PLANNING
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC  27514

phone (919) 968-2728    fax (919) 969-2014
www.townofchapelhill.org

 

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.

 

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.

 

Staff members present were Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director J. B. Culpepper, Development Planning Coordinator Gene Poveromo, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

 

Item 3 – Concept Plan: Habitat for Humanity – Sunrise Ridge Subdivision

 

Mr. Poveromo described what would take place once this Concept Plan began to move through process.  He also explained how expedited review might be granted to a project, and the priority it would receive as it moved through process.  Mr. Poveromo noted that the Sunrise Road Development received approval for expedited review in November 2004.

 

Mr. Poveromo stated this proposal was for a multi-family development of 24 buildings with 48 dwelling units on 19.41 acres.   He said the site was located between Ginger Road and Interstate 40, east of Sunrise Road, and north of the recently approved Bradley Green Subdivision.  Mr. Poveromo said the proposed access was from Ginger Road and from Amesbury Drive in Chandler’s Green Subdivision.

 

Mr. Poveromo said they recommended that the Council review this Concept Plan, receive comments from the Community Design Commission and citizens, and adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant.

 

Susan Levy, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, said they were striving to achieve a livable sustainable neighborhood of quality affordable homes.  She said their objective tonight was to provide details that addressed traffic calming, house design, the homeowners’ association and restrictive covenants, and landscaping.  Ms. Levy said they also wanted the Council’s feedback on five major components of the project: the general layout, the use of Ginger Road, noise constraints, attached single-family homes, and the density/number of units.

 

Ms. Levy described some of the families now living or who soon would be living in Habitat homes. She then described the reason for the need for such housing in Chapel Hill:

 

 

Ms. Levy stated that in the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill states that one of its highest priorities is to “facilitate the construction of new or substantially rehabilitated housing units that are affordable to families earning less than 60 percent of the area median.”  Ms. Levy said that Sunrise Ridge offered a golden opportunity for the Town to meet that priority.

 

John Sehon, Immediate Past President of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, provided a timeline of events that had led up to tonight’s Concept Plan review.  He noted that one issue that was continually brought up was whether or not Habitat was communicating with the neighbors of the project.  Mr. Sehon stated that last July they had spent some time with members of the Sunrise Coalition at the Dispute Settlement Center to try to reach agreement on some issues, but were unable to do so.

 

Mr. Sehon noted they had continued to work with the neighbors although they were accused of not doing so.  He said they did get off on the wrong foot with the neighbors and took responsibility for that, because they did not go out and seek input from the neighbors before they requested the initial funding.  Mr. Sehon said since then they had negotiated with the neighbors and the Mayor’s Committee on the 17 points used as guidelines for development of this property, they had informed the neighbors of progress and had listened to their responses, although they had not always agreed.

 

Mr. Sehon described the original concept plan and the problems they had accounted. He said since then they had identified additional goals to be met:

 

 

Mr. Sehon stated that the Community Development Commission (CDC) had commented on the plan, and their comments were included with the Council’s materials.  He said they believe they had not met the requirements for Sunrise Ridge, which were:

 

 

Mr. Sehon said although they were accused of not listening to the neighbors, many of the changes addressed concerns expressed by the neighbors.

 

Rosemary Waldorf, a Habitat volunteer, addressed the concept of density.  She said in reading the comments made by CDC members, she noted that some of the members had commented that this proposal was too dense.  Ms. Waldorf said she believed that density needed to be evaluated not on perceptions but on the density permitted by the zoning of the site and on the design of the project including the design sensitivity to neighbors.

 

Ms. Waldorf said the perception that the project was too dense should not go unchallenged.  She said the permitted density was four units per acre, or 78 dwelling units, and the proposal was for 48 duplex homes, or 2.5 units per acre.  Ms. Waldorf said it was true there were several neighborhoods in the area that were lower than 2.5 units per acre, but there were others that were much higher, citing Carol Woods and numerous nearby multi-family units as examples.  She said within the context of affordable housing, this was a suburban design and therefore not really dense.

