, depending on their viability. Mr. Neal said that if the Council finds that this development is part of a “larger development,” then they are already in compliance with those stipulations. Council Member Harrison said he would need an interpretation from staff on that.
Ms. Sam Brooks, a resident of the Northside neighborhood, said she was a big supporter of EmPOWERment, but in this case she feels they made an error in judgment in coming before the Council and asking for an exception in so many issues. She said as a realtor, in her opinion this was not a particularly attractive lot. Ms. Brooks said that if you look at the footprints planned for this lot, the two houses will have no privacy on three sides, plus are very close together. She said granting the exceptions being requested would be the wrong thing to do.
Ms. Brooks said that any builder wants to maximize its profits, and by putting two houses there that is what they are doing. She said she did not doubt they would have no trouble finding people to buy these houses, because they are working with a population that has little opportunity to buy a home otherwise. Ms. Brooks said using the excuse that putting two houses here will somehow turn the neighborhood around from being a drug area is suspect.
Ms. Brooks said she lives very near the intersection of Mitchell Lane and McDade Street, and when she moved there she was very close to the “drug” area. But, she said, that area has changed over time, since the drug trade is not a “fixed” trade. And, Ms. Brooks said, if you put one attractive affordable home on that lot, the drug trade would most likely move again.
Ms. Brooks asked the Council not to make exceptions in this case, so that builders would not expect the same treatment when developing other lots.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to know what it would be like to live in the house planned on the corner of Whitaker, Nunn, and Graham Streets. He said that house will be completely surrounded by roads. Council Member Kleinschmidt said there was no yard, and no front, back or side of the home. He said it seems to him it would be really difficult to be completely surrounded by car lights coming at your home all night long from four different directions. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that would not be a nice place to live.
Mr. Caiolo said they had thought about that, but it offers them a valuable opportunity to develop a lot for affordable housing. He said without debating the logistics, there would only be car lights shining onto the house when lights are coming from the south, down Sykes Street. Mr. Caiolo displayed an aerial map, and described how the home would have two fronts with two porches, one facing Whitaker Street and one facing Graham Street. He said there would be 15 to 20 feet of grass on the Whitaker Street side and about 10 feet of front yard on the Graham Street side. Mr. Caiolo said these units would be similar to a townhome, but they would be single-family detached homes.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the exposure does make it different from a townhome, and asked where else in Town is someone living with that kind of exposure. Mr. Caiolo said he did not know of a similar situation, but other properties have similar setbacks or are close to other houses. He said they do plan to be creative with shrubbery and landscaping to create a sense of area and to define it.
Ms. Delores Bailey, representing EmPOWERment, Inc., said she wanted the Council to understand how having those lots developed will help control the drug traffic in the area. She said that by having one person in a rental house owned by EmPOWERment living in that area, the drug traffic had been cut dramatically. Ms. Bailey said their belief is that having two residences on that lot would further diminish or move it out entirely. She said by moving families into the area forces the drug activity out.
Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed with Ms. Bailey, but said the question still remained of just what kind of home this would be, “stuck out on the peninsula.” Mr. Caiolo said he understood the concern, but emphasized that as a neighborhood changes for the better, it becomes enticing for others, so you can attract more opportunities for affordable housing and investment.
Council Member Strom said he believed the homes could be designed to address many of the issues expressed by Council Member Kleinschmidt and others. He said in general, he wanted this to come back with staff analysis that addresses these issues. Council Member Strom said that the R-SS-C zoning was created for situations just like this one, and he was generally supportive.
Mayor Foy said he did not have any real problem with the location of the houses, noting that as we infill and grow as a Town, we are seeing smaller lots. He said he did wonder what the response is to the CDC where they commented on the visibility from the north, east, and west sides of the house. Mr. Caiolo displayed a map to describe how the homes are planned to be set on the lot.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said when this comes back, she would like to see some information regarding a better road alignment in this area. She said she believed there was a report that made some suggestions and conclusions, and she would like that brought back. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed that was some recommendation made in a previous report about road alignment in that area. Mr. Horton said he had a similar recollection and he would locate that and provide it to the Council.
Council Member Ward asked what the various options were regarding sidewalks and driveways for this lot. Mr. Caiolo displayed a map to indicate those locations. Council Member Ward asked if they had researched the idea of sharing a driveway in order to reduce impervious surface, noting there appeared to be a shared driveway on the opposite side of the street. Mr. Caiolo said there was a shared driveway across the street, but he did not believe they had considered that for this property. He said they would look into the possibility.
