SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Monday, February 18, 2002, at 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Wiggins left at 8:45 p.m., excused.
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, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Council Member Wiggins gave a brief update on the progress of the Horace Williams Airport Committee. She said that a report had been requested by Ayer Saint Gross and they had received the report but had not made an official report back to the University. She said what had been read in the newspaper was a result of the media realizing that the preliminary report had been completed and the University’s attorney ruled that the report was a public document. She said that Ayer Saint Gross had not developed any recommendations as yet, and when they do the report will also go to the Horace Williams Airport Committee, as well as the University.
Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed the background of the proposed ordinance, and said it was being proposed for Orange County and especially the southern part of the County. He said the idea grew out of discussions a few years ago, and a “Schools and Land Use Council” was formed consisting of elected representatives from the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and representatives from the two school systems operating in Orange County. He said the Orange County staff was taking the lead in preparing this idea and the planning departments of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough had also been involved. Mr. Waldon continued:
· Key Concept: If capacity of public schools is not sufficient to accommodate additional students, then new residential development must be delayed until capacity can be increased.
· Key Concepts
· Two Documents: Memorandum of Agreement and Model Ordinance
· One Agreement for Each School System
· Cannot say “No.” Can say “Not now.”
· Key is a Realistic CIP for School Construction
· Effective Date
· Additional Highlights
· Determinations of available capacity once/year
· Projections of future capacity/membership updated once/year
· System will incorporate projections of when proposal development would come “on-line”
· Available Capacity must exist at all levels
· Sequence had changed – Town approval first, then Certificate of Capacity
Mr. Waldon displayed a slide with a graph of numbers of students compared to capacity, by year, and by level. He said that in the agreement capacity was defined differently for different levels of schools.
· Next Steps
· Recommend referral to Planning Board
· Return to Council Agenda April 8
· Work Toward Approval and Execution of Memorandum of Agreement
· After all parties Agree, Work on Ordinance
Thatcher Freund said he supported the ordinance, and he asked why anyone should argue that this was not necessary.
Allen Spalt spoke of the relationship between the proposed ordinance and affordable housing, noting that not all of the Council’s actions are consistent with the goals of affordable housing but on the whole does work toward that goal. He said the new program ensures better planning for new school facilities, and the ordinance ensures that every student gets quality education. Mr. Spalt said the goals of the ordinance and affordable housing are achievable and consistent with each other.
Lisa Stuckey said her children had always been in overcrowded schools and probably will remain that way for the next years of their schooling. She said that the ordinance gives the opportunity to coordinate community growth with school capacity.
Gloria Faley thanked the Council for taking a progressive stand on the issue. She said there was a growing need for more middle schools and high schools. Ms. Faley encouraged the Council to proceed on the proposal.
Phil Post, speaking on behalf of the Government Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, said that one of the details that needed to be looked at was whether there was a ten-year plan and ten-year funding. He said the Chamber would work with the Council on these details, and were appreciative of the changes seen so far.
Del Snow said the ordinance was not about stopping growth, denying quick profits to developers, or closing eyes to the need for affordable housing, it was about pacing growth so that everyone would have their fare share. She encouraged the Council to vote for the ordinance.
Julie McClintock said this was a proposal whose time had come, She encouraged the Council to push ahead with the ordinance. Ms. McClintock said the issue had been talked about for many years, adding that the ordinance had an aspect of encouraging good capital planning and spending of school funds. She encouraged the Council to adopt this ordinance and to encourage their colleagues to do so also.
Ann Hill said that in addition to the other concerns that her neighborhood had, such as traffic congestion, and dwindling greenspace and wetlands, they were very concerned about the overcrowding in their schools. She encouraged the Council to vote for the ordinance.
Aaron Nelson, Director of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said the membership was ready to assist the Council in any way to regain the funding that had been decreased by the State legislature. He said the Chamber supported the quality of the public schools, which was a key tenant of its mission statement. Mr. Nelson said the Chamber was revisiting its position on the ordinance and the Board of Directors would be having a meeting to discuss this. He said in order for the ordinance to work the public commitment part must be real. Mr. Nelson said if the Council supported the ordinance they should make sure that it would work.
Livy Ludington, a teacher at the Frank Porter Graham School, urged the Council to pass the ordinance quickly, because the schools have been overcrowded for many years. She said the Town needed to work together with other communities and all factions of the Town. Ms. Ludington urged the Council to look carefully at Section 5c pr the proposed ordinance, noting she would like to know more about it.