 

Ms. Waldorf noted that the Comprehensive Plan emphasized providing affordable housing in Chapel Hill and that it was so important that the Town might consider certain exceptions to facilitate it, such as reductions in setbacks, frontages, yardage requirements, cutting back on curb and gutter requirements or right-of-way requirements.  She said none of that had taken place with this proposed development.  Ms. Waldorf said Habitat had tried hard to be sensitive to the neighbors and to provide a quality environment for the people who would live in this development.

 

Ms. Waldorf said she was particularly attuned to the Council’s current interest in affordable housing, noting she served on the Town’s Inclusionary Zoning Task Force.  She said that Task Force had not finished its work and did not know what the Town might eventually adopt, but it had become clear that if they were to have a legally defensible and economically feasible inclusionary zoning ordinance they would have to think in terms of a density bonus.  Ms. Waldorf said that meant granting permission to provide more housing than the underlying zoning permitted.

 

Ms. Waldorf said as a practical matter community wide, if the Town were going to get more affordable housing then it would have to be open to more density.  She noted that developable space was scarce, and opportunities for creating more affordable homes would be in multi-family developments and in redevelopment. Ms. Waldorf emphasized that Sunrise Ridge was neither of these, and in fact was well below the density permitted for the site.

 

Ms. Waldorf encouraged the Council to look upon this proposal favorably, and asked that they bear in mind that Habitat was probably the only agency that was consistently able to bring homes to the community for persons in the 50 percent of median income bracket.

 

Josh Gurlitz, a member of Habitat’s volunteer design team, said the design team consisted of planners, architects, land use planners, and landscape designers. He described neo-traditional design planning was popular some years ago, noting this type of planning came from a strong sense of preserving the land and for social interaction.  Mr. Gurlitz said it was now being rediscovered, and included characteristics such as homes closer together, homes closer to the street, a grid pattern of streets with no cul-de-sacs and no dead-ends, shared recreation space, sidewalks, and safe ways for people to get around the community.

 

Mr. Gurlitz displayed a slide of a neo-traditional project located in Greensboro, pointing out the grid pattern of the site, how close the buildings were together and how close they were to the street, and that there were sidewalks on both sides of the street.  He noted that the houses were within 25 feet of the sidewalk, most of the houses were two stories and the houses were close together.  Mr. Gurlitz described a similar project in Columbia, South Carolina.  He said he provided this information because he believed it was important to understand the concept of the design and to see examples of how similar concepts had been applied and withstood the test of time.  Mr. Gurlitz pointed out that Southern Village was the poster project for this type of design.  He exhibited slides of Southern Village, pointing out the homes and their proximity to the streets, the sidewalks, and other amenities.

 

Mr. Gurlitz said they had started with the idea of using neo-traditional design, but had other design objectives as well:

 

 

Mr. Gurlitz pointed out on a map the location of the RCD and the location of the creek on the site.  He said they had opted not to disturb anything in the RCD. Mr. Gurlitz also pointed out the sound contour line on the site.

 

Mr. Gurlitz said as Chapel Hill moved ahead, there would be infill development.  He said that this development and this group of planners had decided that the Town should adhere to the kind of neo-traditional planning that had created good communities elsewhere, that preserved open space and decreased the amount of impervious surface and did not mirror urban sprawl.

 

Mr. Gurlitz said the plan was quite simple because it responded to the environmental criteria they had set, in that it did not disturb the RCD and did not intrude into the noise district.  He said the homes were arranged close to the street with sidewalks on both sides, and ample room for street tree plantings.  Mr. Gurlitz said that each of the attached homes had double-track driveways, meaning that the only paved area was a track for the tires, which preserved grassy areas.  He said off-street parking was provided, but at a minimum.

 

Mr. Gurlitz said the designs for these homes would vary and provide variety along the street.  He said the homes would have front porches, providing socialization between the sidewalk and the privacy of the home.  Mr. Gurlitz said the distance between the structures was not very different than the distance in adjacent subdivisions.