Council Member Harrison reiterated that the Council needs to know exactly what stipulations the applicant wanted on the permit. He said the Council would not be making findings on the lot; rather, they would be making findings for the SUP. Council Member Harrison said he wanted to know the applicant’s position very clearly.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 14, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THE COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 5 – Concept Plan: Castalia at Meadowmont
Principal Planner Gene Poveromo noted this was a public hearing on a Concept Plan for Castalia at Meadowmont, proposed by the Castalia Group, LLC, to construct an office and residential complex. He noted that this proposal involves amending the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan and constructing a 76,000 square foot, 3-story building with 180 parking spaces. Mr. Poveromo noted that the applicant is proposing that 52,000 square feet be used for office space and 24,000 square feet for residential use with 8 to 10 units located on the third floor. He stated that the proposed development is located in the Meadowmont development on the east side of West Barbee Chapel Road, at the intersection of Old Barn Lane and Oval Park Place.
Mr. Poveromo said this Concept Plan has two elements: to modify the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan; and the modification requested by the applicant to add 24,000 square feet to this site for the residential use. He noted that the current Master Land Use Plan allows 52,000 square feet on this particular site. Mr. Poveromo said the Master Land Use Plan also limits the use of this site to office and retail. He said the applicant is requesting that residential use be permitted on this site.
Mr. Poveromo displayed an area map and an aerial photograph, and indicated the location. He pointed out the proposed curb cuts as well as an existing curb cut.
Jim Baker, speaking for Michael Rosenberg with Health Decisions, made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. He introduced Joddy Peer, the project architect, noting he would be speaking to the Council as well. Mr. Baker noted that Mr. Rosenberg had planned to make the presentation tonight, but experienced a cancelled flight and was not able to attend.
Mr. Baker noted the proposed building consists of 52,000 square feet of office space, and 24,000 square feet of condos. He said they are seeking to redistribute nine residential units from the Master Land Use Plan, as well as seeking a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Baker stated that it was Mr. Rosenberg’s intent to reside in one of the condos should the project be approved. He indicated that Mr. Rosenberg was a lifelong resident of Chapel Hill and the owner of Health Decisions, an integrated clinical research organization. Mr. Baker said Mr. Rosenberg had been forced to move his company to Durham when he was unable to find suitable office space for his company. He indicated that Health Decisions would occupy a substantial space in the proposed building, conducting primarily data processing and research, and noted that they have an office in London and conduct studies worldwide. Mr. Baker said Health Decisions’ employee base is primarily Masters and Doctoral level individuals who are both medically and clinically trained, and perform statistical analysis as well. He said Health Decisions had received many awards over the years, and he personally believed this is the type of tenant we would want in Chapel Hill.
Mr. Baker displayed a site analysis map, and described some aspects of the proposed development. He noted that the development had been moved back from the road to minimize the impact to the surrounding residential properties. Mr. Baker noted that this building would not be as tall as the Townhomes that exist on the top of the hill.
Mr. Baker said there were some topography constraints, but they had positioned the building on the site to retain the maximum amount of trees and vegetation. He said when developed, they would plant larger than minimum trees to provide additional screening.
Mr. Peer displayed an artist’s sketch of the building, noting that the architectural aspects were designed to fit in with the existing buildings, particularly the Wellness Center, at Meadowmont. He said they would not be “scalping” the top of the knoll, but would be following the contour of the knoll for the alignment of the building. Mr. Peer stated it was their intention to retain many of the existing trees, and the supplement those with mature “street” trees.
