Town of Chapel Hill seal



 

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

CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY MINUTES
COMMUNITY DESIGN COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28 2009, 7:00 P.M.

Chairperson George Cianciolo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission members present were Mary Margaret Carroll, Augustus Cho, George Cianciolo (Chair), Kathryn James, Laura Moore, Scott Nilsen, Amy Ryan, Hank Rodenburg, Polly Van de Velde, and Robin Whitsell. Staff members present were Senior Planner Kay Pearlstein, and Renee Moye, Administrative Clerk.

REVISED ALTEMUELLER MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
1641 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.,  File No. 9880-24-4842

The Town has received a proposal from William Christian & Associates for a Concept Plan Review for the Altemueller Property, located at 1641 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. The site is located on the west side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. between Weaver Dairy Road Extension and New Parkside Drive and is adjacent to the Northwood V Subdivision. Two existing single family homes and several outbuildings are proposed to be demolished. The project proposes to construct 110 dwelling units, commercial, and retail space totaling 300,000 square feet of floor area. Parking for 280 vehicles is also proposed. Access to the site is proposed from Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. The 12.9-acre site is located in the Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district, the Resource Conservation District, and the Chapel Hill Northern Study Area, Focus Area 3. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9880-24-4842 and 9880-24-6787.

CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTATION

A presentation was made by William Christian and Assoc. including two alternative concept plans. The applicant indicated he has purchased the property from the Altemueller family and working with preservation of the farm house in conjunction with preservationist, Ernest Dollar.

COMMISSION CLARIFICATIONS/QUESTIONS

CITIZEN COMMENTS

  1. Neighbor Brian Byerly liked the residential aspects of the proposal that are compatible with the adjacent zoning, R-2; he is relying on the proposed residential components to tie into the adjacent residential neighborhood. He was concerned that the plans distributed to the Community Design Commission were different than what was presented on the boards by the applicant at the meeting. The plans on file showed a 5 story hotel. The applicant stated that the hotel would be 3-4 stories. Mr. Burley wondered what assurances they had that the hotel wasn't going to be 5 stories. His other concerns were: dumpsters in view of homes; noisy AC near existing homes; views into the site from existing homes; and his belief that this is the wrong project in the wrong place. He recommended that the applicant develop the site as R-2.
  2. Neighbor Del Snow appreciated the applicant’s previous meeting with surrounding homeowners and invitation to walk with the property and discuss planting options with the former Chair of the NCSU Horticulture Department. Ms. Snow was concerned about preservation of the headwaters of the Booker Creek on the property. She stated that sedimentation problems with downstream lakes and streams are a result of upstream development and additional stormwater controls may be necessary for development on this site.

    3. Ms. Snow recommended the Altemueller farm house be preserved and adaptively reused.

    Ms. Snow was concerned about preservation and protection of trees on the site, especially those over 100 years old. 

    Ms. Snow was also concerned that an insufficient buffer was proposed between the development and the existing neighborhood to the west. If inadequate buffers were proposed, the proposed alley at the western part of the site would impact neighbors’ privacy because of headlights and allow noise from Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. She stated that the shallowness of the parcel prevented privacy from the multi-family that could overlook residences.

    Ms. Snow recommended that the applicant consider recycling rainwater, using pervious pavers, employ dark-sky lighting, and provide less parking.

  3. Neighbor Bill Zoffer thought that the design was appealing but not attractive. He supported the applicant’s overtures to the neighbors. He stated that there remained unresolved concerns with preservation, light impacts, dumpster locations, noise, and the alley.
  4. Neighbor Sara Farol expressed concerns about property values and the proposed development. In particular, she was concerned about the alley at the western end of the property.
  5. Neighbor Ross Durham did not believe the proposed development was meeting the spirit of the residences’ concerns. He wanted to see additional information on how the proposed development will blend with the existing neighborhood.
  6. Neighbor Serge Zwikker stated that a third story building would look into his backyard and destroy his privacy. He was concerned about noise of garbage trucks that might use the alley adjacent to his property.
  7. Neighbor Kensaku Kawamoto was concerned about increased crime in Northwoods V with the proposed development. He thought the development could have a positive effect on his property values with condominiums and green space but not if late-night bars and restaurants were proposed.
  8. Scott Radway, a member of the Northern Area Task force, observed that the proposed design layout should better match the scale of existing single-family homes and better define the uses proposed along Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. He believed that the proposed townhouses were a serious approach to the neighborhood edge. He recommended design details be further developed for the transition areas.
  9. Neighbor Becky Elkins was concerned about the increase in traffic. She has lived in the area since 1995 and seen a continual increase in traffic. She expressed concern with the hotel proposal and retail development and eventual Carolina North contributing additional traffic to an already bad situation. She stated that crossing streets was dangerous and not many people will walk to Timberlyne or Chapel Hill North for retirees and families.
  10. Neighbor Linda Poulson said her major concern was the hotel and parking amounts.

APPLICANT’S CLARIFICATION

The applicant stated that his concept proposed live/work units, no bars, and no commercial alley.