Nick Tennyson, representing the Homebuilders Association of Orange County, said he had concerns over the numbers that Mr. Waldon had predicted for growth. He said he did not see any logical effective date of the ordinance, so he did not see that this was not an ordinance to stop growth. Mr. Tennyson said he and members of his Association were looking forward to review of the ordinance. He said his industry was one that relied on the fact that schools were available in the community, but the Council should look at the unintended consequences of the ordinance.
Scott Radway said he agreed that the Council should look at the unintended consequences of the ordinance, and it should be evaluated. He said he would like to see the numbers shown by Mr. Waldon extended out for ten years. Mr. Radway wondered how much of approved development was already in the projections of the schools capacity. He asked what the effect of projects in Carrboro would have on Chapel Hill. Mr. Radway said more information was needed before a decision was made.
Judy Margoulis said she approved of the proposed ordinance. She said her children had always been in overcrowded schools, and the schools had never caught up. Ms. Margoulis said there would be flexibility to develop affordable housing, and these had worked in other communities throughout the country. She said there should be a master plan to ensure that there was adequate classroom space before developments were approved.
Carolyn Miller said her children had always been in overcrowded classrooms since they have lived in Chapel Hill. She said development should be discouraged before there was adequate school capacity to support it. Ms. Miller said if the Town is to be able to meet the capital needs of the school and the Town’s needs, better planning tools must be used.
Matt Barclay said if the Town wanted to make a projection for ten years it not only needed to look at what the schools are now, but should look at those already in school, and how many would be arriving and leaving. He said a reasonable projection for who would be in high school should be looked at now.
Council Member Wiggins congratulated the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board for overseeing one of the best school systems in the country. She said that people continue to move to Chapel Hill just so they can put their children in the excellent school system. Council Member Wiggins said she was completely in support of the ordinance. She said for the past two years she had been on the Schools and Land Use Council, and she was proud of the hard work, although it was slow and tedious. Council Member Wiggins said there was a study report finished, but there had not been enough time to prepare it for presentation at this evening’s meeting, and she expected it to be ready for the next hearing on the issue. She said the report would not be precise, because there was no way to actually predict the number of students coming and leaving the school system, but that it was a tool to help pace how the schools can accommodate people coming into the system. Council Member Wiggins said it would take a while for it to be tweaked to help the predictions.
Council Member Bateman asked if this ordinance needed to be adopted while the schools were under capacity. Mr. Waldon said that was not a question of what had to be addressed up front, and the sequence was the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would set out the system, and, if everybody agreed, it would go forward as an ordinance. He said the staff recommended that this should be put in place at a time when the schools were not over capacity, and the timing was important.
Council Member Bateman said there was an urgency to get this ordinance passed.
Mayor Foy said the chart looked like the schools would not be at over capacity in 2003 and 2004. Mr. Waldon said that was correct, and noted that the high schools would be right at the edge.
Mayor Foy asked if this could be adopted in November to be effective in 2003-2004. Mr. Waldon responded the way it was structured was to compare current capacity and current enrollment with projected capacity with projected enrollment. He said it would be desirable to pay attention to the effective date and it would be highly desirable to arrange the effective date such that it does become an instant moratorium.
Council Member Bateman asked why February 15 was picked as the effective date for the annual review. Mr. Waldon said that by November of each year the schools must report to the County on membership and the County then takes the data to prepare a report for the County Commissioners, so February 15 was chosen as a logical date for the report of the data.
Council Member Harrison asked for the data of over capacity for the elementary schools and middle schools if the high schools were 110%. Mr. Waldon said the figures were on page 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under “elementary school”—104% of building capacity and middle schools 107% of building capacity.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the figures used on the chart were based on a specific methodology used, so another methodology could give a different figure.
Council Member Ward said many people in the community felt that the schools were already overcrowded, but the figures used in the chart indicated not. Mr. Waldon said some of the schools were overcrowded, and others were lower than over-capacity. He said the ordinance addressed the overall capacity.
Council Member Ward asked what the threshold was for small scale developments to be exempt. Mr. Waldon said it was five.
Council Member Ward said he would like to see a way to address the fact that many small developments create many students and whether it could be addressed by percentage. Mr. Waldon said it might be blended into the system, but it might not be too precise.
Council Member Ward said this could be used as a loophole for people to subdivide their property into separate five-unit developments.
Council Member Strom said he remained committed to the principle that the Town ought to base development with capacity of school infrastructure and potentially other infrastructure. He added for clarification that there would be a much higher commitment and obligation which the County Commissioners were creating to actually have a firm capital improvements plan that would commit them to building the schools over a period of time to meet the demand. Mr. Waldon responded that this was right, and it was a major change.