Mr. Peer displayed a series of photos taken around the site to show the impact the building would have. He pointed out in the photos the weather balloons that had been floated to indicate how the building would appear to nearby structures and from a distance. Mr. Peer said the mass and size of the building was similar to that of the existing Wellness Center. He said the architecture of the building uses curved roof elements to mirror the Wellness Center, and uses earth-tones for the brick. Mr. Peer displayed a series of slides that depicted what the building would look like from the street if it were placed where the current setbacks are located, and noted that by setting it farther back on the site, it becomes nearly “invisible.” He said that was the rationale for placing the building farther back behind the existing knoll.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the material indicates that the entrance to this development would contain “striking” architecture, and asked if that “striking” architecture was lost when the building becomes “invisible.” He said as he was thinking about this, he wondered if the reason the building was placed on the knoll was to give the owner, who plans to live on the top floor, a nice view over the meadow. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wondered why they wanted to hide the building. Mr. Peer responded that part of the reason was their attempt to be overly sensitive to the residential neighbors surrounding it. He said in the winter when the trees are not at full foliage that much of the building will be visible. Mr. Peer said what was depicted in the presentation were trees at full growth and foliage. He added that when looking from the point of view of the residences nearby, it was the “better part of valor” to back off from some of the architectural aspects and let the landscape screen it as gently as possible.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked is that really what the nearby residences will be getting, referring to the Hilltop Condos across the street that are four stories. He said that when looking at this development from the Condos, residents will be looking down onto the parking area, which to him was a much more “brutal” attack on the senses than would a striking piece of architecture. Mr. Peer responded that at the higher level of those condos you would see everything. But, he said, the street trees that would be planted along the parking area, especially as they mature, would do a lot to screen the parking from the condos.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said if their concern was for the nearby residences, then why not bring the building up on the lot and place the parking elsewhere. He said he was sensing some tension between their goals and how it might really play out. Mr. Peer responded that if the building is set back, then they have a better experience for pedestrians and bicyclists. If it is moved up closer to the road, he said, it will be a less friendly relationship with streetscape. And, Mr. Peer added, you can’t have it both ways.
Council Member Ward encouraged the applicant to go back and read as much as they could the discussion regarding the Meadowmont process of approval. He said there were countless people who spoke out, and months of rancor about the impact of the development, particularly as it was viewed from NC 54. Council Member Ward said one of the views displayed during the presentation from NC 54 was “startling” to him, and he believed that if they researched the Meadowmont process, they would see that a major goal was to retain the view on NC 54 to be as rural as possible, and that is why that pasture spotted with trees was left undisturbed. Council Member Ward said to have the proposed building overlooking that meadow, and its view from NC 54, was “too much” for him.
Council Member Ward asked the applicant to see what could be done to reduce the footprint of the parking, perhaps by locating it under the building, and see if the building could be moved further down the slope towards Barbee Chapel Road. Mr. Peer said they would be happy to take a look at that, but there were some soil conditions they were concerned about.
Council Member Verkerk said there was nothing about this proposal that she liked. She said this was one of the most prominent hills in Meadowmont and would suggest they consider providing parking underground, and that the building be moved towards the sidewalk. Council Member Verkerk said they were adding 24,000 square feet for residential use divided up into nine units, which averages about 2,800 square feet per unit. She said this is about the size of her four-bedroom house. Council Member Verkerk asked how much of this would be affordable housing, or was there any consideration given to having affordable housing there. Mr. Peer answered that there may be some plans for that, but they would have to wait until Mr. Rosenberg was available. Council Member Verkerk said she was very surprised and disappointed in this proposal.
Council Member Greene said she agreed with the statements of her fellow Council members. She stated that the drawings depicted the parking lot, which would be in the front. Council Member Greene said she believed their assumptions of what the surrounding neighbors expect are “suburban” assumptions, so they have created a suburban office park hidden away in the trees. She said she believed what Meadowmont was trying to achieve was an urban development where things are expected to be visible from the street level. Council Member Greene said she would like to see them go back to the idea of prominent architecture on the street.
Council Member Hill agreed with the comments made earlier by other Council members and agreed that this looks like an urban office building. He asked if “Castalia” meant castle. Mr. Peer responded that it is one of the moons of Saturn, noting that Mr. Rosenberg had chosen the name.
Council Member Hill said he favored the photo where the building was placed close to the street. He said they were constructing a building with striking architecture, but their plan was to hide it behind trees that are 30 years away from the size depicted in the photo. Council Member Hill said given that Meadowmont is suppose to be an urban development, he would like to see them pull the building closer to the street. He also said he would like to see what the plans are for affordable housing in this development.
Council Member Hill said if they were going to have striking architecture, then have the striking architecture and “sell us on that,” but don’t hide it behind trees.
Council Member Harrison said this was the type of proposal that justifies to him why we have a Concept Plan as part of our process. He said this was the second Concept Plan for this site, with the first coming forward three years ago. Council Member Harrison said looking at the comments made by the Community Design Commission, what is striking about this proposal is that it did not respond to some of the issues noted in the first proposal.
