ATTACHMENT 2
Present were Mayor Kevin Foy, Mayor pro tem Jim Ward, Council Member Matt Czajkowski, Council Member Laurin Easthom, Council Member Sally Greene, Council Member Ed Harrison, Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, Council Member Bill Strom, and Council Member Bill Thorpe.
Staff members present were Town Manager Roger Stancil, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Senior Planner Kendal Brown, Senior Planner Kay Pearlstein, Deputy Chief / Fire Marshal Matt Lawrence, Crisis Intervention Unit Jim Huegerich, and Acting Town Clerk Amy Harvey.
|
5. |
Concept Plan: Wesley Foundation at 214 Pittsboro Street (File No. 9788-35-4796). |
JB Culpepper, Planning Director, stated that a concept plan was being presented for the Wesley Foundation at 214 Pittsboro Street and displayed a vicinity map. She said the project was proposed at the west side of Pittsboro Street, south of Cameron Avenue, and north of McCauley Street. She stated that the property was located in the Cameron/McCauley Historic District.
Ms. Culpepper said that as a concept plan review, there had been no staff review of the proposal and that neither a rezoning application nor a formal Special Use Permit (SUP) application had been received.
Ms. Culpepper said the proposal involved the demolition of the existing facility, construction of a four-story building with 148 beds, about 70,000 square feet of floor area, parking or storage for 31 vehicles, and the property is roughly .70 of an acre.
Ms. Culpepper recommended that the Council review the concept plan, receive comments, and following a discussion, adopt a resolution transmitting comments to the applicant.
Ms. Culpepper stated that the Historic District Commission (HDC) acted as the Community Design Commission (CDC) in reviewing the concept plan initially and that the comments were attached for the Council’s consideration.
Council Member Easthom rejoined the meeting.
Nick Didow, representing the Board of Wesley Foundation,
introduced other board members and supporters that were in
attendance. He said he believed the Council received emails and other
forms of communication urging the Council to take this project into
consideration.
Mr. Didow stated that the Wesley Foundation is a private, non-profit 501(c)(3)
that has been located at 214 Pittsboro Street in the Cameron/McCauley
neighborhood since 1965. He said the Wesley Foundation serves the
public good in a number of respects and operates exclusively for charitable,
educational, and religious purposes. Mr. Didow stated that the
Wesley Foundation provides a safe and secure religious center that is
substance free and alcohol free, and intentional student housing.
He said they serve the public good of the student residents, other
students, the faculty at UNC, as well as the broader communities of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro.
Mr. Didow stated that the existing facility, which opened in 1965, is showing its age and that the ability for staffing and programming is limited to the same scope and scale as the past 40 years. He said the plan to renew the Wesley Foundation in order to better serve the campus and the community for the next 50 years has been in the works for about a year.
Mr. Didow stated that this renewal was needed in order for the Wesley Foundation to serve the campus and community with the scope and scale needed, to be financially self-sufficient, and to increase the staff and residential and non-residential programming to reflect the growth in both the campus and community for both the past 40 years and the years to come.
Mr. Didow said this proposal was first submitted to the Council in November of 2007 after several meetings with the leaders of the Cameron/McCauley neighborhood association. He stated that the proposal that went to the Historic District Commission (HDC) involved a five-story building with 160 beds, program space, worship space, and 54 on-site parking spaces at the 214 Pittsboro Street site or alternatively to build the project in a property swap with the university at 223 East Franklin Street. Mr. Didow said that while most of the feedback from the original proposal was accepted and supported, there were other concerns that the mass and the scale was too great. He stated that in response to that, the proposal was revised and presented in September and included a four-story facility, 148 beds, program and worship space, and 31 on-site basement parking spaces. He said that safe off-site vehicle storage would be provided, the program would be green (pedestrian and bicycle friendly), the use of zip cars would be included, and property tax neutral and sales revenue and sales tax positive for downtown Chapel Hill.
Mr. Didow displayed a map of the 214 Pittsboro Street site and pointed out the property lines. He also stated that most properties around them were university owned and the Wesley Foundation was one of the few private properties that were left in the area.
Mr. Didow went on to say that any objections from the surrounding neighbors in respect to the project was that the Cameron/McCauley neighborhood’s only protection came from always objecting to any rezoning requests and despite the opinion of the project, would hold true to that in order to maintain consistency.
Mr. Didow stated that the Wesley Foundation then initiated conversation with the university regarding a property swap of a university owned property, namely that of 223 East Franklin Street. He said this property was immediately to the north of the Moorehead Planetarium and on which the Coates Building now sits. Mr. Didow said he believed that this location was the only university owned property on the north side of East Franklin Street.