 

Mr. Gurlitz said the things they had accomplished with this plan included:

 

 

Sandra Cummings, Danny Benjamin, and Steve Herman with the Sunrise Coalition provided a PowerPoint presentation opposing the project.

 

Ms. Cummings said this process had begun more than four years ago, and for the neighbors it had been a nightmare.  She said she and her neighbors were disillusioned and disappointed with the development process that had consumed them.  Ms. Cummings appealed to the Council to look at this project objectively and critically, and to support their right for neighborhood protection.

 

Ms. Cummings said they oppose this project for a number of valid reasons, and believe that the present plan was in many ways worse than the previous one. She said members of Habitat had called them inflexible and unwilling to compromise.  Ms. Cummings offered a number of ways they had attempted to settle the differences between the developers and the neighbors:

 

 

Ms. Cummings asked, who was unwilling to compromise?  She said that Habitat had time and again refused to meaningfully involve them in the project and for two-way dialogue.  Ms. Cummings said over the course of several meetings Habitat may have listened but there was no give and take.  She said Habitat would only take direction from the Council, and they were pleading for the Council to assist the neighbors.

 

Ms. Cummings said it was true that Habitat had made some changes to the plan, but they believe it was due more to the necessity of the environmental constraints of the land than their desire to compromise.  As an example, she said, Habitat had moved the access to Ginger Road not so much because of neighborhood concerns for safety but because providing access through the RCD was cost-prohibitive. Ms. Cummings said Habitat was not aware that the RCD was there when they purchased the property so financially it had not been figured into the project.  She remarked that if they had done their homework they would have known that 70 percent of the land was not buildable, which had resulted in a density that was not acceptable.

 

Ms. Cummings said they believed that the project did not meet the guidelines of LUMO and zoning requirements as they had understood them when agreeing to the 17 guiding principles.  She asked the Council to evaluate the plan as if a for-profit developer was proposing it, and as if it were being built in their own neighborhood.  Ms. Cummings asked that the developer address the concerns of the CDC, and that they be encouraged to actively involve the neighbors in the planning process so that when the plan came back to the Council it would be one they could all support.

 

Mr. Benjamin provided a summary of the CDC comments:

 

 

Mr. Benjamin said he was surprised to hear Habitat state they had met with the neighbors.  He said he knew of only one meeting that had been held at Carol Woods, and he would like Habitat to provide him with the dates and times of other meetings that may have taken place.

 

Mr. Benjamin said that density was the primary flaw in this project.  He said this was not a proposal for 48 units on 19 acres, but 48 units on 6 acres.  Mr. Benjamin said when Habitat had first proposed building duplexes, they had wondered what experience Habitat had in that area.  He said they had searched the Internet and found the following statistics regarding Habitat duplexes:

 

·         Over 100 Habitats randomly contacted

·         0/100 have a development with duplexes

·         A development of duplexes was a departure from a successful Habitat model of single-family homes

·         This proposal was significantly larger in scope than any Habitat development of duplexes they were able to locate in the United States

 

Mr. Benjamin then provided a description of the existing neighborhood on Ginger Road.  He displayed an aerial view of the property, pointing out the location of the proposed development and the home currently adjacent to it, and the location of Ginger Road.  Mr. Benjamin commented on how close the development would be to that existing home, noting the buffer was minimal.

 

Mr. Benjamin noted that the neighborhood had no input into the planning for the duplexes, no input in the Ginger Road access, no input into the high density put forth by the plan, no input into the developer’s vision for the Homeowners Association for the plan, no involvement in the sound study, nor any input into the Concept Plan.  He asked that the neighbors be allowed to work with Habitat to develop a project that they could all be proud of.  Mr. Cummings said they wanted a project that would work in the long term, and they were concerned about the expertise and long-term management of duplexes.

