SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

Monday, November 19, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.

 

 

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

 

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Engineering Director George Small, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Principal Planner Rob Wilson, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

 

Item 1 — Public Hearing on Closing Hillcrest Road Right-of-Way

 

Engineering Director George Small explained that the reason for this hearing was to receive comments regarding a request to close the unimproved road shown on a map in the packet.

 

Richard Kryder explained that the other homeowners who had signed the petition had asked him to represent them at this hearing.  Mr. Kryder asked Council members to decide in the neighbor's favor on this issue.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE REQUEST AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 26, 2001.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 2 — Public Hearing on Closing Ridgewood Lane Right-of-Way

 

Mr. Small explained that the reason for this hearing was to receive comments regarding a request to close the unimproved road shown on the map in the packet.

 

Dave Schreiber, one of the two adjacent property owners, said that he had heard during the past week that the actual size of the right-of-way might be 16 rather than 10 feet.  He asked that the entire 16 feet be closed off, not just the ten feet.  Mr. Schreiber added that a reference to a 234-foot piece of land does not match information that he has.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if Mr. Schreiber's questions could be answered tonight.  Mr. Small replied that the intent was to close the entire length and width of the unopened right-of-way.  He added that the Engineering Department would look into the 234-foot measurement.

 

Coy Rogers, the other adjacent landowner, stated that the agreed with all that Mr. Schreiber had said. 

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE REQUEST AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 26, 2001.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 3 — Larkspur Cluster Subdivision:

Application for Preliminary Plat Approval

 

Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that the proposal was to subdivide 39.5 acres into 86 residential lots, which were being proposed as a cluster subdivision.  He indicated on a map where Weaver Dairy Road would extend to along the proposed subdivision and continue on to Homestead Road.  Mr. Waldon noted that the Town was recommending that the applicant contribute to a traffic signal at Homestead Road since the need for that signal is based in part on the Larkspur development.  He explained that Weaver Dairy Road and Hunter Hill Road in the Northwood subdivision were the two points of access available to the property, but indicated two other adjacent properties that might provide access in the future. 

 

Mr. Waldon noted that the subdivision was zoned R-2.  He explained that it would have 12 acres of recreation/open space, private and public pedestrian trails, a public easement for a "rail trail," and an off-site pump station on Eubanks Road.  Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Larkspur application was subject to the Town's Small House Ordinance.  He also corrected an error in resolutions C and D in the matrix on page 10 of the staff report.  

 

Developer Carol Ann Zinn explained that the subdivision's density would be about two lots per acre.  She noted that they could have taken it to between four and eight lots per acre based on the Town's Comprehensive Plan and to four lots per acre based on zoning requirements.  Ms. Zinn commented that developers had not pushed the project in any way and had included nearly 25% open space.  She added that she thought Larkspur was the first neighborhood to voluntarily include restricted size lots within the initial plan and pointed out that they had spread those lots throughout the neighborhood. 

 

Ms. Zinn offered a $15,000 donation to the Chapel Hill Housing Authority Corporation to support affordable housing.  She stated that she had carefully thought this plan out, had communicated with both neighbors and the staff about it, and had tried to be a good listener and a good neighbor to the Northwood residents in particular.  Ms. Zinn explained that planners had converted a 40-foot buffer to open space and were attempting to make adjustments in the sewer routing.  She noted that the original plan had showed a one-way access in on Hunter Hill Road.  Ms. Zinn said that the staff had rejected that and so they have now proposed a system of ballards and a meandering road that would satisfy some of Northwood's concerns about people using Hunter Hill Road as a shortcut to Interstate 40.

 

Phil Post, the Engineer representing Larkspur, distributed maps showing an altered connection plan between the Larkspur subdivision and Northwood's Hunter Hill Road.  He noted that Larkspur would be built on the high point of a new watershed, which would have implications for drainage and sewage.  Mr. Post emphasized that this proposal meets the letter and spirit of cluster regulations and comes close to some of the recommendations recently put forward for the new Development Ordinance. 

Mr. Post noted an area on that map which represented recreational amenities, and said that the applicant would make a separate application for that.  He also showed where new OWASA lines would run into the subdivision, and explained that sewer would be flowing in the watershed towards the north and will require a pump station on Eubanks Road.  Mr. Post pointed out that this would extend public sewer into the area around the United Parcel Service building on Eubanks Road.  He indicated where the stormwater management pond sites would be and stated that they would meet present and will probably meet the new regulations.

 

Mr. Post stated that the applicant would contribute toward the traffic signal on Homestead Road.  He emphasized that making Hunter Hill Road a "limited access" one is important because the roads in Northwood are not constructed for high levels of traffic and do not have good pedestrian facilities designed into them.  Mr. Post indicated a portion of land along the railroad line where he said the greenway trail easement would be located.  He commented that the proposal by some to make it a public right-of-way would hamper the developer's flexibility.  Mr. Post asked the Town Council to support Resolutions B or E.