Council Member Strom said it seemed that it would be more difficult to not build schools without the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and school construction could be forced to accelerate if the ordinance and MOU were put in place.
Council Member Verkerk asked if the Planning Board could move their review up a few weeks, in order to bring the proposal to the Council sooner. Mr. Waldon said it could be done. He said the staff’s suggestion for April 8 was made for several reasons:
· The Council’s calendar for April 8 looked like a lighter meeting, and there would be time for public discussion and Council discussion.
· The March 25th meeting was a second option, but the other parties had not even discussed the issues yet, as Chapel Hill has done.
· The four parties needed to agree on the MOU, after which they could adopt an ordinance
· The schedule looked like the adoption of the ordinance would occur in the fall.
Mayor Foy said the Council should set the discussion for the March 25th meeting, which would let the other parties know where the Council stood in the effort to move the issues along.
Mayor pro tem Evans said she would hope that the staff would come back with some answers, so there might be the need for more time. She said it would be helpful to know if charter schools were factored in to school capacity or not.
Mayor pro tem Evans wondered if there could be an exemption to allow residential buildings to be built in the downtown, either a percentage or a certain size, and if that would be factored in. She added that the conflicting issues need to be addressed.
Mayor pro tem Evans said the University expected large growth, including staff and personnel, and there had been discussion at several meetings of the need for a new high school, and funding had been put forward for planning for the high school. She said in the draft MOU, Section 3, C, III, a discussion of funding did not spell out alternatives for funding. Mayor pro tem Evans said the key to the whole issue was that the County Commissioners had to be committed to funding one way or another. She said those involved wanted to be sure that the proposal worked, and those who asked questions were not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but did address the concerns that were raised. Mayor pro tem Evans said they would like to know the methodology being used for determination, and to review this methodology in the future to determine that it was working. She said the question was whether this ordinance would have the teeth to prevent overcrowding in the schools in the future.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like more information on the different methodologies used, and why some were preferred. Mr. Waldon said that between the approval of the MOU and the ordinance, that all parties should agree on the methodology for projections. After all the input, he said, the County Commissioners would choose the methodology used in the future.
Mayor Foy asked about the applicability of the previous project, and asked what it meant. Mr. Waldon said the key was that if a development had been approved and claimed vested rights it would be extraordinarily problematic, if not impossible, to then put the reins on a development that had vested rights and to stop it.
Council Member Strom asked if the Council inserted new language when it came back to them, what effect this would have on the process.
Council Member Strom said he wanted the Council to realize that there were some trade-offs, and every time language was changed, the process was delayed. He said he was supportive of going in as narrow a path of changes as possible in order to move the process along.
Council Member Bateman asked if a development had been approved by the Town but was delayed because of the school capacity, would it be first in line when the capacity allowed. Mr. Waldon said the intent was that there would be some priority to those first in line, but a project would have time limits put on it in their approval by the Council.
Mr. Karpinos responded that if the School Board denied caps, procedurally there was an opportunity to appeal that to the Town Council, and the Council could review it and reverse the decision of the School Board, and if the party did not like the decision of the Council it could take it to court. He said the Council could reverse what had been done by the School Board.
Council Member Ward asked if a developer could say he would build a portion of the development, could it be modified in order to get into the approval process. He asked how the School Board would treat the numbers. Mr. Waldon said the intent was that this would be done by formula, and capacities established each year.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked whether there was a time limit on the funding for the school capacities. She remembered seeing this issue addressed in the proposal which came before the Council last year. Mr. Waldon said there had been a shift on how this would take place. He said the developer would have to get a certificate of adequate school facilities, before getting approval by the Council for a project. Mr. Waldon said the funding would not be a problem under this model. He said the cornerstone of the proposal was a realistic and funded 10-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Council Member Wiggins said the report from the School Committee would have scenarios. She said the Town was going to join with other governing groups in a good faith effort to make the agreement work.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 25.
Mr. Horton said he believed the staff could meet that date.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not understand how that would move this faster.
Council Member Verkerk said she would like to hear the comments of the Planning Board, and it would send a strong signal that the Town of Chapel Hill was taking this issue very seriously and it understood the sense of urgency.
Council Member Strom said it would give the Council more flexibility.