 

Mr. Herman focused on the noise issues, stating he did not believe that Habitat was “being straight” with the Council.  He said when the issue was first raised by neighbors, Habitat argued that since several Chandler’s Green homes were also adjacent to I-40, it proved that highway noise was not a barrier to residential development.  Mr. Herman stated five reasons why that statement was false:

 

 

Mr. Herman said people with options could select to live in areas that did not have noise issues, but the Habitat clientele did not have those options.  He said it was wrong to build affordable housing units in a area where the noise levels were excessive.

 

Mr. Herman said the Council had requested a noise study, but the results of that study were withheld for almost a year.  He said the results revealed projected noise levels that exceeded federal standards for human habitation and would render such a development ineligible for HUD funding.  Mr. Herman said Habitat’s response was to reject the HUD standards and to seek alternative sources of funding.  He said they find that unacceptable.  Mr. Herman said that the federal standards were not about funding sources, but about creating healthy and sustainable environments.  He said they believed Habitat was acting irresponsibly by ignoring those standards just because they did not fit Habitat’s plans.  Mr. Herman said the plans should be changed to fit the standards, not the other way around.

 

Mr. Herman stated the sound report formulated its own definition of the boundary of the 67 dB limit between habitable and non-habitable areas of the property. Because none of them were acoustical engineers, he said, they had asked Seymour Freed, a retired Civil Engineer living in Carol Woods and a local expert on I-40 noise, to look at the sound study.  Mr. Herman said Mr. Freed would speak shortly, noting a copy of his report had been distributed to the Council.  He said Mr. Freed’s report showed that the methodology and conclusions of the sound study was biased in several ways, all of which served to under-represent the true magnitude of the noise problem on the property.  Mr. Herman said one CDC member had agreed with their recommendation that an independent and impartial review of the sound report was appropriate in this case.

 

Mr. Herman said they were disappointed that the study failed to address the impact of clear cutting trees on the transmission of highway noise to adjacent properties.  He said they had specifically requested that from Habitat and their request was virtually ignored.

 

Mr. Herman said the Sunrise Coalition asked that the Council pass along to Habitat specific recommendations made by the CDC:

 

 

Robin Whitsel, Vice Chair of the CDC, said she was representing herself and not the CDC.  She said she was one of the CDC members who objected to the density of this project, and believed that single-family homes were more appropriate and preferable.  Ms. Whitsel said as a CDC member she had asked Habitat to consider a greater level of cooperation with the neighbors.

 

George Cianciolo, a resident of Chandler’s Green, said he was speaking for himself and not as a member of various advisory boards.  He said he was concerned that the project was in a poor location for affordable housing.  Mr. Cianciolo said it was a vehicular-dependent location, and was not located within walking distance of any grocery stores, banks, pharmacies, or general retail operations, nor was it located on a bus route or on a site that was likely to be on a bus route.

 

Mr. Cianciolo stated this was a high-density development on the eventual edge of Town that, other than for a planned development such as Southern Village, probably made no sense.  Having said that, he remarked, it was one of the few if not the only site left in Chapel Hill where someone could afford to build truly affordable housing.

 

Mr. Cianciolo said concern tonight was with the proposal for duplexes and the proposed density and size.  He said the maintenance of duplexes and yards would provide challenges not present with single-family homes.  Mr. Cianciolo said he was also concerned that living in duplexes would present different challenges for those living there.  He said another concern was the fact that Habitat had no experience with duplexes.  Mr. Cianciolo said he hoped that Habitat would rely on the experience of other Habitats or developers who had built such homes.

 

Mr. Cianciolo said his remaining concern was one of size.  He said the largest Habitat development he could identify that contained duplexes was in Lancaster, Colorado, which was 31 duplexes on 9.7 acres.  Mr. Cianciolo said Sunrise Ridge was proposed for 24 duplexes that resulted in a size comparable to the largest Habitat project to date.  He said this would be built by an organization that had no hands-on experience dealing with duplexes.

