DRAFT SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2007, AT 7:00 p.m.

J.B. Culpepper explained the proposed adjustments to the Duplex Design Guidelines and said the staff had reviewed them in light of a pending lawsuit against the Town.  She recommended clarifying the provisions in an effort to provide clear direction to applicants.

Mayor Foy announced that Council Member Cam Hill would be absent and that Council Member Greene would be late.

Council Member Greene arrived at 7:05.

Mr. Poveromo recommended that the Council review the University Station concept plan, receive comments from citizens, and adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant.  He said that University Station would have 820 parking spaces.  

Bryan Gray, representing York Residential, explained that the proposed development on 43 acres would be a Class A, luxury, multi-family development.  It would include 373 residential units in 17 buildings, and would be a combination of two and three stories with some 3/4 splits.  Mr. Gray explained that the applicant had met with some of the neighbors from Carol Woods, Coventry, and Kensington Trace.

Civil Engineer George Retschle, of Ballentine Associates, discussed the site’s existing conditions.  Referring to a site map, he showed photos of the area.  Mr. Retschle said the site had been approved as an apartment project in the mid-80s, and that much infrastructure was now in place.  He said the site had been carved up by power lines and sewer easements.  Mr. Retschle showed a site analysis plan and a map indicating a platted roadway that had been approved in the mid-1980s.  He said the applicant was, for the most part, building the project around established easements.   

Landscape Architect & Planner Michael Lattner, of Kline Design Associates, described the site as extremely stretched out and difficult to work with.  He said that having several thin pieces of property--combined with double, crisscrossing power easements, sewer easements, water retention requirements, and the buffer with I-40--leaves them with very little buildable land.  Mr. Lattner said they had tried be sensitive to neighbors when siting their buildings. 

Mr. Lattner indicated where the main access would be, and described the garden style apartments with central breezeways.  He said the development would be pedestrian-friendly, with brick and neutral siding, and he showed an artist’s rendering of how the buildings would look.  Mr. Lattner showed the greenways connections and explained that the design would be sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods through the use of substantial buffering.  In summary, he said, this was a much-needed, residential complement to existing commercial and retail use in the area. 

Mayor pro tem Strom asked about the zoning under which this concept would come before the Council.  Mr. Poveromo replied that staff had not done a complete staff analysis of the project.  However, before the concept plan was submitted, the applicant was able to use the existing zoning to do the planned development that they were proposing, he said.  Mr. Poveromo explained that the applicant intended to take the density and floor area that were permitted in the O&I-1 and the R-3 zoning districts and combine them.  Then, within the boundary of this property under a planned development as a SUP, they would spread the floor area through the two zoning districts, he said. 

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Poveromo if that made sense to him, noting that the project description before the Council said a portion would be zoned medium density residential and the rest would be mixed use office emphasis. 

Mr. Poveromo replied that this was how the Comprehensive Plan indicated this property should be used.  However, with planned development, one can propose that the entire property, as a planned housing development coming in as a SUP, could have residential on the entire site, he said.

Mayor pro tem Strom verified with Mr. Poveromo that a planned development requires a SUP, which would include a finding that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mayor Foy asked if it required a rezoning, and Mr. Poveromo said that what the applicant had proposed during preliminary meetings did not because they would come in with a planned development housing SUP.  

Council Member Easthom asked about the detailed site analysis of the proposed development in relation to the existing Chapel Hill North development. She asked about the distance between the northwestern building and Harris Teeter and I-40.  

Mr. Retschle replied that the building is about 110 feet from I-40, and there is roughly the same distance between that building and Harris Teeter.  

Council Member Thorpe asked if this was mixed use.  Mr. Lattner replied that it would be residential apartments.  

Del Snow, representing CURB, described University Station as a "vision thing," and said the Town could do better.  She stated that the project offered potential health problems, serious noise concerns, detrimental stormwater consequences, a negative effect on surrounding property values, and serious traffic congestion.  She recommended various changes and a new concept plan for the area, with a decrease in the number of units and parking spaces.  She asked that the Council defer action until after its work session on March 7, adding that CURB members would bring back specific information.  