 

Council Member Flicka Bateman inquired about Mr. Post's comment that the recreation area plan would come before the Town Council and the Planning Board at a later date.  Mr. Post explained that the applicant is prohibited by the way the Development Ordinance is structured from bringing those proposals to the Council as part of this subdivision application.  Pointing out that he could only discuss the recreation area in the most general way, he showed it on the map and said that it would be owned by the homeowners association and that a club house and swimming pool was being proposed.  Mr. Post added that they expect to submit the application for that in the next month or so.  He explained that they needed to first get further along with tonight's application, according to their interpretation of the regulations.

 

Mr. Waldon explained that the resolution before the Council was for a subdivision, which literally means creating lot lines and has nothing to do with development other than restrictions such as house size.  He said that approving what is built on those lots is a separate process.  Mr. Waldon added that the applicant had the option of bringing the whole project before the Council as a Special Use Permit or leaving it as it is and coming back for approval of building permits from the Building Inspections Department and getting Planning Board approval of the recreation facility.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if it was accurate to say that much of the Town was developed according to these rules.  Mr. Waldon replied that was correct.  Mayor Waldorf commented to Council Member Bateman that this was not something new but merely a situation that had come before the Town Council in the past couple of years.

 

Council Member Foy asked if this would have been one of the properties the Town might have zoned R-1 in an effort to get SUP requests.  Mr. Waldon replied that this was not on that list because it was not within the Town's limits or within its planning jurisdiction.

 

Planning Board Chair John Hawkins noted that some of the critical aspects of this application were still evolving at the time the Planning Board looked at it.  He explained that the Board had voted (6-2) to support the compromise limited access road that the developer and neighbors had worked out, but added that the Board was strongly influenced by the case made by Northwood residents that this new project and the traffic it would bring would do demonstrable harm to their quality of life. 

 

Mr. Hawkins pointed out that Northwood was an established neighborhood with narrow streets and much activity in the roads.  He said that there was considerable sympathy for the two dissenting opinions, which argued that the two roads really should be connected by a proper roadway, but explained that the majority was convinced to override this goal given the extenuating circumstances presented by the Northwood neighbors.  Mr. Hawkins added that several members had also expressed the belief that land freed up by the extension of the "rail trail" should be deeded directly to the Town as part of its park system.  He noted, though, that the Parks and Recreation Department had recommended that it be dedicated to a homeowners association.

 

Frank Corr, Vice Chair of the Northwood Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of closing Hunter Hill Road to vehicular traffic except for pedestrian and bicycle and emergency access.  He showed a map of the community and indicated a triangle of streets, which included Hunter Hill Road, which he described as "the heart" of the community where people socialize and walk their dogs.  Mr. Corr explained that children play in that street and that the neighborhood holds its community picnic there.   He pointed out that there had been a traffic problem on Northwood Drive while Airport Road was being built, and pointed out that opening Hunter Hill Road would cause traffic to run down the other two legs of the neighborhood's "social triangle."  Mr. Corr handed out statements from about 70 Northwood residents and asked the ones who were present to stand.  He said that they had come to the meeting en mass in order to protect their neighborhood.

 

Bob Dougherty, of 105 Hunter Hill Road, remarked that the residents expect the Town Council to manage growth in a way that will not have negative impacts on neighborhoods.  He said that opening Hunter Hill Road to through traffic would have severe consequences for Northwood.  Since Northwood has no community center and no sidewalks, Mr. Dougherty said, they use their streets as a social hub for jogging, walking babies in strollers, and letting their pets roam free.  He expressed concern about child safety, since there are four school bus stops in the area and kids play, ride bikes, and roller-blade in the streets.  Mr. Dougherty quoted recent campaign statements made by Council Member/Mayor-elect Kevin Foy regarding protecting neighborhoods from traffic pollution.  He asked Council members to visit Northwood so that they can see for themselves that opening Hunter Hill Road would destroy its safety and its character.

 

Claudia Sheppard, of 101 Autumn Lane, noted that the roads in Northwood are only about 20 feet wide.  They are curved, tree-lined, and without sidewalks, curbs and gutters, or streetlights, she said, and many animals are on the road at night.  Ms. Sheppard noted that the streets are in poor condition and that DOT has been extremely slow to respond to requests for repairs.   She said that the streets were designed and built for light traffic and are not fit to handle any increase in traffic.  Through traffic, Ms. Sheppard said, would destroy the character of the neighborhood, decrease security, increase crime, weaken the community, and will increase vehicle trips since residents will have to go elsewhere for recreation.  She explained that they understood the Town's goal of connectivity but that real connectivity could only be achieved in this case by construction of a bike and pedestrian pathway.

 

Jay Smith, of Mosswood Court, pointed out that Northwood offers both desirability (the feeling they have that their homes, yards and streets form one seamless whole that offers privacy, safety and community all at the same time) and affordability (houses ranging from $150,000-260,000).  He said that this combination of characteristics is "rare if not unique" in Chapel Hill.  Mr. Smith explained that the Northwood community is economically, racially, ethnically, and generationally diverse.  He noted that there is a high percentage of single women living there because the neighborhood is free of crime and women feel they can walk around without fear.  Mr. Smith said that those who had chosen to live in his neighborhood had chosen a way of life.  He argued that emptying Larkspur's traffic into a community that was not designed for it would destroy that neighborhood.