 

Mr. Cianciolo said he would be a lot more comfortable with this development if Habitat had conducted a pilot project with two or three duplexes on the Rusch Hollow site.  With no such project to evaluate or learn from, he would ask that Habitat reconsider building one of the larger duplex projects in the country, and reduce the number of proposed duplexes by at least five or six units.

 

Mr. Cianciolo said that this project must be successful, noting that failure would be disastrous for the residents, the neighbors, for Habitat, and for the community as a whole.

 

Robert Campbell said that more community involvement was necessary before this project was approved.  He said those who lived in the area knew about the property, the trees, the potential for flooding, and other issues.  Mr. Campbell said that lack of communication was dividing the neighborhoods rather than bringing them together.  He said Habitat had purchased more property in his neighborhood, ballooning the neighborhood, but keeping them separated by that lack of communication and lack of community involvement.

 

Mr. Campbell asked the Council to encourage Habitat to listen to the neighbors, and to do a  “walk through” of the area so that they would be familiar with the territory.  Mr. Campbell said when you develop a property and leave, you should make sure it was left better than when you arrived.

 

Seymour Freed, a retired Civil Engineer and a resident of Carol Woods, provided the Council with a memorandum entitled “Sunrise Ridge: Why Construction Should Start 490 Feet from I-40 Centerline.”  He said he had written that memorandum in response to the report by Stewart Acoustical Consultants mentioned by Mr. Herman.  Mr. Freed said the report stated that the “magic line” for acceptable future sound levels would occur 335 feet from the centerline of I-40.  He said there were three serious errors contained in the report that had resulted in an estimate that was 155 feet too low.  Mr. Freed said the magic line should be 490 feet, not 335 feet, and noted the three errors contained in that report:

 

·         Using the same simplified traffic noise model (TNM), traffic volumes, speeds and terrain as the Stewart report resulted in a year 2015 prediction of 67 dBA at a distance from vehicles to observer of 365 feet.  Thirty feet must then be added for the distance from the vehicles to the center of I-40, making a total of 395 feet.

·         The criterion used by Habitat for their magic line was whether an existing home qualified for consideration of a noise barrier by NCDOT.  Habitat assumed a 67 dBA noise limit, despite stating that noise “must approach or exceed” this limit.  NCDOT and the FHWA define “approach” as to be within 1 dBA of noise value for the activity.  The universally used NCDOT standard for noise impact is 65 dBA, not 67 dBA.

·         Habitat used year 2015 as its design year.  This is a HUD standard but Habitat opted not to comply with HUD, but instead to use NCDOT rules.  The design year, by NCDOT and FHWA noise barrier standards, is 20 years after construction began.  This means that the design year should have been 2026, not 2015.

 

Mr. Freed concluded that the TNM model of year 2026 I-40 noise predicted 66 dBA at 460 feet.  Adding the 30 feet to the magic line, he said, brought that total to 490 feet by NCDOT Noise Abatement Criteria.  Mr. Freed said it was correct that Habitat had chosen to comply by NCDOT standards, which was their right, but it had not done so.  He said to comply with NCDOT barrier standards the magic line of construction should start at 490 feet from the centerline of I-40, not at 335 feet as stated by the Steward report.

 

Linda Rimer, an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency, said she had submitted a document for the Council’s information.  She noted it was not to be taken as an “official” statement of the EPA, but rather as a description of activities and policies that have been evolving since the early 1990s.  Ms. Rimer noted the EPAs mission was to protect human health and the environment. She said she had been asked to speak tonight to address why current EPA policies support the kinds of developments that Sunrise Ridge demonstrates.

 

Ms. Rimer said in the late 1980s to early 1990s, the EPA became aware of the pattern of urbanization that had occurred and continued to occur in this country, and the challenges that created to the EPA in its ability to fulfill its mission.  She said this urbanization was destroying open space, reducing biodiversity, destroying habitats, diminishing air and water quality, and diminishing water quantity.