Hank Elkins distributed two documents, including one titled, "Residential Construction Near Interstate 40, Implications for Health."  He commented on the "unprecedented" set of plans by three developers to build residential units in close proximity to I-40.  From Erwin Road up to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., he said, there were currently only four residences located within 340 feet from I-40.  If the developers’ plans move forward, that number would increase to 180, he said, adding that there would be 283 new residential units within 500 feet. 

Mr. Elkins said that within the last two years a list of studies had shown, beyond a doubt, that there are major health hazards for those living close to major roadways with high traffic.  He listed some of those risks, and suggested that the Town consider the use of commercial, office, or utilitarian structures, since those would not pose the same risk as residential units because occupants would spend fewer hours there.

Seymour Freed, a Weaver Dairy Road resident, corrected the Planning Department’s statement, noting that there would be 238 units on site, not 374.  He said that three developments in close proximity to I-40 were currently under review.  Although they all have noise problems, those at University Station can only be fixed by eliminating eight buildings, reducing the number of units to 171, and keeping the rest of the site mixed use, said Mr. freed.

Mr. Freed said the current LUMO allows only 227 units on the site.  He asked the Council to keep the LUMO at 40 percent residential, adding that anything above that would threaten the health and welfare of future residents and would not be suitable for affordable housing. 

Scott Daniels, a student and homeowner at Weatherstone Complex, asked Council members to consider his young son and other children when making this decision.  He discussed noise pollution from both Weaver Dairy Road and I-40.  Mr. Daniels said he wondered how this could be proposed as a luxury, given the large power lines, noise, and the 820 vehicles that would go back and forth on one road. He said the neighborhood was one for people with modest incomes and that University Station did not fit in. 

Brant Hamel, a student and homeowner at Kensington Trace, said the project would dwarf everything else in the area and affect property values.  He said the development would flood the local market for rentals units.  It was not clear whether substituting buildings for trees would block or create noise, said Mr. Hamel, but the additional cars would be disruptive.  He mentioned drainage issues and pointed out that there were minimal buffers all around.

Phyllis Pomerantz, a Cross Creek resident, said University Station was, of all the developments proposed for the area, the one that would affect the community most adversely.  She said that its density and scale were not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and that it threatened to change the neighborhood’s character.  There was potential for declining property values, said Ms. Pomerantz, and she noted that the development would increase traffic along Weaver Dairy Road by 10 percent.  She said there already were serious drainage problems in the area.  However, Ms. Pomerantz stated that health and noise issues for potential residents were the worst problem.  

Mayor Foy asked the applicant why their idea was to make this all residential, since this is not the vision that the Town has.  He said that the proximity to I-40 and the amount of traffic the project would generate were valid points.  

Mr. Gray replied that the densities they were proposing were allowed within the zoning categories.  He said that Chapel Hill North and Vilcom had provided the retail and office components, and that a residential component would match those two uses to create a mixed use area within that part of Chapel Hill. 

Council Member Harrison asked if the layout with so little public street actually would comply with the ordinance.  Mr. Retschle replied that it would be a private street all the way through the site, and that they were not aware of anything in the ordinance that precludes that.  

Council Member Harrison ascertained that there would be 90 degree parking along the street.  Mr. Retschle said that transit and school buses would be able to use the street.  Council Member Harrison asked what kind of street cross-section would allow that many back-out parking spaces along with Chapel Hill transit and school bus use. 

Mr. Retschle said they had not finalized the street sections, but they envisioned something 25 to 30 feet wide, plus parking.  Council Member Harrison commented that this was cutting it close throughout.

Mayor Foy clarified that the application has 820 parking spaces for 374 units.   Mr. Gray said that the actual zoning was based on 1-1/2 spaces for one and two bedrooms and two spaces for two bedrooms.  He said that whatever was put in place would be a significant reduction from 820 and would reflect what is allowed under the code. Mayor Foy ascertained that it would all be surface parking. 