Council Member Harrison said he had traveled to this site on a bicycle, to give him a street level view. He said that he would like to see a more traditional type of architecture here, and was not sure he would use the Wellness Center as a model. Council Member Harrison said he knew that the residents across the street have been told that the building would be cradled in trees, which as Council Member Hill pointed would take years to mature. So, he said, it would dominant their view, and would dominant the view from NC 54 which historically matters to a number of people.
Council Member Harrison said the CDC had indicated, and he agreed, that this was a very visible structure to place on that hillside, although he said he did not have the sentimental attachment to the view as do the residents who have lived here longer. He said that one of the recommendations from the CDC was to break up the project into smaller structures. Council Member Harrison said he was not agreeing with everything the CDC had said, but he did believe their remarks were worthy of response.
Mr. Peer said they appreciated the Council comments, and said that the reason so much time had passed between the two proposals was their attempt at due diligence. He said Mr. Rosenberg had spent that time putting together the financing, negotiations with a contractor, and making sure they were putting together a proposal for the Council that would truly reflect what they wanted to accomplish.
In terms of the comments made three years ago by the CDC, Mr. Peer said they felt it was important to come back to them to get fresh comments, which they had done at the CDC’s December 15, 2004 meeting. He said the comments made by the Council this evening were important to them as well, and would take them to heart.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Peer did they have the comments made by the CDC from December 15. Mr. Peer said they did, and indicated that the sketches shown this evening with the building close to the road and the computer-generated view from the road were in response to some of those comments. He said they did not have those depictions at the CDC meeting, but had prepared them to show those to the Council this evening.
Mayor Foy asked about the retail aspects of the project, asking if that plan had changed. Mr. Peer responded that from their standpoint, that was an “either/or” question, that it would be either office or retail. He said the staff may be better able to respond to that.
Mr. Poveromo said when the Master Land Use Plan for Meadowmont was approved in 1995, this site was designated to have 52,000 square feet of floor area with a mix of retail and office space. He said the percentage for each was not specified at that point. Mr. Poveromo said when the Master Plan was revised in 1997, the applicant was very specific about the amount of office and retail for this site, while maintaining the 52,000 square feet of floor area. He said they had proposed 34,000 square feet of office space and 17,000 square feet of retail, which resulted in a minor modification to the Master Plan in 1997. Mr. Poveromo said that was done in order to reduce overall daily traffic numbers associated with the Meadowmont development.
Mayor Foy said he did not see how that comports with the proposal. Mr. Poveromo said what the applicant is asking for is to modify that mix of uses to eliminate the retail and making the entire 52,000 square feet office, and introduce a residential component of 24,000 square feet. Mayor Foy said that would become part of a modification to the Master Land Use Plan. Mr. Poveromo responded yes, and the staff would be advising the Council about that part of the plan.
Mayor Foy said one of the things the applicant needs to keep in mind is not just its visual appeal of how it works with the topography or how the neighbors react to its architecture, but the way it works in the context of this Town. He said they are retrofitting a lot of the suburban design with sidewalks and bike lanes, referring to what was built in the 1960’s, 1970’s, and 1980’s, adding retrofitting was very expensive.
Mayor Foy said when Meadowmont was designed, it was designed so they would not have to retrofit it, and therefore would function for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as our bus system. He said some of the resistance the applicant is hearing tonight is that it doesn’t work if you’re riding the bus or if you’re bicycling, if the one whole prominent side of this building looks like a huge invitation for everyone to get in their car and drive. Mayor Foy said they are realists and realize that people will get in their cars and drive here, but its function and its prominence is important.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked the applicant to take a look at the area and at how the scale is pedestrian, stating it might make some of the comments made tonight more understandable. He said that is more of the scale they are looking for, and this project now looks like one of the mistakes made in the Research Triangle Park. Council Member Kleinschmidt said there would be people living on the street, walking on the street, biking on the street, and riding buses on the street, and they did not want a community where you got off a bus and had to walk across three tiers of parking to get to your destination.
Mr. Peer said that, putting it simply, his understanding is that what the Council feels is more appropriate for this community is buildings that address the street directly rather than parking, that you have it either one way or the other. Mayor Foy responded that the Council does recognize that this may be difficult to resolve. He said that he believed the comments from the CDC from their December 15 meeting are saying much the same thing.