 

Deb Smith, of 107 Mosswood Court, expressed concern about the noise impact of using Hunter Hill Road as an entrance to Larkspur.  She noted that Northwood has over the past five years been surrounded by noise pollution through the widening of Weaver Dairy Road, construction of Weaver Dairy extension, building of the Chapel Hill North Shopping Center, and the extended hours of operation that accompany those new stores.  Ms. Smith pointed out that this new development had destroyed the natural buffer of trees that once surrounded Northwood and protected it from Interstate-40 traffic noise.  She said that vehicular traffic from Larkspur via Hunter Hill Road would bring noise right to the heart of their neighborhood.

 

Ms. Smith explained that Northwood already had struggled with UPS trucks using their neighborhood as a shortcut.  She said opening Hunter Hill Road would mean they would also have to cope with trucks going to and from the Eubanks Road landfill.  Ms. Smith asked the Town to consider the alternative access through land which Gary Buck had offered for this purpose.  She commented that people had told her that "quality of life" is not a good argument to fight the inevitable progress in Chapel Hill, and said that the reason people were flocking to Chapel Hill was this quality of life, and that Northwood residents were united in the fight to maintain theirs.

 

Bailey Allard described Northwood as "a model of the village that once was Chapel Hill."  She agreed with the previous speakers that opening Hunter Hill Road would jeopardize the safety of Northwood residents, and proposed making the connector from Hunter Hill Road to Larkspur a walking path with ballards that would allow emergency vehicles to pass through.  Ms. Allard noted the precedent of the Cobble Ridge community, which had been in a similar situation in 1995, and pointed out that the Town Council allowed this solution in that case.  She said that the Town Council had been able to approve that for Cobble Ridge because the Comprehensive Plan for local streets design guidelines advises two points of access "except when the second means of access can be achieved best by subsequent development of an adjacent piece of land and a road stub-out to that land is provided."  Ms. Allard argued that the facts of the Hunter Hill Road issue were in complete alignment with those guidelines for three reasons: 


·        The Zinn design includes a stub-out to the Gary Buck land. 

·        Gary Buck has spoken to the Planning Board in support of keeping Hunter Hill Road closed and using the stub-out to his land, which he plans to develop in the next two years. 

·        Cobble Ridge has already been approved by the Town Council and has set the precedent as an interim solution.

 

Trish Love, who lives at 100 Northwood Road and who serves on the Chapel Hill Planning Board as a representative from Orange County for the Joint Planning Area, pointed out that the Town Council has the power to determine Northwood residents' way of life even though Northwood is not able to vote for Town Council members.  She reviewed the history of Northwood and described its wooded area and variety of houses.  Predicting that the Town probably would soon annex Northwood, Ms. Love asked Council members not to ruin her neighborhood before they even get a chance to vote for their own candidates. 

 

Bob Reinheimer, of 105 Mosswood Court, explained that Northwood had originally opposed the Larkspur development but they had since worked with Carol Zinn to create a solution that is workable for the developer, the Town, and Northwood residents.  Noting the radical differences between the architectural styles and environment of the Larkspur development, he stated that the buffer is critical to Mosswood Court and to Northwood generally because it gives them a chance to preserve the character of their homes.  Mr. Reinheimer asked the Town to protect the buffer so that future Larkspur residents would not be able to reduce the distance between the two neighborhoods.

 

Mr. Reinheimer described the Hunter Hill Road issue as a "huge issue" for Northwood residents, noting that there were 95 signatures on their petition.  He pointed out that the Town had estimated that Larkspur would generate about 820 car trips each day.  Mr. Reinheimer said that any percentage of those cars going through Northwood would be a huge intrusion into their lifestyle and would have a great impact on the character of their neighborhood. 

 

Scott Radway, who lives at 200 Huntington Drive and is a member of the Planning Board as well as the Small Area Planning Group, emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not the Planning Board.  He then said that he was not sure that this application was a cluster plan.  Referring to the map, Mr. Radway noted that the large green area is RCD land, and therefore not developable, and that 75% of the small recreation area would be cleared for a utility area.  Therefore, he explained, 52,000 square feet, rather than 20,000 square feet, should be added to the recreation area.

 

Mr. Radway suggested that the Council look seriously at the public open space along the railroad tracks before accepting it as part of the homeowners association with a narrow easement for the public.  He also noted that there were compromise lots in three areas due to size and a nearby sewer line.  Mr. Radway also recommended against making a decision about what becomes public or private open space until the Town sees what will be built in the recreation area.  Approving that now, he said, would leave the Planning Board with very little room to negotiate.