Council Member Greene asked to learn more about the mid-1980s plan, with particular regard to the I-40 alignment and why it did not happen.  Ms. Culpepper explained that it was a J. P. Goforth apartment complex that the county approved before that area came into the Town’s zoning jurisdiction.  The developer died, and it was never built, but there apparently was some sewer put in and a road platted, Ms. Culpepper said.  She said she did not know how I-40 coming though there related to the area in the mid-1980s.

At Council Member Ward’s request, Mr. Lattner traced the route that the school bus and Chapel Hill Transit would take.  Council Member Ward said that it would be better if this came back with an energy efficient design and a wise use of porous pavement to reduce footprints of stormwater ponds.  He said those things would help but that he thought this was too much for the very constrained area and that it would take a longer conversation than tonight to get there.

Mayor pro tem Strom commented that the noise from I-40 at Vilcom is so loud that he was stunned to learn there was property between the two.  He expressed concern about the center part of the property being absolutely unsuitable for residential.  Mayor pro tem Strom noted the health, safety and welfare issues that had been brought up, as well as those concerning adjacent property values, stormwater issues, noise and environmental health issues, parking and traffic.  He stated that the combination of the two zoning types does not seem to him to be in sync with the Comprehensive Plan, and that this project should come back as a rezone.  Mayor pro tem Strom said he agreed with Council Member Ward’s comments about the intensity being out of line with what was going on in the area and the physical characteristics of the property.

Mayor Foy told the applicant that they were unlikely to get a different response from the Council than what they were hearing.  He noted that the Council had a meeting scheduled for March 7th to take a broader look at the northwest quadrant of Town.  In general, said Mayor Foy, this proposal is not an acceptable solution for a challenging site.  He advised the applicant to scrap the idea.  Mayor Foy suggested that they listen to the community and the Council on March 7th and come up with a more creative solution.

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR UNIVERSITY STATION (2007-02-19/R-3)

Mr. Poveromo outlined an updated version of a concept plan that Council members had seen before.  He described the 581,000 square-foot building, which would include 60 dwelling units and 1,600 parking spaces, and showed its proposed location on the south side of Stancil Drive.  Mr. Poveromo explained that the site was zoned Neighborhood Commercial and R-2, and said it would require a rezoning. 

The applicant, Harry Bowles, with Capital Associates, said that they had come before the Council a year ago with a concept plan for this property.  They had listened carefully to comments by the Council, the Community Design Commission, neighbors and businesses in the area of the property, and had taken the original concept plan off the table, he said.  Mr. Bowles said that they are now working with Josh Gurlitz, of GGA Architects, to redesign the plan from scratch, and he outlined the revised plan.

Mr. Gurlitz told the Council that Chapel Hill standards had helped drive the new plan.  He showed the proposed location on a map and described the existing neighborhood and the site topography. Mr. Gurlitz explained his approach to site design and how it would minimize impervious surface.  He said that Woodmont would be transit friendly and would meet the owners’ and the Town’s objectives. 

Mr. Gurlitz pointed out a rise in the center topography and showed the plan for a single street running from NC 54 to Barbee Chapel Road, around which buildings would be clustered.  This would be very supportive of public transit, he said, and it would allow much deeper natural buffers between Woodmont and its neighbors as well as significant open space along NC 54. Mr. Gurlitz pointed out the angled parking along the road, and said that would reduce driving speeds, make sidewalks better for pedestrians, and decrease impervious surface. 

Mr. Gurlitz explained that the northern part of the site would include seven buildings, with varying footprints, clustered along the main road.  He said that the southern part would consist of a smaller office building and three residential condominiums, with 15 percent of the units being workforce housing that would be permanently affordable.   Most of the parking would be behind the buildings, said Mr. Gurlitz, pointing out that much of it would be on decks under the buildings.  He said that the residential buildings would have garages. 