Mayor Foy said the buildings across the street had many of the same problems, but they did a good job of camouflaging the parking, but they camouflaged the building as well, and we are asking you not to do that. Mr. Peer thanked the Council for the opportunity to get this kind of feedback.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED RESOLUTION 1, TRANSMITTING COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR CASTALIA GROUP LLC (2005-01-19/R-1)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for Castalia at Meadowmont; 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 January 26, 2005 and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 26th day of January, 2005.
Item 6 – Concept Plan: 200 Finley Golf Course Road
Gene Poveromo stated this application is for a Concept Plan review from the University of North Carolina to construct an administrative office building at 200 Finley Golf Course Road. He said the site is located on the west side of Finley Golf Course Road at its intersection with Prestwick Road. Mr. Poveromo said the proposal includes demolishing an existing building, previously occupied by the Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity, and construction of a 16,215 square foot building with 43 parking spaces. He said the site is zoned Office/Institutional-2 (OI-2).
Mr. Poveromo noted that this Concept Plan did not meet the minimum development thresholds for a Concept Plan, but on January 10th the Council agreed to review the plan at the request of the University. He displayed a map indicating the location of the property. Mr. Poveromo stated that Peter Krawchyk would make the presentation for the applicant.
Mr. Krawchyk noted that the University is experiencing a critical need for “swing” space during its current development activities. He said that during construction or renovation, they need to relocate various groups or departments in order for that to take place. Mr. Krawchyk said the purpose of this building is to provide such space.
Mr. Krawchyk said this was an important point, since the occupants of this building will not be permanent tenants, rather, the tenants would change as renovations and construction on campus take place. For instance, he said you may have a department occupying the upper floor for nine months, yet the bottom floor would be occupied by a different department for only three months. Mr. Krawchyk said the University believed this to be an ideal location for swing space since it is on a bus route, and as groups of people are relocated from the main campus to this location, bus service would be an attractive option.
Mr. Krawchyk displayed the existing site plan map, and described their plans for demolition of the building. He also displayed photos of the existing building. Mr. Krawchyk noted that this type of property repeats as you travel down Finley Golf Course Road. He said there is a neighboring fraternity, then a second one, then four other properties with the last one being the NC High School Athletic Association building. Mr. Krawchyk said he mentioned these properties because the existing distance from the face of the building to the edge of Finley Golf Course Road if 114 feet, roughly the same distance as the other buildings as you travel down Finley Golf Course Road. However, when you get down to the NC High School Athletic Association building, you are only about 60 feet from the edge of Finley Golf Course Road.
Mr. Krawchyk said when they met with Town staff, it was noted that on the regional transportation maps drawn for Chapel Hill, that one side of Prestwick Road was a line on the map indicating the site of a future transit corridor, although it was not yet encumbered. He said they were proposing to reserve a 50-foot buffer for that future transit corridor.
Mr. Krawchyk said they were proposing placing the new building similarly to the old building, with the parking behind the building and one curb cut off of Prestwick Road. He said members of the CDC had suggested that the building be pushed further west to attempt to align it with other structures along that road. Mr. Krawchyk said if the Council remembers what he had said about the NC High School Athletic Association Building, what they are proposing is almost identical to that, which is about 60 feet from the edge of the road.
Mr. Krawchyk said they had studied the impact of setting the building farther back, and one important note is that the number of parking spaces shown is actually fewer than what is required, that being three spaces below the minimum. He said that there will be separate facilities for bikers, including bike parking, showers, and lockers. Mr. Krawchyk said for those reasons, as well as the fact that this property is on the bus route, the University had no problem recommending fewer that the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Krawchyk said if the building is moved farther back, it impacts the parking spaces as well as the buffer.
Mr. Krawchyk displayed sketches of the proposed elevation, noting the entrances from each side. He said that comments that had been made by various groups regarding the appearance of the building would be taken into account before coming back to the Council. Mr. Krawchyk said the building would have only about 10,000 square feet of usable office space.
Council Member Hill said if there is only 10,000 square feet of usable office space, where is the other 6,000 square feet? Mr. Krawchyk said in restrooms, break rooms, storage space and others. Council Member Hill said it does seem that even a semblance of an entrance from the road would be necessary.
Council Member Verkerk said that since they do plan to use public transit, a sidewalk is necessary from NC 54 all the way to the property, and suggested they run it all the way down Prestwick Road as well. She said no matter where the entrance is located, that the sidewalk is necessary. Council Member Verkerk said without the sidewalk, public transit is useless.