 

Ms. Rimer said that the EPA had little to no authority to address those issues and address that type of urbanization.  While acknowledging that there are federal policies that influence development, for instance highway and transportation policies, these changes in the landscape are due largely to decisions made at the local level, she said.

 

Ms. Rimer said around 1998 the EPA began to explore ways to influence this local government decision-making.  She said the EPA created the Smart Growth program to research the impact of sprawling development on air, water and land.  She said a Smart Growth Network was created to gather and make this type of information widely available through publications and the Internet.

 

Ms. Rimer said the Sunrise Ridge Development demonstrated many practices that help to protect the environment.  She said the fact that it is more compact than traditional development meant that more open space was preserved, along with all the benefits that open space provides, such as water quality and quantity, air quality, climate protection, and preservation of habitat and biodiversity. Ms. Rimer said the greater environment of the region was also enhanced because the RCD and jurisdictional wetlands were not disturbed in any way.

 

Ms. Rimer concluded that she believed this development supported the concepts of sustainable development, good environment, and good economy for all the people.

 

Aaron Nelson, executive director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said he was representing the unanimous opinion of his 35-member board of directors by speaking in support of the Sunrise Ridge Development.  He said the Chamber, on behalf of their 900 members and the 50,000 employees that those members represent in the Triangle, was committed to growing a supply of work force housing.  Mr. Nelson said their members’ ability to recruit and retain quality employees, and the Town’s ability to recruit and retain quality employers was predicated on having a sufficient supply of work force housing proximate to employment centers.

 

Mr. Nelson stated that they were concerned about the impact that the lack of work force housing has on the community, its impact on transit and transportation infrastructure needed to be built, its impact on air quality and its impact on civic participation, which diminishes precipitously as people’s commutes grow longer.  He said the need for an increased supply of work force housing was clear, noting the least expensive new home sold in Orange County this year was $420,000.

 

Mr. Nelson said that by definition Habitat’s proposal was out of character for the community because they wanted to build affordable homes, noting the Town’s character was to build unaffordable homes.  Mr. Nelson said Habitat’s character was consistent with their aspirations and was what they wished for the community.

 

Mr. Nelson said the Sunrise Ridge Development was fully consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and with the expressed desires of this Council and Councils before them.  He said to protect the environment and to protect the rural buffer they must go dense with the land within Town boundaries.  Mr. Nelson said the population would continue to grow and to accommodate that growth in the most appropriate way we must go dense.  He said to keep it affordable and keep costs down we must go as dense as possible with the land available.

 

Mr. Nelson said on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, its Board of Directors and its members, he was formally asking the Council to approve the project and to advise Habitat to continue with its efforts to build more affordable housing in the community.

 

Robert Dowling, Executive Director of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, clarified the position of the Land Trust in regard to the Sunrise Ridge Development.  He stated that they had discussed with Habitat the possibility of participating with them in the development of Sunrise Ridge, but had not participated in the development of the current plans and had not had any substantive discussions with Habitat about the land Trust’s involvement.  Mr. Dowling said Habitat’s time had been consumed with the Concept Plan, and he expected that as the months went by that the Land Trust would have substantive discussion about their potential involvement in the project.

 

Mr. Dowling said his first concern was always to build homes that they could sell. He said unlike Habitat, when they build a home they have to hire a general contractor and take out loans.

 

Mr. Dowling said he preferred the current plan from Habitat, noting he believed it addressed some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors, although that was not what we had heard tonight.  He stated the homes had been moved further from I-40, they would not disturb the RCD, they had reduced density by adding more land, and they have done all of the units as duplexes.  Mr. Dowling said the neighbors saw that as a negative, but he considered it a positive.  He said one of the challenges of affordable housing was long-term maintenance of homes, and single-family homeowners did not have the luxury of a homeowners association, but had to rely on themselves.  Mr. Dowling said with duplexes, you had the advantages of having dues paid to a homeowners association who would make sure that maintenance was provided.