Mr. Gurlitz told Council members that these strategies would reduce impervious surface to less then 40 percent.  The applicant was exploring LEED certification and the high performance guidelines that the Triangle J Council of Governments had developed, he said, adding that they would bring a proposal regarding their sustainable programs.  Mr. Gurlitz noted a walking/jogging path, stormwater features, and the plan for connecting to Meadowmont Village Center, Chapel Hill Transit and the greenway.   

Mr. Gurlitz said they anticipated three phases of development, noting that phasing was based on improved conditions on NC 54.  He said that the first phase would impact that highway in the very least way possible.  Mr. Gurlitz outlined the phasing plan and the steps required.  He said the applicant understood that traffic was an issue and they had responded by planning a first phase that would mitigate the traffic impact on NC 54.  He said they will stage subsequent phasing around the status of NC 54.  Mr. Gurlitz explained that the design approach was based on cluster planning principles, which allows them to minimize impervious surfaces and make the development transit friendly.  This is a mixed use plan that responds to and compliments surrounding uses but does not replicate them, Mr. Gurlitz said.

Rebecca Board, representing the Downing Creek Community Association, expressed support for the project because its positive features outweigh traffic concerns.  She said her neighborhood was legally part of Durham but wanted to strengthen its connection to Chapel Hill.  This development would link them to NC 54 up to Barbee Chapel Road, she said, and  praised the development that had taken place throughout that area. Ms. Board described the site as "ugly" as it is, and said that the bicycle and walking paths would enhance and improve the neighborhood.  She said recent improvements on NC 54 had made a difference regarding traffic, and the neighborhood was feeling encouraged that the road could be improved.  Ms. Board said that Capital Associates had been interested in solving traffic problems and was willing to phase the project in over time.  She said that the neighbors appreciated that.   

David Hill, manager of the Community Association in Meadowmont and the Village of Meadowmont, said he was speaking primarily from the view of retailers and restaurants but also for the entire Meadowmont Community.  He expressed strong support for Woodmont, and praised the plan for its connectivity and for how the concept was to support Meadowmont rather than compete with it.  Meadowmont would like to reciprocate with some of their recreational activities, events, and so forth, said Mr. Hill.

Henry Lister, a resident of Sherwood Forest, praised Henry Bowles for his sincerity and integrity. He said his neighborhood supports the proposal because Capital Associates had promised deep, wooded setbacks and had a track record of quality construction and maintenance of their properties.  Mr. Lister expressed personal opposition to Woodmont, however, because of its scale and limited uses, because it would not enhance the health, safety or property values of any adjacent neighborhood, and because of traffic problems.  He said his neighbors were accepting Woodmont because the next proposal might be worse.

Council Member Kleinschmidt thanked the applicant for being responsive to prior comments and to the concerns that he expressed last year.  He praised the phasing plan, and said he was looking forward to hearing the energy efficiency proposal, but expressed skepticism regarding the workability of a shuttle. 

Council Member Kleinschmidt left the meeting at 8:53 p.m.

Council Member Harrison referred to CDC comments from October regarding the applicant’s assertion that studies were being done on NC 54.  His contact at NC DOT had confirmed that there was no such study happening, he said.  Council Member Harrison expressed concern about how the second and third phases would proceed, considering that a study had not been started and given the kinds of delays that Chapel Hill and Durham experience in getting projects done.  He predicted decades before there would be meaningful improvements on NC 54.  Council Member Harrison said that this information makes the applicants ideas regarding shuttle and Chapel Hill Transit speculative.  

Council Member Ward said this project had made a "startling metamorphosis" and that he appreciated the effort that had brought them all to this point.  He praised the building reuse idea and the applicant’s commitment to the shuttle service.  Council Member Ward requested 50 percent energy efficiency in the buildings, and noted that the traffic impact analysis would be critical. 

Council Member Ward recommended that the applicant take comments about light and noise pollution seriously.  He said he wanted to understand how pedestrians and bicyclists would cross NC 54.  He asked what the views looking west from the Little John location would be like.  Council Member Ward told staff that he wanted to know, at some point, whether the Council would approve all three phases or one phase at a time.