Mayor pro tem Evans said it was not just the Planning Board, but all the citizens of the community needed to understand it. She said once it was in place, it would be impossible to change the ordinance. She said two weeks was not a big problem, and if the discussion continued until April 8 it would be all right with her.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper reviewed the proposal brought to Public Hearing this evening for the Council to consider a proposed Development Ordinance Text Amendment which would provide affordable housing options to the current regulation requiring that a percentage of homes in new residential developments be below a particular size. She said the current regulation was a floor area regulation, which had been adopted two years ago as an amendment to the Development Ordinance . Ms. Culpepper said the amendment applied to developments that had 12 houses or more and imposed a 25% restricted size, the homes restricted in size to 1,100 square feet or 1,350 square feet in size, and that square footage must remain in place for one year. She added that after the November 2001 Public Hearing for the Larkspur Cluster Subdivision, the developer, Ms. Carol Ann Zinn petitioned the Council and asked for consideration of a text amendment allowing affordable housing to be substituted for the smaller house provision.
Ms. Culpepper said this evening the staff was presenting language that would provide for that option to either have 25% small houses or 15% affordable housing. She said the proposal stated that the 15% affordable units could be offered on-site or as a payment-in-lieu, or the regulation could be satisfied with 25% of the houses being restricted in size. Ms. Culpepper said that Ordinance A provided the language recommended by the Manager, and Ordinance B provided the language offered by Ms. Zinn. She said the staff had not seen a down-side of the proposal offered, and it would provide the Council with some flexibility. She said the staff was recommending adoption of Ordinance A.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said the Board was strongly supportive of adding the discretion of having the 15% affordable housing, with the recommendation that the Council consider stronger language to a formula for calculation of the amount of a payment-in-lieu, and that it be discouraged and used only as a last resort. Ms. Eddy said the Board voted 9-0 in favor of the proposal.
Executive Director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Robert Dowling read a statement from the Trustees:
“The Board of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust supports the ordinance amendment being proposed by Ms. Zinn, which allows a developer to include 15% truly affordable homes in lieu of the 25% requirement for restricted size homes. We believe this amendment will help the Town to realize its stated goal of increasing the number of affordable housing units produced in new residential developments.
“Further, we welcome the opportunity to work with private sector developers to maintain these as affordable homes by including them in the land trust.”
Scott Radway reiterated what the Planning Board had recommended in that the Town take a payment-in-lieu very rarely and only for unique situation. He said he had experience with affordable housing in other states and the payment-in-lieu had often resulted in affordable housing being built.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would be interested to know what situation would be for a developer to pursue payment-in-lieu instead of building the 25% affordable housing. He said he did not think he wanted to support any development that was absent any affordable housing. Ms. Culpepper said it would be a developer’s option to propose a payment-in-lieu, in a particular situation. Mr. Horton said it would be up to the Council to decide whether or not to accept the payment-in-lieu.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was concerned, and that it undermined the intention of the original ordinance, that affordable housing should be incorporated everywhere. He said he would rather expand the flexibility to create other options to expand affordable housing. Mr. Horton said the staff would include an option to address Council Member Kleinschmidt’s concern, when the issue was brought back to the Council.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked Mr. Dowling to address where a payment-in-lieu would help develop affordable housing in other places than the development where it had been proposed. Mr. Dowling said payment-in-lieu would not go toward operation expenses of Orange Community Housing, but would go toward the projects and could go directly into building affordable housing.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the money would go into Chapel Hill. Mr. Dowling responded that if the monies were allocated in Chapel Hill the Manager would see that they were used in Chapel Hill. He said from the Board’s perspective it was better to have housing built, and as Chapel Hill becomes built-out the options for affordable housing become limited and it would be better to have the units than to have the money. Mr. Dowling said there may be some circumstances where it might be difficult to do, and it might not necessarily be a million-dollar development.
Mayor Foy said that when the proposal came back to the Council it should have a specific example as to where the payment-in-lieu would be applicable and where it might be a good idea.
Mayor pro tem Evans said she would like to endorse the part of the proposal where it could be some of each—partial payment in combination with partial provisions for affordable housing.
Council Member Ward asked what was defined as the area for the median income figure 80%. Ms. Culpepper said the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is where it was included, so the income level in Chapel Hill would be less. Mr. Horton said he thought HUD defined it differently, and the staff would check on this for the Council.
Council Member Strom thanked Carol Ann Zinn for her efforts and cooperation to create some proactive ways to build affordable housing. He said it was important to maintain the principle that the Council wanted diverse housing in subdivisions, and he asked for a clear ordinance option from the staff which would only have the 15% construction. Council Member Strom suggested that some language be considered in the option for payment-in-lieu, rather than a straight negotiation with the Manager, and that it be based on the average subsidy required in the last 18 months to reflect the market reality and what the community could afford as a subsidy.