 

Mr. Dowling said providing affordable homes was not easy work, and this process had been trying for Habitat.  He said the challenges posed by the neighbors had actually strengthened the proposal, and would increase Habitat’s resolve to make this a successful project.  Mr. Dowling said Habitat had a good track record and this project warranted Town support.


Mayor Foy reminded the public that this was the beginning of the process, and that it was a public process and was designed to engage all of the community. He said any approval of this project had a long way to go, including review by advisory boards, staff scrutiny, and community discussion before it came back to the Council.  Mayor Foy said this process included a Concept Plan that provided interaction with the developer, which was what they were doing tonight.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was looking forward to seeing the range of incomes these homes would address, adding he hoped that Mr. Dowling would be part of that discussion.  He encouraged Habitat to use duplexes as a model here, noting he believed it was significantly different than the duplexes in Northside, for instance.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said the problem with duplexes in Northside and the reason for the moratorium was that you would have a small house, then you were adding something three times as large next to it and calling it a duplex, and that was ruining the character of the neighborhood. He said those houses then became rental housing for students.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said this project was nothing like the Northside duplexes.  He said these homes were homeownership opportunities, and that virtually eliminated the traditional arguments against duplexes.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was concerned in the earlier plan about how the homes were squeezed into that easternmost part of the property, and was pleased that they had since been able to acquire more land.  He said in evaluating the clustering of the homes they had to look not only at what was available but also at the potential and how much land could be saved.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed they had achieved that here.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was particularly pleased that they were avoiding the RCD, which was a big concern a year ago.  He said the fact that they had been able to move the road and it was cheaper for them did not matter to him, noting he was just pleased to get it out of the RCD.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated he wanted to learn more about the driveways, noting he was not entirely convinced that the pavers with grass in between was the right way to go.  It would be very different and he wanted to understand the concept, he said.

 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed Habitat had been responsive to the concerns expressed by the Council during the first Concept Plan review.  He said he believed that Mr. Freed’s comments on the noise study deserved a response, and was looking forward to hearing that.

 

Council Member Greene said she was glad to hear about the context of the new urbanism and particularly about the differentiation in styles of the houses, noting she still had concerns about the cookie cutter look in the drawings.  She said the development had an elegant simplistic quality to it and the current plan was an improvement over the original plan, noting the reasons mentioned by Council Member Kleinschmidt.

 

Council Member Greene said she wanted to have some understanding that the development would have some texture to it and not look like an apartment complex.  She said she was confused about the HUD regulations, what they stated or did not state, as well as the Town’s noise regulations and how they might affect this development.  Council Member Greene said she would like Habitat to respond to the HUD guidelines and the comments made about those regulations not being followed.

 

Bob Reda, a member of the Habitat Board, stated he would be happy to have their consultant available when they make their formal presentation.  He said, to their knowledge there was no mandatory noise level within Chapel Hill.  Therefore, what they had done was work with the best numbers available.  Mr. Reda said they had placed sound equipment on the property and taken measures in order to make their findings.

 

Mr. Reda said they had held many discussions with HUD both in Greensboro and Washington, and they had indicated that the calculations they used were over 30 years old, and had no funding to update the calculations.  He said HUD had admitted much had been learned in that time regarding sound and how it traveled.  Mr. Reda said because of that, they decided to use the figures provided by NCDOT, which was 67 dB, to minimize the disturbance to the homes.

 

Mr. Reda said for the members of the CDC who had noted noise as a concern, an equal number noted it was not a concern.  He said regarding the comment made about luxury homes providing better construction to minimize the noise, he stated that the average monthly heating or cooling bill for a Habitat house was $25.00.  Mr. Reda said that told him those homes were well constructed, and they would not only hold hot and cold air but would reduce outside noise as well.

 

Council Member Ward echoed others in saying that he hoped as this plan was defined that the Land Trust would find a way to participate, which would benefit the diversity of that neighborhood.  He said he wanted to understand the noise issue better in terms of what that would mean to the residents living there. Council Member Ward said he wanted to feel confident that the neighborhood was being created in a place where the noise was not an irritant.

