MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1996 AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Council Members present were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck, and Lee Pavão. Council Member Barbara Powell was absent, excused. Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, and Planning Director Roger Waldon.

Item 1 - Request for a Special Use Permit for Beechridge

Planned Development, Phases II and III

Planning Director Roger Waldon gave a brief overview of the item before the Council. Mr. Waldon stated the site is adjacent to Morgan Creek Hills, a single-family subdivision of 35 lots off Bayberry and Azalea Drives. He said that this undeveloped 37-acre tract was included in the Town's 1992 Southern Small Area Plan. Mr. Waldon indicated the developer proposes to extend the western half of Bayberry Drive eastward about 850 feet, with the street ending in a cul-de-sac. He stated this connection would serve 9 proposed lots. Mr. Waldon said the developer also proposes another internal cul-de-sac street off the existing western section of Bayberry Drive to serve 13 proposed lots, with five additional proposed lots to have direct access onto the existing eastern end of Bayberry Drive.

Mr. Waldon stated a major issue is the sewer easement adjacent to Morgan Creek Hills. He said a 100' length of elevated sewer line is proposed behind Lots 25 - 27 in an existing public utility easement, half of which is on adjacent Morgan Creek Hills lots. Mr. Waldon indicated the neighbors who would be affected have raised a concern about the aesthetic impact of the easement clearing in this low-lying area and the elevated sewer line in their back yards.

Kevin Huggins, the developer, gave a brief history of the development of this area. He stated that a development plan was put in place to environmentally protect this property during development, such as no planned development in the Resource Conservation District. Mr. Huggins indicated that with this proposed plan, all of the building sites would be at least 50 feet from the line of the Resource Conservation District, which should assure the preservation of the stream. He stated he has only one major concern about the staff's proposal, which is the extension of Bayberry Drive. Mr. Huggins said all previous plans indicate the extension of Bayberry Drive was planned with future development. He stated the proposed cul-de-sac street layout would avoid crossing the ravine on the site, which would protect natural drainage ways, protect the steep slopes and other sensitive areas, protect the Resource Conservation District and water quality especially where there is a practical alternative, and protect the large trees and natural habitats where possible.

Mr. Huggins asked if the traffic problem on Azalea Drive is one of the number of cars or the speed of cars. Mr. Huggins stated he believes, based on previous statements by neighbors, that speed is the major concern, and there is a solution to speeding on Bayberry and Azalea Drives. Mr. Huggins said a three-way stop sign at the Azalea intersection and a four-way stop sign at the Bayberry intersection would force traffic to slow considerably. He said some neighbors had concerns about this proposal, but Mr. Huggins said this tactic had been used on Elliott Road with some success.

Mr. Huggins stated if the Council deems a connection is necessary, instead of the Bayberry Drive connection, stub-out Bayberry Court and allow access across the Blackwood property to Mt. Carmel Church Road. He asked the Council to visit the property and walk through it so that they more clearly understand the site.

Mary Reeb, speaking for the Planning Board, stated the Board voted 8 to 1 to recommend approval of the application with conditions, and referred the Council to their recommended Resolution C.

Mayor Waldorf stated that Gary Barnes could not be present tonight but had said he was concerned about the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation to the Council, as the Commission was not aware of the suggested Bayberry Drive connection. He asked the Council to allow the Parks and Recreation Commission to look at the plans once again.

Julie Coleman, a member of Southern Small Area Plan, stated she things it is important to make no exceptions to the zoning of this property. She indicated her concern is that the developer must keep the zoning in place as it now exists.

William Geer said he was involved in the development of Morgan Creek Hills, and the plans called for Bayberry Drive to eventually be extended. He said that he lives on Azalea Drive and the street is used as a highway, when the neighborhood was meant to be a quite place to live. Mr. Geer stated the current proposal would only increase the traffic problem on Azalea Drive. He said the developer is concerned about the environment, but does not appear to be concerned about the environment of Azalea Drive. Mr. Geer said the development itself will destroy the environment.

Thomas Traut, of 400 Bayberry Drive, stated he has access on three sides to the proposed development. He said his property would be adversely impacted on all three sides. Mr. Traut said the proposed pedestrian access pathway would surround two sides of his property. He said uphill of him will be five lots with greater than 15% slope, which means even more runoff to his property than he has now. Mr. Traut said he believes adults may follow the pathway, but he does not believe children will. He said they will naturally want to cut across his backyard to get to the recreation area. Mr. Traut said he believes there are solutions to these problems, and hopes that the final plans will indicate some changes to alleviate the potential problems to his property.