Mr. Poveromo replied that one possibility would be three separate SUPs, as was done with Meadowmont. 

Council Member Ward asked about the request for rezoning in regard to that.  Mr. Poveromo replied that the staff anticipated a conditional rezoning, which would remain in place as long as the Council reviewed and approved the SUP within a certain time period. If not, then the rezoning would revert back, he said.  Council Member Ward requested that the staff bring back more information on that.

Mayor Foy said that this project seemed like a good test case for the "transit impact contribution," and he suggested that the applicant push Town staff to help them work on that analysis.   

Council Member Thorpe said that he liked the concept of mixed use.  He asked the applicant to build residential along with office units.

Mayor pro tem Strom asked Mr. Gurlitz if they were considering hiring a public artist for the project, or were they planning to provide space or make a contribution toward public art. 

Mr. Gurlitz replied that it would be premature to focus on one or the other.  However, the site is at a significant entryway to the Town and the applicant knows that developing artwork in this location is part of the Public Arts Commission’s master plan for Chapel Hill, he said.  Mr. Gurlitz explained that they had spoken to the Public Art Commission’s director and that they probably would develop something very specific. 

Mayor Foy expressed appreciation to the applicant for taking the Council’s prior comments seriously.  He said that their response had benefited all and that this was a much better project.

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR WOODMONT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2007-02-19/R-4)

Mr. Poveromo reviewed the concept plan proposal for a multi-family development on 3.5 acres on the south side of Legion Road.  He said the proposal included 26 dwelling units, was zoned R-4 and R-2, and would require a rezoning.  The CDC had reviewed the plan on January 24, 2007, Mr. Poveromo said. 

David Lindquist, representing Pick Enterprises, presented a site map and described the Sanctuary at Cobblestone Creek.  He said the front half of the site was zoned R-2 and the back two acres were currently zoned R-4.  The site holds two houses, circa 1950 and 1980, respectively.  Mr. Lindquist described the site’s slopes, elevations, drainage patterns, and significant trees. 

Mr. Lindquist said the original plan had 26 houses, a small clubhouse and pool area, and a one-way street down the middle.  After meeting with the CDC and talking with neighbors, they had honed it down and moved elements around, he said.  Mr. Lindquist said the project included smaller units designed for workforce housing.

Tim Kuhn, a resident of The Meadows, voiced concerns regarding public safety, the environment and the potential for crowding.  He mentioned possible parking and access problems related to the single, one-way street.  Mr. Kuhn raised questions about the environmental impact of the construction bridge and the need to clear trees to build that bridge.  He said there seemed to be too many units on the buildable property, and he wondered if the setbacks would create privacy issues for The Meadows as well as Cobblestone Creek.

Scott Baker, a Clover Drive resident, expressed concerns about safety of the road which would be very close to his house.  With regard to privacy, he said, the applicant was planning to put a lot of houses into the back section where so many houses might not be supported.  Mr. Baker told Council members that he also had environmental concerns about losing trees, given how close houses would be to the property line.  He mentioned tree #9, in particular, and wondered how its roots could be maintained with so many houses built around it.

Lynne Kane said that the neighborhood supports the idea of having more homes in the area.  Their main concern had consistently been over the number of homes, she said.  Ms. Kane pointed out that eliminating the pool would allow a little more space between homes.  She said that the neighborhood, in general, was supportive of developing that property, and they hoped that other property would be developed in the area as well.

John Dorward, representing the Turberry Homeowners Association, noted that the plan had been revised several times.  Turnberry homeowners like it better each time they see it, he said.  Mr. Dorward expressed confidence that the Council and the CDC would work out the setbacks and requirements for parking.  They support the project in general, he said, adding that they like the project’s scale, size and variety as well as the workforce housing.  Mr. Dorward said that Turnberry homeowners think this development would be good for the neighborhood.      

