SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Edith Wiggins, and Jim Ward.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Principal Planner Kay Pearlstein, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 4 - Concept Plan: University Village Mixed-Use Development
Roger Waldon reviewed the Concept Plan for a series of building in a mixed-use design at a 9.11-acre site on Highway 54. There already was development on a little more than half of the site and grass on the remainder, he said, but the entire area was the subject of this application. Mr. Waldon reminded Council members that the staff had not yet evaluated the proposal. This Concept Plan stage was an opportunity for the Council give feedback to the developer regarding the proposal, he said.
Developer Roger Perry, owner of East West Partners Management Co., Inc., pointed out that the property was well served by public transportation. The carrying and intersection capacities on Highway 54 were adequate to accommodate the proposed plan, he said. Mr. Perry proposed 337,500 square feet of mixed-use, residential, office and commercial development. This was "considerably in excess of the floor-area ratio (187,265 SF) that was currently allowed on the site," he pointed out. Mr. Perry noted that the site was zoned commercial. He could theoretically ask the Town for a SUP that would include 187,000 SF of retail space, he said. Instead, he requested a mix of uses that would include 60,000 square feet of retail, up to 113,000 square feet of office space, and a minimum of 164,500 square feet of residential space. That this would yield 137-191 multi-family homes on the site, Mr. Perry explained.
Mr. Perry said that the project would include a variance from the height limitation with buildings potentially as tall as 68 feet. He wanted to know if the Council might look favorably on these significant variances from the existing zone in exchange for the other components of the project. The project proposes 631 parking spaces, with 501 underground and 130 above ground where they currently were at the University Inn. Noting that this project would increase traffic on Highway 54 by 6,351 trips per day, Mr. Perry noted that it would still be less than 10% of the carrying capacity of Highway 54.
Mr. Perry said that his proposal would not ask for variances on Town regulations, other than floor-area and height. They would retain stormwater runoffs using underground vaults, he explained. Mr. Perry argued that the site deserved higher density because of its transportation connections. He proposed that 30% of all residential units be affordable and placed into the Land Trust. These would be the same size as the market rate units, he said, and they would be interspersed among the buildings. In addition, Mr. Perry proposed designing all buildings to meet the Silver Certification level of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEEDS] Program. He also pointed out that the project would have significant positive impacts on the tax base.
Council Member Strom commented that this was exactly what the concept review process was intended for. He had no problem with the project's intensity, he said, given its proximity to the TTA. However, Council Member Strom suggested turning the structures and building them closer to the street. He asked for more information about the positioning of buildings.
Mr. Perry replied that the buildings had been positioned back from the road in an attempt to preserve the existing green area along the entryway corridor. They were not facing Highway 54 in the interest of creating a more "village type concept," he said. Mr. Perry stated, though, that he would be glad to reconsider that if the Town Council felt that the entryway area and trees were not as important as building an urban edge along Highway 54. He had presented it this way because he thought it would be the Council's preference, he said.
Council Member Verkerk also expressed a preference for a more urban look. She suggested turning Building Three and moving it closer to the road. That would be "a retailers dream," she said, noting that hundreds of people would come off the S bus at that location. Council Member Verkerk noted that there were no neighbors surrounding the proposed project, and suggested that the developer be "a little more bold."
Council Member Harrison determined where a signalized intersection might be added and where entrances and exits from the project would be placed. He verified that there would be a bike and pedestrian connection. Council Member Harrison agreed that pulling buildings closer to Highway 54 would serve as an overall traffic-calming measure. He ascertained that the transit corridor would run along the south side of Preswick Road. Council Member Harrison pointed out that there would be many transit users and a potential for regional connections.
Council Member Ward expressed appreciation for the plan's "wonderful aspects," such as LEED certification and affordability. He inquired about the buildings' uses and asked for more details regarding their various heights. Council Member Ward pointed out that the residents across Highway 54 probably would respond if the buildings were brought up closer to the road. He spoke in favor of keeping some of the current vegetation, and asked about recreation space for young children.
Mr. Perry replied that the intent was to have both passive and active recreation in the open space area. He pointed out that the homes would be very small (1,000-1,400 square feet) and probably would attract singles, couples, and single parents. There probably would not be a huge number of small children, he said. Council Member Ward stressed that some three-bedroom units, in particular, could have two or more children. Mr. Perry agreed to look at that, emphasizing that he wanted to meet the recreation requirement on site rather than giving a payment-in-lieu.
Mr. Perry explained that Building One would be a four-story building with retail on the bottom and three stories of office and/or residential above. Building Three would be the "mini-anchor," and Building Two would be five stories with retail on the ground floor and mostly residential above. Buildings Four and Five were all-residential four-story buildings, he said. Mr. Perry noted, though, that they were not intransigent about any of that and were willing to look at a different mix.
Council Member Hill described the plan as ambitious and wondered if there was a bigger underground parking garage anywhere in North Carolina. He determined that the tallest building would be off the road and that the developer was able to offer 30% affordable housing because of the amount of density. "If you'll let us put more density, we'll do more affordable," Mr. Perry remarked. Council Member Hill verified that Mr. Perry's intent was to sell all of the units. Mr. Perry guessed that the market rate units would sell for $200,000-$250,000. Council Member Hill verified that Preswick Drive had not been paved and connected to Hamilton Road because of the potential effect of doing so on the Glenwood Elementary School. Mr. Perry said that the proposed development would work better with that connection but that it works fine without it.