Larry Dahners indicated he is not happy with the sewer easement passing next to his property. He believes the cuts made in the ravine and along the property line will lower the value of his property. Mr. Dahners said on the plat this area is listed as a public easement, not a utility easement, which he said he interprets as a pedestrian easement, not a sewer easement. Mr. Dahners said he believes the sewer should be placed through a nearby empty lot.

Fred Smith, who resides at the corner of Azalea and Bayberry Drives, said he is against the pedestrian walkway proposed along his property line. He said the developer is protecting hickory and redbud trees in some areas, but destroying them in others. Mr. Smith said the runoff and erosion from the property located above his will further devalue his property. He said instead of the proposed pathway, he urges one of the interior lot boundaries be used instead, so that his property would not be impacted.

Terry Kitson, of 100 Azalea Place, said he encouraged the developer to run the sewer lines underground rather than through property owners' yards. He indicated that OWASA had said they preferred underground lines to above ground lines. Mr. Kitson said that it makes more sense to run the sewer line so that all 20 proposed lots will be able to take advantage of water and sewer, and the proposed sewer line does not do that. Mr. Kitson said if Bayberry is connected, the sewer line could be run up the side of the road.

Stephen Mumford, of 322 Azalea Drive, said there was a petition given to the Council which indicated that 92% of the signers believed that deaths would occur if this road continued to be used as a feeder road. He said they would oppose any plan which would not decrease traffic.

Robert Gardinier, of 320 Azalea Place, bought his property in 1972 with the assumption that Bayberry Drive would be extended when the property was developed. He said that over the past 25 years, plans had been modified in the area, which had eliminated other exits from the neighborhood. Mr. Gardinier said this is the last opportunity for the egress from this neighborhood to be improved. He said there is inadequate access east to west, and feels that Bayberry Drive should be extended to improve the traffic flow.

Fred Stevens said he is very concerned about the connection of Bayberry Drive across the Resource Conservation District. He said he cannot in good conscience remain silent and let the neighbors encourage the Town not to connect Bayberry Drive. Mr. Stevens stated that the cul-de-sac design proposed by the developer would not impact the Resource Conservation District and he is in favor of it. He asked the Council to slow the traffic in the area, but please don't impact the Resource Conservation District in the Morgan Creek area. Mr. Stevens said the Council has a chance to preserve the natural integrity of the area.

David Lee said that Azalea Drive has become a dangerous road. He said it is not just a question of volume, but of speed. Mr. Lee said children are often playing or riding bikes, and speeding cars are common.

Nancy Davis, of 200 Azalea, stated her home faces Bayberry Drive. She said that because of the configuration of Bayberry, strangers frequently stop at her home to ask for directions. She asked the Council to please extend Bayberry Drive.

Mary Brady, of 1401 Greenbluff Trail, stated he has lived there over 20 years. She said when she first moved here, Bayberry was closed, and there was hardly any traffic. Ms. Brady said traffic is a problem in the Azalea/Bayberry area, and cars sometimes travel at speeds up to 50 mph. Ms. Brady asked the Council to reconsider the Bayberry Drive access, and to close it off so that traffic would be forced to travel at slower speeds.

Council Member Brown said she would like to see a map of the entire area when the item is brought back before the Council. She said the point made by Ms. Brady indicates there may be other alternatives which have not been studied.

Mayor Waldorf indicated that the speeding problem is not under the Town's jurisdiction, but the County Sheriff's office.

Council Member Andresen said that even though we have no authority to act in that area, she believes the Council should communicate these concerns to the County. She indicated she would like OWASA to take another look at this proposed development with the idea that the entire area should eventually be served by water and sewer.

Council Member Evans stated she had visited the site and agrees that the slopes are very steep. She asked that the Manager come back with other potential road connections, to include how future development may impact these connections. Council Member Evans said she believes the likelihood of accidents is very high in this area. She indicated she lives very near an aboveground sewer, and it is not a problem. Council Member Evans said she would like to know how many of the lots would have water and sewer. She said if the Resource Conservation District were crossed, a bridge might have less impact than a culvert on the Resource Conservation District and the environment since a lot of fill would not have to be brought in.