Mr. Didow requested that the Council ask themselves if the project had merit for the campus and the community, should the four-story or the five-story project be pursued, and which of the two sites is more appropriate for the project, including zoning modifications that would allow the proposed mass and scale of the project.
Mr. Didow stated that the preference would be to renew the Wesley Foundation for the next 50 years on the existing site, but the reality is that the project needs to be done, regardless of the location.
Joyce Brown, Westside Neighborhood Association (WNA) representative, read a statement written by the WNA president Baird Grimson. The statement expressed that Mr. Baird had been aware of the intentions of the Wesley Foundation for at least a year and that concerns had been expressed concerning the proposed size of the building and the necessity for rezoning. The reasons given in the statement denying support were that it was the policy of the Westside Neighborhood Association to oppose any and all rezoning applications in the Cameron/McCauley Historic District and that the proposed size of the building (both four and five stories) is substantially out of scale with all of the other structure in the Cameron/McCauley Historic District. Ms. Brown concluded the statement by quoting from the Town’s comprehensive plan: "When policy choices that affect these areas are before the Town Council (road issues, rezoning proposals, public investment decisions), the balance should tilt in favor of protection and preservation."
Ms. Brown then had her own statement prepared. She stated that she was in strong opposition of the Wesley Foundation Proposal. She said that regardless of whether the project is four or five stories, it simply does not fit the neighborhood.
Ms. Brown went on to say that a concern that was raised at the Historic District Commission Concept Plan review was the number of parking spaces relative to the number of proposed beds and units. She said the concern was that the tenants would use the neighborhood streets for parking, where overcrowding was already an issue. She pointed out that the proposed off-site parking was an unspecified location.
Ms. Brown said the rezoning necessary for this project would set a very dangerous precedent, not only for this neighborhood, but for other neighborhoods as well. She stated that allowing rezoning of this property would give hope to other property owners in the neighborhood with similar development wishes. Ms. Brown mentioned that her statement also included the quote from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
She urged the Council not to encourage this project and stated that it was simply not right for the neighborhood.
Kurt Ribisl, read a letter for neighbor Bob White, and stated his support of the letter. The letter stated that the demolition and rebuilding of a four or five-story building to replace it would have a significant impact on the Cameron/McCauley Historic District due to the fact that it is not in keeping with the neighborhood structures. The letter went on to say that the facade and building would be overpowering and looming over the other buildings in the area. Via the letter, Mr. White also expressed concerns with parking issues due to the fact that the number of residents and staff greatly outweigh the number of parking spaces and that it was a possibility that rather than taking advantage of the secure off-site parking location, the residents would park throughout the neighborhood. The letter concluded with an opposition to rezoning as well as an opposition to the Wesley Foundation proposal.
Adrian Halpern, resident of Cameron/McCauley neighborhood, spoke of the environment and stated that higher density living reduced some of the environmental challenges in a number of ways including lower heating and cooling costs, using public transportation or walking to destinations instead of driving, and reducing per person cost of Town services. He said that from the environmental point of view, the Wesley proposal makes a lot of sense and it converts presently impermeable surfaces to living and working quarters for a lot more people.
Mr. Halpern went on to say that in an aesthetic sense, the proposal was very much in line with the other tastefully developed structures in its immediate vicinity. He pointed out that the building would only be 25 feet higher than the Carolina Inn. He stated that although some of his neighbors are against this project due to the rezoning, he questions the stance of doing nothing innovative or new when considering the environmental crisis and the benefits that the Wesley Foundation could provide.
Council Member Harrison addressed Ms. Culpepper and stated that at the concept plan level this proposal would be reviewed by the Historic District Commission (HDC) and by the Council. He asked if and when the proposal became a formal application, would it go through all of the advisory boards and then back to the HDC again.
Ms. Culpepper confirmed that was the correct process. She said the Historic District Commission (HDC) would act as the Community Design Commission (CDC) because the project is located in a historic district.
Council Member Czajkowski addressed Mr. Didow in reference to the last slide of his presentation, which posed the questions to the Council of whether or not they thought the project had merit for the campus and community, four or five stories, and which location would be better. Council Member Czajkowski stated that he believes this is exactly the kind of project that should be fostered and supported to the greatest extent possible by the Council. He said the Wesley Foundation does great work and the Town needs more of it. He added that Mr. Didow had done a great job on the site design and stated that he thought the project should be four stories.
Mayor Foy addressed Ms. Brown and asked if it would it be preferable if the project were on Franklin street.