COMMISSION COMMENTS

  1. Commissioner Augustus Cho asked if hotel parking will be under the building and if the proposed 280 vehicles included the hotel. The applicant replied that between 150-160 dwelling units were proposed and residential parking will be underground or within the townhouses and not all parking was worked out.

    2. Commissioner Cho had concerns about there being sufficient buffer. He expressed the need for the neighbors to be supportive of the development rather than “not in my backyard.”

  2. Commissioner Robin Whitsell appreciated the applicant’s challenges developing the site. Commissioner Whitsell recommended the residential areas be placed along the edge with the adjacent neighborhood. She expressed concern with the alley.

    3. Commissioner Whitsell pointed out that the design presented by the applicant at the meeting did not match what the Commissioners had in their packets.

  3. Commissioner Kathryn James noted that the Land Use Plan identified this site as a Development Opportunity site. Commissioner James believed that the site should be developed with less intensity. She supported the preservation of the trees but noted that not enough conservation measures were being proposed. Commissioner James requested that a grading plan be prepared to be sure the trees were being preserved and recommended larger buffers.

    4. Commissioner James supported the live/work units and suggested retail development. She recommended that the height of the buildings be lowered to protect the privacy of the neighbors.

  4. Commissioner Hank Rodenburg asked what the applicant was proposing for affordable housing.  The applicant said they were not that far in developing the proposal. He asked if there will be a net loss of trees with the proposal. The applicant replied that they will double compensate for the loss of any trees. Commissioner Rodenburg asked how he proposes to compensate. The applicant replied by planting multiple trees.  

    5. Commissioner Rodenburg expressed concern with the buffer and did not see the significant elevation changes reflected in the plans.

  5. Commissioner Laura Moore liked the plan. She suggested more open space and less parking at the back of the development (western edge) to provide separation from the existing neighborhood. She believed that the Resource Conservation District was well-protected but felt that trees and buffer in the southern portion of the site did not reflect similar preserve efforts.  

    6. Commissioner Moore thought that the hotel could be an asset if it is well-sited and parking is below ground. She supported the live/work units and recommended the applicant continue working with the neighbors.

  6. Commissioner Polly van de Velde was skeptical whether another hotel was needed and if the proposed site is a good location for one. She wanted to see Class B office space that could be potentially used for research and development for occupants at Carolina North.

    7. Commissioner van de Velde supported the alley concept if it functioned like those in Southern Village. She thought the parking spaces provided for a lot of cars that will create lots of trips.

    Commissioner van de Velde also wanted changes in elevation to be taken into consideration with the design of the site and relationship to the existing neighborhood.  

  7. Commissioner Scott Nilsen liked Scheme “B” because it provided the most residential area and suggested that the ratio between residential to commercial be 80 : 20 rather than 60 : 40. He wanted to see more of a village concept like East 54 – more residential and less office/retail space. He believed that Chapel Hill was losing its “hipness” and that having an existing landmark at the entrance to the Town at this location could help convey a positive image.

    8. Commissioner Nilsen did not support the hotel and recommended the applicant concentrate on residential development.

  8. Commissioner Amy Ryan stated that providing larger buffers was key. She believed that the alley concept could work if it was in backyards of the proposed residential areas. Commissioner Ryan thought there was too much building and not enough suburban sensitivity. She expressed concern with the grade changes.

    9. Commissioner Ryan was concerned about the walkability of the site. She believed that without willingness of DOT to improve the intersection of Weaver Dairy Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., the intersection would be too dangerous for pedestrians.

    Commissioner Ryan also stated that there was not a gateway entrance in this part of Town and this proposal did not offer one. She believed that the proposed development felt more like an office park and the development would work better with a village emphasis. She recommended that the applicant look at Homestead Station (Homestead Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.) for a good design concept. 

    Commissioner Ryan suggested the applicant consult with an arborist to determine if the pine trees were work keeping. She supported Class B office space.

  9. Commissioner Mary Margaret Carroll suggested the applicant take photos of the site to use with further presentations. She suggested a gateway concept that reflects the history being protected, much like Fearington Village.
  10. Commissioner George Cianciolo had concerns with the alley and buffer proposed. He recommended the buffer be extended and move the drive to the front and leave the backyards as buffer.

    11. Commissioner Cianciolo liked the Class B office space idea and recommended that the applicant look seriously at parking and the number of trips generated. He noted that Westminster Drive will be much busier.

    Commissioner Cianciolo did not object to the increase in density on the site noting that Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. is a major transit corridor and will become more so in the further. He suggested that express buses to Carolina North could help with traffic. He stated that if the development is proposed as transit-oriented, then the density is OK but that it is a hard sell. He noted that if the development is proposed to be a TOD, then 1 ˝ cars per unit is not needed. He did not believe that the applicant can “sell” the development as walkable. He believed the development was promising and to keep working with the neighbors.  

SUMMARY

The Commission’s comments are summarized below:

 

 

Prepared for:            George Cianciolo, Chair
Prepared by:             Kay Pearlstein, Staff