 

Mark Chilton suggested reconfiguring the south entrance to Larkspur along Weaver Dairy Road so that if the Greene Tract were developed for affordable housing it would not impact on the Larkspur community.  He agreed about the need to keep a guaranteed public access to the greenway rather than putting it in the homeowners association, which might later exclude the public.  Mr. Chilton also asked what the applicant's intentions were in terms of complying with the Small House Ordinance and suggested that the Town Council look into that.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked if Mr. Chilton was suggesting that some parcel be dedicated as an easement, or right-of-way, so that easy access could be made to the Greene Tract, if appropriate, later on.  Mr. Chilton agreed and suggested that a sign be placed at the entrance to a potential future road so that Larkspur residents would not be surprised later on. 

 

Calvin Mellott, who developed Northwood in the early 70s, explained that he had received approval for it in Orange County long before it was required to extend any street to the property line.  He said that he had purposely not extended Hunter Hill Road to the property line, and merely provided residents with a driveway.  Mr. Mellott added that he thought the Northwood homeowners actually own the last ten feet of that street and that no one else can legally cross it.

 

Mr. Mellott explained that he had plans to build more 1,200-1,300 square foot affordable houses in a corner of that land "where someone has decided to stub a street out."  He showed the area on the map, and argued that there was no need for that street there.  Mr. Mellott suggested putting a buffer between his land and Larkspur.  He also said that the area where the Larkspur developer plans to bring in a sewer line could be a disaster and probably will not work, but added that he had a proposed solution to that problem.  Mr. Mellott said that the 30 year-old Northwood roads would not handle an increase in traffic, adding that the State does not maintain those roads, which already are in poor condition.

 

Mayor Waldorf, noting that many of the comments made probably need to be referred back to the staff, and asked if there were any particular questions from Council members. 

 

Council Member Strom stated that the arguments for having a pedestrian/bicycle connection rather than a vehicular connection along Hunter Hill Road made sense to him.  He also expressed interest in having public ownership of the RCD and said he would like to see options and have discussions with the applicant regarding this.  Council Member Strom questioned whether this application was an acceptable cluster design, noting that the vast majority of open space is RCD land, or sewer easement, and not high and dry usable open space which contributes to a public purpose.  He asked the applicants about their intent regarding the Small House Ordinance.  Council Member Strom asked what do they intend to do, and had they discussed putting the smaller homes into the Land Trust?  He asked for an immediate response, but Mayor Waldorf suggested going through all Council members' comments before asking the applicant to respond.  Council Member Strom also stated his preference to see the recreation lot come back to the Council with this item so that they vote on the entire project at once.

 

Council Member Ward agreed that public ownership of the green space was important.  He asked to hear a more detailed discussion of the pros and cons of this issue.  Council Member Ward agreed with Mr. Chilton that access to the Greene Tract should be provided at this opportunity regardless of how the Greene Tract might eventually be used.  He asked what guarantee the Town had that Gary Buck's offer would hold in the future.  Council Member Ward also asked if the Northwood neighborhood was willing to allow emergency vehicles, and vehicles such as garbage trucks, leaf trucks, school buses, etc. to pass through the ballards.  He also asked the staff to comment on whether or not this would be necessary.

 

Council Member Evans also expressed concerns about the RCD, especially regarding the "rail trail" and public access to it.  Noting that these lots could be developed with duplexes on them, she asked if a duplex would meet the size requirements that the Town intended to provide affordability. 

 

Council Member Bateman asked the applicant to ensure long-term affordability either through deed restrictions or preservation of some of the small houses through the Land Trust.  She noted that this development would feed into Sewell Elementary School, which already is 135% over capacity, and encouraged the developer to notify homeowners in their contracts that their children might be bused to a different school district.

 

Council Member Foy urged the developer to put some or all of the affordable small houses into the Land Trust to ensure long-term affordability.  He agreed with other Council members comments about having a public right-of-way along the open green space.  Council Member Foy asked the staff to comment on Scott Radway's statement that the required recreation space would be six acres, not 4.8, as well as Mr. Radway's suggestion to remove some of the lots along the western side of the property in order to relocate the clubhouse and gain access for the public area.   He also asked for a specific response to Mr. Mellott's comment that there is no need for the stub-out.

 

Council Member Foy inquired about the consequence of not approving the cluster subdivision.  Mr. Waldon explained that one option would be for the applicant to redraw it as a conventional subdivision with some of the lots being bigger.  He pointed out that the amount of development being proposed is less than the zoning would allow on this property.  Mr. Waldon explained that it was difficult to know whether there would be more or fewer lots on a conventional proposal.  Mr. Horton added that it would take a number of months to go back through the process.  He said that no matter what configuration they brought forward the Town still would be concerned about many of the same issues. 

 

Council Member Brown asked for clarification of whether the applicant's and the Council's understanding of "affordability" were the same.  She noted that the applicant had emphasized smaller size, and she pointed out that this does not always make them affordable.

 

Council Member Wiggins asked if there would be a monthly homeowner's fee, and, if so, how much would it cost.  Ms. Zinn replied that they were not sure about the homeowners’ fee, but thought it would start at $50-$60 a month.  She said that they were following the ordinance on the restricted size lots, with a certain percent being 1,100 square feet and a certain percent being 1,350 square feet, and that those houses will retail starting in the high $100,000 range.  Ms. Zinn explained that Mr. Dowling had been surprised when she contacted him, since she had done so voluntarily, and had not mentioned a reason to rework the neighborhood to accommodate it.  She offered to talk with him further regarding Council members' concerns.  