Council Member Ward agreed that a sidewalk is a necessity. He said having the building closer to Finley Golf Course Road is okay with him. Council Member Ward said he believed there was a chiller identified for this building. Mr. Krawchyk said it was located on the south side of the building. Council Member Ward said he did not know what the noise impact would be, but he would like to know. He said the applicant may want to think about moving it away from the closest neighbor if noise was an issue.
Council Member Ward said this project needs to be able to survive when the transit corridor becomes operational, so that the people inside will feel comfortable and not disturbed by the activity, and that the driveways and buffers still provide the type of separation that one would want. He said he appreciated that the University had set that buffer aside, because it could become a real problem. Mr. Krawchyk said they did support the transit corridor, and did not know at this time what impact it would have on people in the building. Mr. Krawchyk said they also did not know what the noise impact would be, but those would be addressed as they moved forward.
Mayor Foy said that by designing the site this way, even though they were accommodating the transit corridor, it appears that it is creating a problem later on that may be difficult to solve. He asked if the building was supposed to look like a house. Mr. Krawchyk said no, that it was their intent for it to look more like a dormitory. He said they had asked the design team to reduce the slope of the roof to make it less prominent.
Mayor Foy said it appears the building is designed to not look like what it really is, and if you had to reorient the building on the site in order to bring the entrance in off Finley Golf Course road, then the building may have to be L-shaped. Mr. Krawchyk said the CDC had said much the same thing. He said the design team was looking at this and would come back with suggestions.
Council Member Greene agreed with Mayor Foy, stating she believed the front side of the building was “boring” and it should look like what it is.
Council Member Strom said crossing the transit corridor is a real problem, adding that traffic crossing a transit corridor is “a headache.” He said it would be worth discussing that with transit officials, noting that it might be better not to cross it.
Council Member Harrison agreed with Council Member Strom, noting that he and others had been kept updated on the proposed transit corridor. He said that this area is one of the “tight spots,” so that entrance off the potential corridor is “unnerving.” Council Member Harrison said that due to the intensity of transit use that we already have, this is something that could be get used before other parts of the corridor.
Council Member Harrison said that regarding the location of the building, he was a little taken aback that there are no street trees, or few street trees, left on that frontage. Council Member Harrison said that lining up the buildings with the others did not strike him as urgent, but if you can keep the street trees, or replace them with others, that would be an improvement over what we are seeing now. Mr. Krawchyk said that many of the existing street trees would remain, but with this location of the building they would loose from five to seven of those trees.
Council Member Harrison recommended that they be aggressive about what the transit corridor alignment would be, noting that alignment should be worked out over the next several months.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he may be in the minority, but when you come down Finley Golf Course Road to Prestwick Road, you get into these older, more residential buildings. He said he would prefer the building look like that rather than an office building. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it would provide more continuity.
Council Member Greene said the NC High School Athletic Association Building did not particularly look like a house. She said it was an interesting building that did not look like an institutional building, but was more modern in its appearance.
Council Member Ward asked if the other properties there would suffer a similar fate, if the University decides that other University-owned property in that area should be used for a similar purpose. Mr. Krawchyk said there was an opportunity for the University to look at this as “sort of a mini-development,” and that perhaps at some long-term future stage it could go further. He did say that what happens on this property may set the tone for what might happen in the future to surrounding properties.
Council Member Ward said he did not know how time-sensitive this is, but he believed it would be helpful to look at several of the lots at once. He said if they were looking at this as a mini-development with similar clientele and uses, then he would encourage them to minimize the number of curb cuts, so that one or two curb cuts could serve several properties.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if there was already an office building near this site. Mr. Krawchyk said yes, that there was an office building already located on one of the seven properties owned by the University.
MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2, TRANSMITTING COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR 200 FINLEY GOLF COURSE ROAD (2005-01-19/R-2)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for 200 Finley Golf Course Road; 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 January 26, 2005, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.
This the 26th day of January, 2005.
Council Member Ward asked the Mayor to remind the Council what the approval process was for this project. Mayor Foy said the property is OI-2 and does not require a rezoning, so it would be the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Poveromo said that was correct.
Before adjournment, the Mayor reminded the Council and the public that there was a Budget Review Advisory Committee meeting at 7:30 a.m. on Monday.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.