Council Member Ward said the figure would be based on the costs of the homes being built in a particular development, and the number might get substantially higher in some developments, and not allow the Town to do something in extraordinary situations. He asked if the figure suggested was a useful amount of money to allow the Town to subsidize.
Council Member Bateman asked if in the proposed new Development Ordinance the affordable housing was the figure 20% or 15%. Ms. Culpepper said it had different percentages depending on whether it was multi-family or single family. She said she believed there was a recommendation that it be a flat percentage.
Council Member Bateman said, if the proposal was adopted, it eliminated the small house requirement. Mr. Horton said the Council would have the opportunity to reconsider every single element in the new Development Ordinance, so it could be shaped the way the Council wished.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL FEBRUARY 25, AND TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE ISSUE TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 3 – Designation of Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood
as a Residential Conservation Area
Planning Director Roger Waldon said the purpose of the Public Hearing was to receive comment on a petition from the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association for developing a small area plan and creating a Residential Conservation Area in the neighborhood. He said the following was used when considering a neighborhood as a conservation area:
· Strategy of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan
· Protection and preservation of neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown and central campus
· Areas appropriate for neighborhood protection initiatives
Mr. Waldon pointed out the area on a map in the Council packet, near to the central campus of the University. He said the staff recommended to the Council that it amend the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plant to designate the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek area as a Residential Conservation Area.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said the Planning Board voted 6-2 in favor of the recommendation that the Council expand the residential conservation area shown on the Town’s Land Use Plan to include the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhood. She said the only negative discussion was about whether or not Residential Conservation Areas should be in the Comprehensive Plan, which might give a false sense of security.
Laura Moore, of the King’s Mill/Morgan Creek Homeowners’ Association, requested that the Council formally amend the Town’s Land Use Plan to designate the neighborhood as a Residential Conservation Area. She said there were three major goals for the neighborhood:
· To maintain their status as a single-family, low density neighborhood.
· To preserve the character of the neighborhood, large lots, heavily wooded landscape, and a mix of eclectic and modern homes.
· To strengthen their conviction to the environmental protection of the Morgan Creek watershed.
Ms. Moore said the Residential Conservation Area designation was one tool to support these goals. She said the Association had voted to explore the opportunities under the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District Ordinance in the new Development Ordinance consideration.
Sally Greene, a resident of the King’s Mill neighborhood, read a statement reviewing neighborhoods in other parts of the country. She said the lots in the neighborhood were developed when the area was outside the Town limits, and bordered by Morgan Creek. Ms. Greene described models of neighborhood in other areas of the country. She said that her neighborhood was developed after World War II by botanists who knew the power of a sheltering landscape near a nurturing stream. Ms. Moore said the neighborhood had the potential of being a conservation area on the Town’s project to update the Town’s historical resource inventory, and she asked for the Town’s support of the proposal.
Dave Morgan displayed maps of the growth of the University. He said the neighborhood was becoming more and more adjacent to the University, and shared more than one-half mile of common boundary in the University’s Master Plan. Mr. Morgan said the neighborhood was concerned about future impacts from the University, and asked for the Council support of a conservation area.
Robert Ferrier, a resident of the King’s Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhood, said that when the neighborhood was established the wooded lots inspired architects to design many modern homes on the sites. He said that architect James Webb was one of the first to bring the California style to the east coast, and he noted several buildings designed by Professor Webb. Mr. Ferrier said that recognizing the neighborhood and the homes in it, would be a wonderful way to honor the memory of James Webb.
John McPhaul, who lives in the meadow end of the neighborhood, asked what this proposal would do to previous zoning and other ordinances. He said he supported his neighbors in their concerns. Mr. Waldon said this was not an ordinance amendment, nor did it change any regulations, but it would be a policy statement by the Council as land use decisions were made.
Tom Jepson, a resident of the neighborhood, emphasized that he was in support of the notion that when issues come before the Council the balance should tilt in favor of protection and preservation.
Mayor Foy asked how the neighborhood conservation district proposed in the new Development Ordinance differed from the Residential Conservation Area. Mr. Waldon said they were very different:
· The proposed district would be an overlay district much like the current Historic District overlays, and would be an ordinance change that would give the Council a mechanism to change regulations in certain neighborhoods.
· A neighborhood could be both a neighborhood conservation area and a residential conservation district, and one would not preclude the other one.
· This new ordinance would make this specifically happen in the Comprehensive Plan.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO REFER THIS PROPOSAL TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Mr. Waldon said this could come back to the Council March 4.