 

Council Member Brown asked if the houses would be cooled as well as heated, and Ms. Zinn replied that they would be. 

 

Council Member Foy asked if there had been any discussion of putting the affordable homes that will be sprinkled throughout the subdivision put in the Land Trust.  Ms. Zinn replied that it had been discussed in the most general terms but had not been pursued. 

 

Council Member Bateman noted that the Town was asking the consultant working on the new Development Ordinance to reduce loopholes through which affordable homes lose their affordability over time.  Noting that this development would be approved before those loopholes are eradicated, she asked that these homes be made long-term affordable.  Council Member Bateman added that Mr. Dowling probably did not initiate this in his discussions with Ms. Zinn because he did not feel it was his place to do so. 

 

Council Member Strom said that he did not want to see this application come back for a vote until the applicant had discussed with Mr. Dowling ways to keep the lots affordable.  Ms. Zinn agreed to discuss this internally, and with Mr. Dowling as well.

 

Mr. Post commented that the issues about public ownership could easily be worked out.  He said that the cluster development does allow a significant amount of green space, and pointed out that increasing the lot size would result in less green area.  Mr. Post agreed to come back with answers for the entire list of Council members’ questions.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Horton if January 14th still was a reasonable date to come back with this.  He replied that it was if the applicant could manage it.  If not, he said, the staff would report to the Town Council that the matter was incomplete and ask for an extension.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 4 — Meadowmont Town Park:  Application for Special Use Permit Modification

and Revision to Application for a Modification for the Special Use Permit

 

Principal Planner Rob Wilson explained that this application was for constructing a park on a 70.44-acre site at the northern edge of the Meadowmont development.  He noted that the site, which is divided by Little Creek, is generally flat and that much of it is located in a US Army Corps of Engineers Flowage Easement.  Mr. Wilson explained that 69.12 acres of the site are in the Town's RCD and that 64.88 acres are in the 100-year floodplain.  He said that a portion of it is encumbered by a 1997 SUP that had been approved for both a park and a school site. 

 

Mr. Wilson explained that the reason the applications for an elementary school and a park come before the Council tonight is to reduce the boundaries of these two areas combined.  He said that the proposal includes shared parking spaces and athletic fields on the school site, as well as a picnic shelter and various trails throughout the site.  He displayed a map showing the proposed 8-foot wide natural surface greenway trail and the 4-foot wide natural surface pedestrian/hiking trail, as well as three bridges.  Mr. Wilson called attention to a proposed pedestrian connection to Lancaster Drive, which was required as part of the 1997 SUP approval.  He said that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was for approve of the application with adoption of Resolution A.

 

Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal noted that she was representing the Town as owner on this application, rather than as regulator.  She explained that the project had been six years in the making and that the result would be a new community school, a new gym, a new park with a nature trail, a picnic shelter, and shared use of two athletic fields on the school site and shared use of a parking, access road, path, and basketball court.  Ms. Loewenthal pointed out that one of the main changes made between 1997 and this year was to move park amenities onto dryer ground.  Since presenting the concept plan in June 2001, she said, the staff had made the following changes: 

 

·        Moved the basketball court;

·        Deleted a parking lot in the RCD in favor of using both vehicular and bicycle shared parking on the school site;

·        Proposed deleting the compost yard waste site and the associated accessory building, since the Town is now collecting it almost on a weekly basis;

·        And, proposed changing a 10-foot wide, paved greenway to a natural surface trail that would connect to Lancaster Drive.

 

Ms. Loewenthal explained that this is located in the Town's watershed protection district.  She said that the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan includes a total amount of impervious surface that can be constructed in the overall development of Meadowmont, with portions of that total being allocated to each parcel.  Ms. Loewenthal reported that the developer had allocated too much impervious surface to the park site, where it is not needed, and not enough to the school site, where it is needed.  She said that the School Board had asked the Town to transfer most of that impervious surface to the school site.  Ms. Loewenthal stated that Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos had said that the transfer could be done if the original grantor (Meadowmont Development Company) approves the change.

 

Ms. Loewenthal also pointed out that the Meadowmont developer had made a clerical error in the covenants of the deeds that transfer the land for the park and the school site from the developer to the Town.  The deeds, she said, have transferred 46,000 square feet of impervious surface more to the school and park sites than the developer had meant to do.  Ms. Loewenthal stated that the developer had requested that the Town Council authorize correction of the deeds.   She pointed out that the deeds as written were binding but noted that permission from the developer is needed to transfer the floor area and the amount of impervious surface from the park site to the school site.  Ms. Loewenthal added that the developer had agreed to a correction of 40,000 square feet in order to accommodate what is needed for the park and school sites.

 

Ms. Loewenthal explained that an extension to Lancaster Drive was included in the proposal because a 1997 SUP approved a condition that required it.  She said that a non-buildable access easement had been dedicated along Lancaster Drive to make it clear that there would be no road or construction in that area, only extension of a natural-surface path.  Ms. Loewenthal explained that the Town did not anticipate a parking problem on Lancaster Drive, but if parking did become a problem in the future the staff would recommend placing parking restrictions on that road.