Council Member Hill noted that there was no pool in the plan. Mr. Perry replied that they had not planned that far ahead but had discussed building a rooftop park on Building Two. He agreed that there probably would be a swimming pool for a project of this size. Council Member Hill ascertained that Mr. Perry did not see this development as interfering with Downtown retail market needs. Mr. Perry proposed that it probably would positively impact Downtown because it would be so easy to get there without a car. Council Member Hill explained that he had once lived in the area and spoke in favor of keeping the green look. "I would probably expect myself to be the most negative person on the Council toward this and I don't feel that way at all," he remarked.
Council Member Greene praised the positive aspects of plan and expressed support for Council Member Hill's wish to maintain a suburban look. She asked if any soil testing had been done to learn how feasible the underground parking would be. Mr. Perry explained that excavation would be minimal due to the slope of the site. He planned to study it more, he said, but felt comfortable with the plan. With regard to the recreation requirement, Council Member Greene stated that she would entertain at least a partial payment in lieu because community parks always need funds.
Council Member Kleinschmidt praised the Concept Plan, stating that he was very excited about it for all the reasons that everyone else had expressed. He described targeting the market for the residential units to Town, UNC Hospital and UNC employees, as somewhat ambitions, however, given the price range. Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed concern about the potential for "Funtown USA" for UNC sophomores. He wondered how that could be prevented in such a development. Mr. Perry pointed out that students would not qualify for the affordable units. He did not know of any way to preclude a parent from buying a unit for his children, he said, but added that not much of that had occurred in Town. Mr. Perry said that he would consider deed restrictions against occupancy by undergraduate students.
Council Member Kleinschmidt replied that he was not in favor of deed restrictions. He pointed out that the type of retail, design of the units, numbers of bathrooms in the three bedroom units, and so forth would help prevent such a problem. "Don't build them for student housing is what you're saying," Mr. Perry replied, and he stated that the plan was to design them with a family orientation.
Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Perry for the Concept Plan, noting that this was the first project the Council had seen with 30% affordable housing. He pointed out that the developer was able to offer that much affordable housing because of the project's density. This helps the Council understand some of the financial dynamics, said Mayor Foy.
Mayor Foy commented on the conflicting opinions among Council members with regard to the urban character of the location. He did not think that trees were in competition with the potential character of the site, he said. Mayor Foy proposed incorporating trees into the design without turning the development in on itself as it does in the Concept Plan. He agreed with the suggestions to pull it closer to the sidewalk, facing the street. That would make it look more like a Town than a highway, he pointed out. Mayor Foy proposed that some of the spectacular trees could be protected without diminishing the urban character of the design.
Mr. Perry stated, in summary, that the Council wanted the development to be outwardly focused and that most of them preferred to maintain the trees if possible. He agreed to go back to the architect and look at that challenge. Mr. Perry asked if he could leave the meeting tonight with the "a strong feeling from you that this significant variance on floor-area ratio in exchange for the other aspects of this project is something that you all feel good about. It's a project you like."
Mayor Foy determined that this project would be denser than Glen Lennox but that there were many more bedrooms and residents at Glen Lennox than there would be here. He asked about the point at which neighbors would be come involved. Mr. Perry replied that UNC would meet with the neighbors if they receive a favorable direction from the Council. They had already met with the owner of the nearby doctors' office and with UNC, he said.
Mayor Foy asked for more information about the possibility of redeveloping the doctors' office. Mr. Perry explained that he had discussed that but had become nervous about including it in the project because of the Hamilton connection. He had been concerned about citizen reaction if he made a more intensive use of the corner where the crosswalk is, he explained. Mr. Perry stated that he would take the Council's guidance on that as well.
Mayor Foy concurred with the rest of the Council that in exchange for greater density of affordable housing they were receptive to the Concept Plan. They see it as a more urban design, however, but would like to maintain the trees, said Mayor Foy. Mr. Perry agreed to find a way to creatively accomplish both those goals by reshaping the buildings.
Council Member Ward asked if there were examples of similar developments that he could see. Mr. Perry suggested looking at The Fountains and The Warehouse as examples of scale. Council Member Ward questioned the traffic impact, noting that it was "a mess out there at some times of the day." Mr. Perry remarked that the Town needed projects such as his that would get folks to ride buses and trains.
Council Member Ward suggested having a "Weaver Street East" at Building Four where people could eat outside under the trees. He asked Mr. Perry to consider keeping Preswick open or making it one way because it might become a traffic option. Mr. Perry said that he would accept the staff's and Council's recommendation on that. He and the staff were in favor of connecting it, he said, but he would take the Council's lead.
Council Member Harrison roughly estimated that the number of trips per day, but Mr. Perry pointed out that the number did not contemplate anyone riding the bus or train or walking from their home. That would be factored into a traffic study, he said. Council Member Harrison asked if this development would be done by rezoning or variance. Mr. Waldon explained that it was zoned in a manner that would allow these uses. But the clearest way to go would be to suggest a modification of floor-area and height regulations for the site, Mr. Waldon said. Mr. Perry displayed an example of what the development would look like, including the five-story building.
Council Member Greene recommended talking with parents of children at Glenwood Elementary School about the connection. The Council agreed that there were pros and cons to leaving it open. "Done," Mr. Perry replied. Mayor Foy said that it made sense to him to have it open.
THE COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION R-1 BY CONSENSUS.
A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT (2004-09-20/R-1)
WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council for the University Village; and
WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations from the applicant and citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on September 20, 2004, and reflected in the minutes of that meeting.
This the 20th day of September, 2004.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.