Item 4 – Cross Creek Subdivision:
Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper described the application which proposed a 17-lot preliminary plat on 12 ½ acres, located west of Cedar Hills Drive, on the south side of Weaver Dairy Road, and across from Carol Woods Retirement Community.
Ms. Culpepper said the application proposed a single-access road off of Weaver Dairy Road, and the design of the proposed road was one of the issues. Ms. Culpepper said the staff was recommending that the new road provide a connection to the adjacent property and a 31-inch oak tree be preserved.
Ms. Culpepper said two alternatives were being offered because of concern of the width of the curb and gutter proposed by the applicant (Resolution A). Ms. Culpepper said one option was the Town’s standard curb and gutter cross section, and the second option was non-curb and gutter section with swells to handle the storm drainage. She said drainage ditches would be located on either side of the road and would be maintained by a homeowners’ association. Ms. Culpepper said stormwater drainage was a major concern because of the streams located downstream of the subdivision. She said the applicant had proposed some special stormwater devices to ensure that the rate of water from rains would not increase, because of the sub-division.
Ms. Culpepper stated that with Resolution A, the staff had provided stipulations that reflected the various proposals of the applicant, specifically, in addition to controlling for the one-year and the fifth-year storms, and that the applicant’s plans demonstrated that the drainage situation downstream was no worse after the development. She said that Resolution A provided the Manager’s preliminary recommendation.
Jack Smyre, representing the applicant, said the applicant had suggested an engineer’s solution for the stormwater drainage that would utilize the drainage pipes underneath the curb and gutter section. He said the detention function would be by over-sizing them and restricting the outlets, and combining them into a brass drainage swell that would run along a contour allowing the water to slow and dissipate through the 75 feet of the Resource Conservation District buffer. Mr. Smyre said the applicant believed that the accommodation will meet the standard laid out in Addition 23 in Resolution A.
Mr. Smyre said that by working with the staff, the applicant believed that language could be brought to the March hearing that the staff would be willing to support. Mr. Smyre said he wanted clarification of stipulation #25. He said, with the exception of stipulations #23 and #25, the applicant was fairly supportive of Resolution A.
Mr. Smyre said the other concerns were with stipulations #6 and #8, and said that in #8 the proper solution would be to leave the pedestrian connection unimproved, but this was not a sticking point with the applicant. He said stipulation #6 was a major concern and he expected to be spending some time with the staff concerning the alternative road design for the white oak tree protection.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said the Board felt that the developer had proceeded carefully to work with this environmentally sensitive area and to minimize the negative impacts with the neighbors. She said the Board could support the elimination of the oak tree which went with the contour of the property, and it was good to keep the buffer for the neighborhood, which would be less if the road was moved. Ms. Eddy said the Board was told that the tree was not in very good condition.
Ms. Eddy said the Board voted 6-1 in favor of the project, and the one dissenting vote was that the proposal did not meet the spirit of the Affordable Housing regulations. Ms. Eddy said the Board voted unanimously to recommend that the Council ask the Town Engineering Department to study the downstream stormwater management issues on Cedar Hills Drive, particularly as they related to the size of the culvert under Cedar Hills Drive.
Mia Burroughs, of 110 Cedar Hills Drive, displayed some slides to illustrate where the Cross Creek property would be, and stated that she was concerned about the drainage of stormwater that would be coming through their yard. Referring to stipulations in Resolution A, she said Stipulation #23 should achieve in the end that the situation not be made any worse, that Stipulation #26 was good, and urged the Council to strengthen Resolution F when it came back to study and correct the situation.
Ken Pearce, of 36 Cedar Hills Circle, said his home had experienced flooding problems in the past and displayed a picture of his home under floodwater, where the two creeks meet in his front yard. He suggested that new homes in the subdivision be located near the front of the properties. He said his second major concern was the pedestrian crossing between Cross Creek and his neighborhood, that it was not an easement and did not lead to any destination, and would have to go up a steep bank. Mr. Pearce said it would not be a good connection to the subdivision.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had some concerns about decreasing the floor area in the dwelling on lot 16, and deconstructing it to comply with the restricted floor area size. He said this was not a satisfying solution to the problem, and wondered if there were other options. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was taking the old house to make it the cheapest house to comply with affordable housing. He said he did not understand the one-year restriction for adding to an affordable house, but later could be added to, thereby increasing the costs of the house and making it no longer affordable.