 

Council Member Ward noted it had been said that these homes should not be built there because of the lack of urban services, in particular public transit.  He hoped that even though there was no transit service there now, the developers would take that into consideration and build it in a way that bus service might eventually be extended to that community.

 

Council Member Ward said he supported the addition of an active recreation area, and that it included access to pedestrian and bike amenities that would make it safe to get to and from it.  He said he would like to see the ability for the Town to extend its greenway system into this development, noting it currently paralleled most of I-40.

 

Council Member Ward said regarding parking, he wanted to see an alternative design that provided for fewer curb cuts.  He said he understood the value of limiting the parking to tire track footprints, but wondered how well it would work in reality.

 

Council Member Ward said the design before them tonight seemed to break up the side yards of these homes more than he wanted to see, noting that the open space between houses was unusable.  He said that area was a prime place for children to play, so if the houses could be moved around to create some useable play areas it would make it a more friendly place for people to call home.

 

Council Member Easthom said she would treat this Concept Plan in the same manner as any other proposal and give it the same amount of scrutiny.  She stated that regarding neighborhood involvement, she had been concerned about statements about the lack of two-way conversation about the current plan.  Council Member Easthom said she would like to encourage a community meeting or an informal meeting between Habitat and the neighbors to address some of the concerns expressed this evening.

 

Council Member Easthom said she was sensitive to the noise issue, and would agree that an independent noise study be conducted.  As far as the appearance of the development, she agreed that on paper it did have a cookie cutter look, and would like to see something different.  Council Member Easthom said regarding the driveways, she was not a big fan of tire track driveways and would like more information about that.  She said she believed it would be a maintenance issue.

 

Council Member Easthom said she had read a statement from the NCDOT that as far as a buffer between a development and a highway, that a 200-foot buffer of dense vegetation could reduce noise by 10 dB.  She said that was significant, and as part of the exploration of this issue she would like that looked at.

 

Council Member Harrison said that six of the nine CDC members commented on the friction between the neighbors and Habitat, and believed that the majority of comments should be acknowledged.  He said when Chandler’s Green was discussed, the neighbors had broken down the developer’s resistance and the developer had broken down the neighbors’ resistance, which resulted in a meeting of minds. Council Member Harrison said it was an example of getting together and creating something that was working.  He said the perception of a majority of the CDC, whom the Council relied on for their opinions, was that there had not been a meeting of the minds in this case.

 

Council Member Harrison said he was the only Council member who had supported mediation requested some months ago by the Sunrise Coalition.  He said he stood by that position.

 

Council Member Harrison said regarding design issues, the CDC had noted the use and maintenance of the common areas, and he believed more work needed to be devoted to that to remove the “cookie cutter” effect mentioned by two of the Council members.  He said this was “clustering” because of ordinance requirements, and it was not as creative as it could be.  Council Member Harrison said some additional creativity should be applied to move things around to make more common areas useable for the residents, as well as how those areas would be maintained.

 

Council Member Harrison said another concern was the cross sections of the streets, noting he was not clear about how much parallel parking could be placed on a local street.  He said these streets were standard local streets, which were 27 feet wide and designed for two-way traffic moving through with parking on one side.  Council Member Harrison said there was a limit to how much parallel parking such a street could tolerate.

 

Council Member Harrison said it was not an area he would rank highly for getting a bus through.  He said it was not on a bus line, and was not ideal for access by Chapel Hill Transit.  Council Member Harrison said it also was not an ideal place for affordable housing, because it was not close to transit or other amenities the residents would need.

 

Council Member Harrison said the shifting of one of the units which took place after the Concept Plan went before the CDC allowed for the addition of unrequired perimeter buffer along Ginger Road.  He said that would enhance the look of Ginger Road and the internal street.  Council Member Harrison said this project was very much an experiment, and internally the applicant would have to be sure to do this project right.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EASTHOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-2.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (9-0).