 

Planning Board Chair John Hawkins said that the Planning Board had voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP modification.  He added, though, that they had been surprised to learn that The Oaks Villa's residents adjacent to the park were opposed to the 1997-stipulated trail connection to Lancaster Drive.  Residents believe that increased parking on the road would aggravate an already hazardous condition, Mr. Hawkins said.  He stated that the Board agreed that connecting a new park to an existing neighborhood is a good idea, but asked the Town Council to consider conditions on Lancaster Drive.

 

Dan Shefte, of 217 Lancaster Drive, said that the connection point, as planned, was in the worst possible place for it.  He stated that drivers accelerate down that hill to a blind turn, and that coming up the hill it is even more hazardous.  Mr. Shefte pointed out that the proposed connection is right at a point where a driver cannot see where he is going, and argued that any parking along that road would make it worse.  He explained that 16 kids under the age of 12 live in that section of the street.  Mr. Shefte asked that a stop sign be placed at the top of the hill and that no parking be allowed along the road.  He said that it will be great to have the park and that they love having the access to it, but they do not want it to result in a dangerous traffic situation.

 

John Bane, of 212 Lancaster Drive, agreed that Lancaster Drive is a dangerous hill.  He said that the map is deceiving in that it does not show the sharp turn going over the hill and around the curve.  Mr. Bane agreed that the proposed location would be the worst place to put the connection.  He suggested making it as far from the bordering houses as possible.  Mr. Bane said that allowing parking along the road would be a bad idea, and encouraged the Town to mark out parking spaces now, if the connector is going to be made, before an accident happens.

 

Caroline Costello, of Helmsdale Drive, expressed concern that the connection to Lancaster Drive would disrupt the peace and tranquility of her neighborhood.  Explaining that she needs to use a walker to get around, she expressed concerns about traffic from outside the area reducing her personal freedom and ability to feel comfortable in the neighborhood.  Ms. Costello stated that notice of the SUP had not been sent to all of The Oaks, only those within 1,000 feet.  She added that it had not arrived until October 31, 2001, which did not give the neighborhood enough time to consider the ramifications and study the problems of safety, parking, crime, flooding, and property damage.  Ms. Costello asked which jurisdiction - Chapel Hill, Orange County, or Durham County - would be responsible for dealing with problems.  She noted that there already is a connection between Meadowmont and The Oaks, through Pinehurst Drive.  She explained that she had lived in close proximity to trails and open space before and was worried about the potential for crime.

 

Kani Hurow passed out a copy of her neighbor Ray Lauber's concerns.  Then she spoke on behalf of Richard L. Dennis, president of The Oaks Villas Homeowners Association, in reference to a statement from the Association dated October 31, 2001, and revised on November 4, 2001.  Ms. Hurow emphasized the neighbors' concerns about safety issues, since no off-street parking at the proposed access to the trail is on the plan.  She commented that developer John McAdams had said that the map was based on an aerial rather than a field survey and that water channels created since installation of utility lines do not show up on it.

 

Ms. Hurow explained that she had come before the Council in July 1997 with some of the same safety concerns.  She read a 1995 letter to the Town from East-West Partners, which said that no access would be allowed from Lancaster Drive.  Then, two years later, Ms. Hurow said, the idea was revived and she learned of it through a letter to the newspaper editor.  Moreover, she said, The Oaks residents had not been notified of other hearings and had not had the opportunity to present their concerns during the planning stage.  Ms. Hurow noted that an official statement on behalf of all The Oaks owners had been presented for consideration at recent hearings and that they were united in their concerns about the safety hazards that access to the nature trail from Lancaster Drive would create.  She urged the Town to delete that access.

 

Jack Costello, of Helmsdale Drive, explained that most of what he would have said had already been said by others.  He added, though, that there had been more danger through crime to those along Whitfield Road, where he and his wife had previously lived, after the entrance to the nature trail was put in.

 

Council Member Bateman inquired about what hours the basketball park would be open to the public.  Ms. Loewenthal said that the definition of "school hours" changes from year to year but that it would be more limited than "sun up to sun down."  Mr. Horton added that it basically means from bus arrival to bus departure.  Council Member Bateman asked if this would be a school recreation facility except for weekends.  Mr. Horton said that it would be available for other uses when the school was not using it.  Council Member Bateman requested a report on accesses from other neighborhoods into greenways and the number of accidents at those locations.

 

Council Member Strom asked Mr. Wilson to bring back a grid showing the original park with its components and approximate expense compared to what the Town would actually be approving as components of this park and the school site that will be available to the public.  Mayor Waldorf concurred with that suggestion, adding that she thought the Town had ended up with a superior plan in terms of effects on the environment and coordination and compatibility with the school project.  She said that it would be nice to be assured that everything the developer had initially committed to giving the Town was still in place and that the developer was still carrying that expense.  Mr. Wilson agreed to get this information despite the quick turn-around, and Mr. Horton also agreed to do so. 