Ms. Brown said that she couldn’t speak for her neighbors, but she was concerned as to whether the neighbors of the proposed Rosemary/Franklin site even knew about the project. She stated that she would like to hear the comments from the people in that neighborhood and felt that the residents in her own neighborhood had been quite clear in stating how they feel.
Mayor Foy posed the question in a different way and asked that given what was shown in the presentation with regard to land ownership in the vicinity, would it be better to have UNC consolidate all of the property on the whole block, or deal with the Wesley Foundation?
Ms. Brown stated that his question brings up a whole other set of issues, such as whether or not the university would apply for rezoning were they to gain ownership of the property. She said she could not answer such questions for the neighborhood on the spot. She added that there were too many unknowns and there was no way to answer that question without having the facts as to what would happen should the property swap take place.
Mayor pro tem Ward stated that he was trying to evaluate the impacts of this building on the adjacent and near neighbors. He said that the impacts seem minor and that he couldn’t really form an opinion regarding the zoning changes that would be needed for this project. Mayor pro tem Ward said the day to day impacts of this project seemed appropriate.
Mayor pro tem Ward then addressed the issue of parking spaces. He said he would like to know how the Wesley Foundation could regulate the vehicle use of the residents so that the impact of parking is not on the adjacent neighborhoods.
Mayor pro tem Ward said the impacts of this building seem to be distant from the historic aspects of the community since it was in an area that was surrounded by other university buildings rather than being next to a series of homes. He stated that while he has been an advocate for higher density in the community as a way of dealing with growth rather than sprawling, things such as the water restrictions cause hesitation in moving in that direction.
Mayor pro tem Ward said he believed the work of the Wesley Foundation provided a significant good to the campus and community. He stated that the fact the residents there are mostly students, there will be less use of vehicles and the stacked parking will discourage more frequent usage, and they can take full advantage of the public transportation system.
Mayor pro tem Strom stated that he didn’t know quite enough to make an informed decision on four stories versus five, but he was not ruling out his support for a five-story version of the project. He said he would like to confer more with the other members of the Council and the community before providing a definite answer.
Mayor Foy said he noticed that the Community Design Commission (CDC) consistently mentioned massing. He stated that he wasn’t sure exactly what was meant by that and asked for clarification.
Mr. Didow said the Historic District Commission (HDC) only saw the five-story plan, as that was the only plan prepared at that time. He stated that although he did not get a great sense of elaboration from that meeting concerning massing, he believed that the objection came from the scale and the mass of the building. He went on to say that with the proposed four-story plan, not only is the height reduced, but the footprint of the building is also smaller.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Didow if he had looked
into the concerns surrounding the historic value of the Coates Building.
Mr. Didow stated that a preliminary request had been submitted to the
university asking for clarification as to the historic value of the
building. He said it has not been given any designation of being a
national historical site or building. Mr. Didow then addressed Jim
Peacock regarding any information he might have in relation to the
historic value of the building.
Mr. Peacock stated he knew of no official designation of historic value.
Mr. Didow said there was great respect and appreciation for the vision and gifts of Albert Coates and that none of that was in question. He stated that there was a legitimate question as to the interior of the building. Mr. Didow said he was sure that there was history with the building, as there is with any building.
Mr. Peacock said he had nothing to add to the comments regarding the history of the building and agreed with Mr. Didow that the building had never been officially historically identified. He added that that the preference for the location of the project was the Pittsboro site.
Mr. Peacock went on to say that at either site not only did the ecological factors need to be considered, but also those of safety and security.
Council Member Thorpe asked if the East Franklin site was chosen, would the Coates Building be torn down.
Mr. Didow confirmed that it would be torn down.
Council Member Greene asked if Mr. Didow had considered adaptive reuse of either of the buildings. She pointed out that when a building is torn down, that is not an act of sustainability and that a lot of the debris ended up in the landfills. She said tearing a building down is ignoring all of the energy that was embodied within the building and all that it took to put the building there in the first place. She recommended that Mr. Didow give as much consideration as he could to the possibility of reusing the buildings, even if that entailed expansion.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not think this project was an inappropriate use of space for the redevelopment of the current space that the Wesley Foundation was in, but he did have some concerns regarding the massing issue. First, however, he pointed out that the way the four-story design was presented, the roof created the sense of a fifth floor. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the impression would be that though the project was proposed as being four stories, it would be perceived as a five-story building due to the design.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that the way the building
seemed to fill the envelope that it was placed in was a shock to the
senses. He said that with the rest of the area containing more
openness, the fact that this building was so solid and big would be
overwhelming. Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that in
looking at it in relation to the buildings around it, one’s attention
would immediately be drawn to this building because of the size of it and also what
it was made out of. He said that bricks are not only made of heavy
materials, but they give the look and feel of something being heavy and
therefore this caused more concern because those were the types of sensory
things that people would respond to.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested finding a way to reflect some of the
other architecture of the neighborhood, rather than following the lead of
the Global Education Center or the Public Health Building. He stated
that as it stands now, there is a clear division on Pittsboro street with the
large massive buildings on the left and the nice historic neighborhood feel on
the right and he would like to see reflections of that neighborhood
feel. Council Member Kleinschmidt proposed finding a way to make the
building seem to be lighter, even if made of bricks by perhaps building it in a
different style. He reiterated that he believes the
building is a good fit for the neighborhood because of the surrounding
student population and that the proposal makes appropriate use of the
land.