Mayor Foy added that this brought up the issue of whether the Development Ordinance Text Amendment, would be applicable to affordable housing. Mr. Karpinos said if the Text Amendment was adopted, that option would be available to this developer.
Council Member Bateman said that the consultant working on the Development Ordinance was asked to look at the Small House Ordinance to see where it was flawed. She corrected the date on page 3 of the Resolution from January 14 to January 28, regarding the Weaver Dairy Road discussion. She asked if there would be a substantial financial difference in the contribution if the Council did not vote on this issue soon. Mr. Horton said he did not think that it would be substantial.
Council Member Verkerk asked who determined that the oak tree was dangerous and should be taken down. She said she would like to see a better effort at retaining the tree.
Mayor Foy asked if the tree was protected under the Town’s Tree Ordinance. Mr. Horton said it would be researched.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that throughout the Town heroic efforts had been taken to preserve older trees only to see them die later, and budding trees should be carefully preserved. Mr. Horton said this was a professional recommendation.
Council Member Ward said he would encourage the Council to support the Transportation Board’s recommendation for two 10-foot travel lanes, rather than 11-foot. He said the houses had significant driveways to accommodate parking. Council Member Ward said he also supported the swell idea to reduce some of the curb and gutter, which would exacerbate the flood stage by carrying the water too rapidly to the streams. He said he felt that the pedestrian corridor seemed like a wonderful opportunity to make a connection to the existing development. Council Member Ward asked the staff for a definition of “unapproved” in the comment regarding the pedestrian easement. Ms. Culpepper said it meant that a path would not be put there other than a worn path that was already present.
Council Member Ward said there were paths throughout the Town that are present on paper but citizens do not know about them as a way for bicycles and pedestrians to avoid going onto the highways. He said this path should be labeled, and a minimal path could be field-sited with mulch or some other material to pay attention to the existing vegetation.
Council Member Harrison said that the Transportation Board’s recommendation was actually two 10-foot lanes and two five-foot sidewalks, and the staff discussion did justify why three-foot shoulders should be used rather than two-foot, and the discussion minimized the impervious surface by recommending only one sidewalk. He said he was not sure why a subdivision needed 11-foot width. He said the Manager’s recommendations for impervious surface were the most that should be there and he would prefer that it be less. He suggested that the staff define levels better in the report.
Council Member Strom asked if the Resource Conservation District crossing be made as a “right” in the new Development Ordinance or would it have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Culpepper said the staff would research this question.
Council Member Strom said he would like to write a provision into Resolution A to require some type of a performance bond that the neighbors or the Town would be able to draw on should all of the best management practices and best efforts at keeping the rate of water at the Creek development level not work. He was concerned that some of the lots would not be useable with 20 foot drainage use or 30 foot drainage use.
Council Member Ward asked about the stub out for lot 27. Ms. Culpepper said it would be a temporary turn around.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if there was a stipulation that a sign be put up saying that the road would be extended.
Mr. Smyre reiterated his remarks regarding the stipulations, and said curb and gutter would be needed for the detention to work, which has become a requirement. He said the builder must have the ability to take the water off the road.
Mr. Horton said the nature of the issues would be best served if the staff could bring it back on March 25.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL MARCH 25, 2002. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO REFER THE COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 5 – Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont:
Application for Special Use Permit
Principal Planner Gene Poveromo said the application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) was for the Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont, which is a 64-unit multi-family development proposed on two separate parcels within the Meadowmont Development. He said the Master Land Use Plan was approved by the Council in 1995 for Meadowmont. Mr. Poveromo pointed out the various areas where SUP’s had been approved.
Hilltop Condominiums Development Description:
· 5.58 acre site
· Multi-family development – 48 units
· Four 3-story buildings
· 96 parking spaces (48 below building)
· On site recreation area and open space
· Access from Gurnsey Trail and Pinehurst Drive
· Two on-site refuse/recycling facilities
· Pond #4 stormwater facility
Greenway Condominiums Development Description
· 1.5 acre site
· Multi-family development – 16 units
· 10 affordable housing units
· Two-story building with 25 parking spaces
· Access from W. Barbee Chapel Road
· Stormwater Management Pond #1
· Use adjacent recycling center
· Key Issues
· Affordable Housing
· 10 Units – Greenway Condominium Site
· Land Use Intensity Ratios
· Within the Overall Meadowmont Limits
Mr. Poveromo said the staff felt it was appropriate to review intensities for the two sites in the context of the entire Meadowmont project. He said there was a stipulation where the applicant would provide confirmation that any excess off-site floor area was available within the Meadowmont development. Mr. Poveromo stated that the staff recommended approval of the application with the conditions stipulated in Resolution A.