 

Council Member Ward asked both the regulator and the applicant to provide the maximum opportunities that the Town Council could consider to address the safety issues and concerns of the citizens.

 

Council Member Evans expressed hope that the Town could find a way to link the greenway to the trail system, noting that she lives on a trail and supports the idea in principle.  She described having a trail as an asset.  Council Member Evans also asked about the distance between a playing field and the access to Lancaster Drive, adding that most people who come from outside the area in cars will park at the school and that the trail would mainly benefit those who live in the community.

 

Council Member Brown asked what the other possible areas for extending the trail might be and what the possibility would be for not extending it to Lancaster Drive.  She also asked for information about restricting parking in that area and about placing a stop sign.

 

Council Member Foy asked if it was anticipated that Lancaster Drive would connect at some future point with Meadowmont Lane.  Mr. Wilson replied that Lancaster Drive does stub out to the Durham/Chapel Hill annexation boundary line.  He explained that it is noted in the Thoroughfare Plan that it eventually could connect on the Durham side at some future point.  But Mr. Wilson added that there were no firm plans to do that and that the current perspective was that those roads would be built by private developers as development occurs in those areas.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that pedestrian access was important and recommended pursuing what Council Members Ward and Brown had suggested regarding parking and speeding on Lancaster Drive.  She noted that in similar situations in the past the Town had initiated a separate process to ensure that safety measures were taken for a neighborhood that had asked for them and which were recommended by the Planning Board.

 

Council Member Bateman remarked that she had been at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting when they voted on the recommendation for this.  She noted that a neighbor from Briarcliff had said that her neighborhood would use that connection to walk to the park.  Council Member Bateman stated that this walkway would serve a large pedestrian area.

 

Mayor Waldorf noted that the observation had been made that without a dedicated easement people will make a path.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO SET CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 1,000 FEET.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE MEADOWMONT TOWN PARK (2001-11-19/R-1)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for the Meadowmont Town Park, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit Modification application to be that property described as follows:

 

All properties within 1,000 feet of the site.

 

This the 19th day of November, 2001.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 26, 2001.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

Item 5 — Meadowmont Elementary School:

Application for a Special Use Permit Modification

 

Mr. Wilson explained that the hearing had been called to consider an application to construct an elementary school on 22.04-acre site in the Meadowmont development.  He showed the location on a map and listed the existing conditions: 

 

·        Divided by a stream with most of it being on the east side of the stream

·        Average slope is 10-15%

·        Located in Watershed Protection District

·        6.3 acres are in the RCD

·        4.75 acres are in the 100-year Floodplain

 

Mr. Wilson reported that the developer had proposed to construct 107,000 square feet of floor area, which includes 12,000 square feet of future expansion space, and that additional facilities would include a full-size community gym, four athletic/play fields, and 120 parking spaces.  He noted the proposed 10-foot emergency access drive that loops around the building.  Mr. Wilson explained that the applicant had requested more floor area than is presently allocated for the site, and stated that some floor area could be transferred from the park site.  He also said that an adjustment could be requested to the Master Land Use Plan to grant additional floor area specifically and only for this site.  Mr. Wilson noted that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was for approval with adoption of Resolution A.

 

School Board Chair Nick Didow pledged on behalf of the Board that this school will set a new standard for design and construction that is even more aggressive in terms of conservation, energy efficiency, technology application, effective teaching and learning, and service to the community.

 

Developer Ken Redfoot displayed a map of the site plan and noted that it was a refinement of maps previously brought before the Council.  He indicated a number or walkways and vehicular accesses along Meadowmont Lane, the bus loop, the parent drop off-area, and so forth.  Mr. Redfoot showed Council members how the community gym had been integrated into the site as well as the four playing fields.

 

Planning Board Chair John Hopkins reported that the Board had voted unanimously to recommend approval of the SUP modification.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT R-2 AND TO SET CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 1,000 FEET.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE MEADOWMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (2001-11-19/R-2)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for the Meadowmont Elementary School, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit Modification application to be that property described as follows:

 

All properties within 1,000 feet of the site.

 

This the 19th day of November, 2001.

 

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 26, 2001.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). 

 

Item 6 — Wachovia Bank at Meadowmont:

Application for a Special Use Permit Modification

 

Mr. Horton, noting that this item had been before the Council before, said that the staff would focus solely on the differences that had come in this revised application. 

 

Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper stated that the proposed Wachovia Bank branch would be located at the Barbee Chapel Road intersection with Highway 54 on a 1.6-acre site which is entirely within Durham County.  She explained that the Meadowmont Apartments are located across Barbee Chapel Road and that The Cedars at Meadowmont retirement community is just to the north.  Ms. Culpepper said that in February 2001, the Town Council had approved a one-story bank building at this site with a drive-through ATM and two teller stations.

 

Ms. Culpepper pointed out that this application was requesting 25 parking spaces rather than the 14 that the Town had approved.  She noted that the applicant had also added a bioretention area and was offering a $25,000 contribution to Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.  Ms. Culpepper said that the Manager's preliminary recommendation was for approval with 14 parking spaces.