Mayor pro tem Strom inquired about how the affordable housing element would work.  Mr. Poveromo replied that there would be a rezoning, which would ask the applicant to commit to an affordable housing component, whereas with a SUP the Council would require that it comply with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mayor pro tem Strom ascertained that this plan would be for 15 percent affordable housing, as opposed to Small House Ordinance rules.  He noted that the Town would prefer a rezoning.

Council Member Harrison verified with the developer that Cobblestone Creek would have a 12-foot, one-way street with a sidewalk on one side.   He ascertained that the R-4 portion would allow 10 units per acre, or 20 units, and four units per acre on the R-2 part, which would be five houses.  Council Member Harrison said that the rezoning was to allow the clubhouse and pool and to allow more buildable space per acre.  Council Member Harrison asked if the applicant had not met the threshold for a concept plan appearance before the Council.  Mr. Poveromo said that this was correct.

Council Member Thorpe asked citizens to email Council members with positive comments as well as negative ones.  He also asked Mr. Poveromo to include a summary cover sheet with all concept plans.

Council Member Ward suggested that the applicant reuse or relocate one or both of the homes that are on the site.  He noted the opportunity for bike and pedestrian connectivity in the northern area.  Council Member Ward suggested that the applicant consider flipping the layout to make it easier to work around #9.  He said the area of sidewalk that was shaded on the plan needed to extend out to Legion Road.  Council member Ward expressed appreciation for the work that the applicant had done with the neighbors. 

Mayor Foy said the road on the east side of the project did seem close to its neighbors.  He said that the Council was still going through a difficult episode with precisely that issue, adding that they would rather not have to confront that when the applicant comes back again for a permit.  Mayor Foy said he could not tell whether the density was appropriate or not, noting that the mere fact that the zoning permits it does not mean the Council would  approve it.  They need to be respectful of what that property can handle, he said. 

Council Member Greene asked the staff if there had been any consideration given to stands of emerging hardwoods.  Mr. Poveromo replied that identification of tree stands would be done during the department review stage of the process.

Council Member Greene said that the back section, to the right of the stream, looked too crowded to her.  She said she would like to see fewer houses in that section.

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SANCTUARY AT COBBLESTONE CREEK MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (2007-02-19/R-1)

Mr. Poveromo outlined the proposal to take a portion of the Lowes Home Center site, which is currently used for 91 parking spaces, and convert it to outside storage of seasonal merchandise.  This would eliminate 91 parking spaces, he said, but he noted that the applicant was proposing 22 new parking spaces on other side of the building. 

Allan Fortner, Land Planning Associates, described the garden center expansion that Lowe’s had conducted last year.  He clarified that there were currently 110 parking spaces in the area, and said the plan was to eliminate those 110.  The additional 22 parking spaces would bring them back to the required number of spaces, Mr. Fortner said.

Mr. Fortner showed a concept plan for the outside display area, which would have a chain link fence and three gated entrances, and he provided details of the plan.  He explained that Lowes had attempted to address all of the CDC’s concerns, and were talking with the property owner about locating a bike rack at Border’s Bookstore.   

Council Member Harrison agreed that the bike rack should be at Border’s Bookstore.  He pointed out that this had been required 10 years ago.  Council Member Harrison emphasized that the bike rack would need to be shaded.  He said there were experts on the Town’s Planning staff, particularly Gordon Sutherland, who could help with that.  

Council Member Ward ascertained that employees would use the new parking spaces on the side and back of the building.  He verified that no associated sidewalks had been proposed, but that employees could enter through the rear door using a code.  Council Member Ward expressed concern about people using the area for parking without having a sidewalk there.  He asked for the Town staff’s opinion on that.

Mayor Foy ascertained that the new parking was merely a re-striping and not new paving.  Mr. Fortner said that employees could park in the main area, but they had not wanted to come up short in their proposal with regard to parking spaces.  Mayor Foy recommended that the applicant discuss this with the Planning Department. 

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR LOWES HOME CENTER OUTDOOR DISPLAY EXPANSION (2007-02-19/R-2)