Mr. Didow said he was sure the architects could respond to Council Member Kleinschmidt’s comments and suggestions in the subsequent planning as the project moves forward. He stated that during the concept plan process, the board did attempt to insert elements that softened the design on the eastern and western fronts in the way of the arches, patios, and the elevated garden. He welcomed any models or prototypes that the Council might be able to propose.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he hoped that he was being clear in his comments and stated that if one were to stand and count the windows going up this building, there are five which implies that there are actually five stories.
Mr. Didow said that the dormers in the roofline were actually added in order to break the mass, but the design would be reconsidered following Council Member Kleinschmidt’s comments.
Council Member Harrison stated that the first issue regarding the concept plan that he wanted to address was that of the alternate sites. He said he agreed that it would be interesting to know what the residents of the Rosemary/Franklin Historic District thought of the proposed project being in their neighborhood. Council Member Harrison noted that although this was not the preferred site, it would be interesting to know the reactions to something of this scale being on the Coates Center site.
Council Member Harrison then addressed the question of the merit for the campus and the community he stated that he had a soft spot for the Methodist Outreach. He went on to say that it was striking how unanimous the concerns were regarding the size and scale of the project. He stated that he reads the reports from the advisory boards and when the concept plan came in from the Historic District Commission (HDC) and six out of six of the commissioners expressed the same concerns, it was something he felt worthy of taking note of. Council Member Harrison stated there was a real concern about the mass not only with the commission, but with the Council as well. He suggested a new design that reduces the visual impact of what is in essence a private dormitory.
Council Member Harrison then addressed the issue of the zoning modifications. He said that a neighborhood that has not experienced rezoning and has taken a stand against it, the domino effect of rezoning is quite a concern and whether the proposal is from the university or a private applicant, it is a valid concern worth looking into. Council Member Harrison pointed out that rezoning is becoming more and more commonplace and it would be good to figure out when rezoning is appropriate and when it isn’t. He stated that it seems the Pittsboro site is more readily workable for the project, but with mass being an issue, scaling down the project might be inevitable.
Council Member Easthom stated that she is in agreement with the fact that the design needs to be scaled down and that it’s like looking at a sea of brick. She stated that she thought the building was pretty, but that the brick was too harsh and that scaling back from the road would help.
Council Member Easthom said she also wanted to echo the comments of Council Member Greene in that it would be interesting to see what could be done with the Coates Building, rather than simply tearing it down and starting over with a new structure. She said she could appreciate the structure of older buildings and and the feel of it when considering the history of people and events associated with the building.
Mayor Foy said that in other parts of town the massing issue has been dealt with by setting back the height. He stated that the Nations Bank Building on Franklin Street doesn’t look like it is eight or 10 stories and perhaps there was a way to make this building not look as big and that would address some of the concerns. Mayor Foy said it would also be helpful to come up with a way to make the building not have such a weighty presence.
Mayor pro tem Ward commented on the facade looking blank and flat, but stated that when looking at the the floor plans, there is a great deal of articulation that isn’t being translated when looking at the structure head on. He stated that he agreed with Mayor Foy that setting back the height would make a big difference.
Mayor Foy stated that he would like for people to understand what stage of the process this was in. He stated that the Council invites a concept plan to give the applicant the opportunity to hear blunt appraisals before there is a significant investment or before a project has reached a point where the Council cannot support it. He said that all of the comments made by the Council were meant to be constructive and to ensure that in the long run everyone is as satisfied as they can be with the final outcome.
Council Member Kleinschmidt announced that there would be a Council Communications Committee meeting the following morning at 8:30pm.
Council Member Matt Czajkowski MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Adopt R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Foy adjourned the meeting at 9:58 pm.