 

Josh Gurlitz, speaking for the applicant, noted that the Town Council had approved the application with several stipulations, one of which was to reduce the parking from the requested 31 spaces to 14 spaces.  He pointing out that the applicant had since added a bioretention plan and a new buffer and had revised the parking area.  Mr. Gurlitz said that they also had originally included a path as the Council had requested, but were not showing it on the plan tonight because members of The Cedars had opposed it.  He acknowledged that the principal reason for the request for SUP modification was the number of parking spaces.  Mr. Gurlitz stated that the proposed 25 spaces had been designed to be below the impervious surface threshold and in compliance with every ordinance requirement.  He pointed out that both the Planning Board and the Community Design Commission had recommended 25 spaces after considering the technical elements of this particular site design.

 

Bonnie Welburn, representing Wachovia Bank, referred to the next to the last paragraph on page 14 of the packet.  She said that 25 spaces was consistent with the target described there.  Then, referring to the second paragraph on page 18, she noted that Wachovia was not asking for only the average number of spaces for this type of facility in Chapel Hill.  Referring to the last sentence in the first paragraph under finding #2 on page 44, Ms. Welburn noted that by ordinance the Town Council can approve the 25 spaces that Wachovia was requesting even though by policy the staff can recommend only 14.

 

Ms. Welburn said that Wachovia's plan was to have 11 to 12 employees.  She stated that the bank would do everything possible to encourage employees to carpool and use public transportation, but added that, as a business, they could not depend upon that or guarantee it.  Noting that there are an estimated 1,200 households in Meadowmont and that the combined market share of Wachovia and First Union in Chapel Hill and Carrboro is about 24%, Ms. Welburn argued that even banking 50% of Meadowmont's households would only be 10% of what is required to sustain a branch office.  She explained that these figures are based on a minimum of an average of 6,000 households needed to sustain a branch location, and argued that these points justify the request for 25 spaces.

 

Ms. Welburn noted Wachovia's involvement in the community through the Community Reinvestment Act, and read a long list of local organizations which the bank had supported and/or sponsored.  Ms. Welburn reiterated that they would be making a $25,000 donation to the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.

 

Planning Board Chair John Hawkins reported that the Planning Board had recommended approval of the requested 24 spaces.  He said that approval had been based on their understanding that the eleven employees would be working full-time.  Mr. Hawkins commented that the one dissenter had thought that 18 spaces would be more in line.  He expressed hope that several other improvements proposed by the Community Design Commission would also find their way into this project.

 

Judson Van Wyk described the bank was a very desirable neighbor, but asked that the path between it and The Cedars be eliminated.  He pointed out that the Planning Board, the Community Design Commission, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had all recommended against building the path, and said that he hoped that would not be overlooked in the Council's final recommendation.  Mr. Van Wyk also suggested a location for the extra parking that he thought would facilitate the integrity of the foliage buffer.  He strongly recommended that the Council increase the number of parking spaces, adding that it would not make sense to invest in a bank that had only one non-handicapped space for its customers.

 

Aaron Nelson, representing the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that businesses that fail are generally bad for communities.  He noted Wachovia's performance and commitment to the community and suggested trusting their professional assessment of their parking needs.  Mr. Nelson predicted that the bank would choose not to construct a branch in that location if they do not get the parking that they need.  Someone else would build the 8,000 square feet that is permitted there, he said, rather than the 4,000 square feet that Wachovia was proposing.  And that larger development will probably secure even more parking, Mr. Nelson said.

 

Council Member Bateman explained that she was on the Land Trust Board, which had been trying to get banks to submit bids for the pre-construction loan.  She asked Ms. Welburn if the bank would go ahead and submit a bid on that pre-construction loan.  Ms. Welburn said they would make every effort to do so.  Council Member Bateman also said that she hoped that this would be approved with the pedestrian accessible ATM machine.  Ms. Welburn replied that the drive-through ATM at that site had been deemed more appropriate from a security standpoint because of the buffer.  Ms. Welburn noted that this had been approved at the first draft, and added that Wachovia was pursuing off-site ATMs in safer locations within that community.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that this made sense to her, adding that she had often walked up to drive-through ATMs and used them standing.

 

Council Member Evans clarified that the branch would be in the Chapel Hill city limits even though it is in Durham County.  It would add to Chapel Hill's tax base, she said.  

 

Council Member Ward, referring to the pedestrian path, recommended including "raised internal crosswalks."  Council Member Evans asked if the red brick treatment used in other parts of Meadowmont would be sufficient.  Council Member Ward said it would be fine for all but the path that leads to the ATM, which should be raised to slow cars down.

 

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO SET ADJACENT PROPERTY AS CONTIGUOUS.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

 

 

A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE WACHOVIA BANK AT MEADOWMONT (2001-11-19/R-3)

 

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for the Wachovia Bank at Meadowmont, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit Modification application to be that property described as follows:

 

All properties adjacent to the site.

 

This the 19th day of November, 2001.

 

 

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 26, 2001.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0). 

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.