Roland Gammon, the applicant, displayed a map of the 1995 Meadowmont Master Land Use Site Plan, and said that two sections had been left off, because the developer had decided that there should be more diversity than in the original plan. He said the shift in design came from an earlier concept review with the Community Design Commission that a fairly large group of hardwood seemed worthy of saving. Mr. Gammon said he had worked with the staff on the design plan for about two years, and one of the concepts was to push the buildings further down toward Highway 54, allowing the area to remain undisturbed. He said the other site allowed the developer to create a smaller unit plan for the 15% affordable units to be in compliance with the requirements.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said the Board was supportive of the Manager’s recommendations, especially the affordable housing provision.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted to be on the record that he was opposed to the affordable housing all being placed together, especially next to the recycling center and behind the supermarket. He said it was not a satisfying result, segregating the affordable units instead of having them scattered throughout the development.
Council Member Verkerk asked why the two projects were being considered together, and if the condominiums were brought up as a separate proposal the development would be held to an affordable housing standard. Mr. Poveromo said the applicant had issued one proposal for the two sites, and the staff felt it would be acceptable to consider it as a single application under the umbrella of the Meadowmont Land Use Master Plan. He noted that on previous occasions the Council had accepted a single SUP with two separate sites. Mr. Poveromo said it was the applicant’s proposal to satisfy the 15% affordable housing in the Greenway site.
Council Member Bateman, speaking about a letter from Milt Blackburn which talked about the encroachment on the meadow, asked for comment on that. Mr. Poveromo said he thought it referred to Health Decisions, which was a future proposed development encroaching on the meadow, not on the site under consideration.
Mayor Foy asked about the writer’s comment about “significantly increasing the density.” Mr. Poveromo said it was shown as conceptual, with no specific numbers, as in other sites in Meadowmont’s Master Land Use Plan. He said in some cases it was based on square footage.
Mayor Foy said he would like to know how many buildings would actually show up on the Master Land Use Plan. Mr. Gannon said the writer was present when the project was being discussed, and did express concern about the meadows, but she never said anything about the applicant’s project
Council Member Strom said he had a strong preference about having the affordable housing units in the Land Trust, as opposed to the Providence Glen proposal. He encouraged the applicant to work toward that model.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked if neighbors were notified about this evening’s Public Hearing. Mr. Poveromo said the staff notified a current mailing list of property owners living within 1,000 feet.
Mayor pro tem Evans said she knew of some residents in the Meadowmont community who knew what to expect with this type of community and were supportive of what was being done.
Council Member Harrison noted that the area map in the Council’s packet was not current. He said he had not expected that the affordable housing would all be concentrated in the Greenway area.
Council Member Ward asked for some clarity on the sidewalk on the east side of the Greenway. He said he wanted to ensure a logical connection to the commercial area from the building. Mr. Poveromo said the staff had noticed this comment from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Planning Board and had hoped to address this with Stipulation #7, for a more comprehensive plan for pedestrians around the Greenway site. He said the staff could look more closely at this.
Council Member Verkerk said she would like more information about the idea of the Land Trust as suggested by Council Member Strom.
Council Member Ward asked for information about the hours the recycling center would be in operation. Mr. Horton said it would be similar to that at University Mall, and it would be a County operation.
Mayor Foy asked if there was a road that came into the parking area of the building. Mr. Poveromo said half would be under the building on the ground level and the other half would be in the parking lots. Mr. Gannon described the lay of the site.
Mr. Gannon said he agreed with the proposed conditions as written in the Manager’s Recommended Resolution A. He added that there was a problem with the units being in the Land Trust because they were condos and owned by the community, not individuals. He said if ten units were alone, they would be right for the Land Trust.
Council Member Strom said this would be similar to the model at the Homestead with units standing alone. Mr. Gannon said the units in the Greenway would be very dignified and were similar to what had been built at Southern Village.
Mayor Foy said he would be in favor of having some of the units being put into the Land Trust, rather than spreading them throughout the two sites.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1, TO SET CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE HILLTOP CONDOMINIUMS AND GREENWAY CONDOMINIUMS AT MEADOWMONT (2002-02-18/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 for the Hilltop Condominiums and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont, proposed by Roland Gammon and White Oak Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Maps 52, Lot 6 and Lot 38 (PIN#s: 9798-66-4564 and 9797-86-4799),. 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 application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 500 feet of the site.
This the 18th day of February, 2002.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 25, AND TO REFER THIS TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 p.m.