Council Member Capowski asked the Town Engineer to comment on the 12% grade extended down to a stop sign pointed out on the map by Mr. Huggins. He also asked if the Town can be depend on the applicant to calm the traffic on Azalea Drive. Council Member Capowski said there is nothing in Resolution A about improving the street frontage on the 6 lots that front on Bayberry Drive, regarding widening or other.

Council Member Brown stated she would like the Southern Small Area Plan to play a part in the recommendations for this property.

Mayor Waldorf stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission would like to take another look at this, and that OWASA should be asked to look at the proposal again, as well as the Manager coming back with answers to the questions.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE MANAGER, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND THE ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, AND TO RECESS THE HEARING UNTIL JUNE 24TH. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 2 - Rezoning of Bypass Lane

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated that the subject property consisted of seven lots on 15-501 and Fordham Boulevard, 2.5 acres in size. He said the proposal is to rezone the property from R-2 to OI-1-C. Mr. Waldon said the key to this proposal is an offer to restrict the uses of the property by the developer. He said staff recommends approval of the proposal.

Mary Reeb, speaking for the Planning Board, stated the Planning Board approved this proposal with a unanimous vote.

Grainger Barrett, speaking for the applicant, said they had worked hard to bring a suitable proposal before the Council, and thanked the Planning Board and the staff for their help. He said there are other residential areas that may be on service roads, but in this area the service road faces a major roadway with no connection to other residential areas. Mr. Barrett said these 7 lots only connect to 15-501 and commercial areas, and that conditions support the zoning change. He said that the environment should not be impacted since the Resource Conservation District is not affected. Mr. Barrett said lot 4 has sewer extended to it, but none of the other lots do. He said he anticipates that connections would be made as Special Use Permit conditions are met during development.

Julie Coleman said a suggestion had been made that a landscape architect plant trees along Fordham Boulevard as screening and for its attractive effects.

Council Member Evans said she was glad that the Council would have an opportunity to require water and sewer hookups. She inquired about the definition of a "club". Mr. Waldon read the definition. Council Member Evans inquired about the possibility of eliminating this as a use category for the application. Mr. Barrett, the applicant's representative, expressed his willingness to do so.

Council Member Andresen asked could those types of enterprises, such as bars, be prohibited. Mr. Barrett said he would be glad to add those restrictions to the list so that there would be no chance of that happening. Council Member Andresen agreed with Ms. Coleman, stating that a landscape architect should be used to improve the screening along the property line. Mr. Horton indicated it would be appropriate for that to be required by the Council. Council Member Andresen asked if larger structures could be built on the property, and could the Council control that. Mr. Waldon answered that there are different parts of the ordinance which speak to different issues, but higher structures would impact the Resource Conservation District. He said he believes all of this property is in the floodplain. Mr. Waldon said all development of this property would come before the Council as a Special Use Permit, so additional conditions could be placed on the property at that time, as well as modifications to the ordinance. He said it is not precluded that buildings could be extended there, but the Council would have an opportunity to control that during the Special Use Permit process.

COUNCIL MEMBER CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 3 - Glenwood Exxon Service Center Application

for a Special Use Permit

Planning Director Roger Waldon stated the Council approved an application for a Special Use Permit in 1989. He said on February 12, 1990 the Council approved a request for a Modification of the Special Use Permit to extend the time limits for starting construction to February 13, 1991. Mr. Waldon said since the dates for beginning and ending construction have passed, the Special Use Permit has expired so the applicant has submitted a new Special Use Permit application.

Mr. Waldon said a key issue which has arisen is the design of the canopy and the adequacy of the buffers. He said the applicant is proposing to construct a canopy over the pumps, 80 feet in length and 26 feet in width and 15 feet, 8 inches high. Mr. Waldon said in front of the door of the convenience store the canopy would extend an additional 8 feet in width. He stated the Appearance Commission has requested the canopy be lowered, and staff believes this is a reasonable request. Mr. Waldon stated this would mean that Town garbage trucks could not pass under the canopy, so the dumpsters would have to be reoriented so that they could be serviced from the shopping center driveway. Mr. Waldon stated staff proposes that the applicant provide a buffer along NC 54 of 5 feet, which would leave 16 feet of available space between the buffer and the pumps.

Council Member Andresen asked which of the three requests were supported by staff.

Mr. Waldon stated that although staff recommended that all three of the requested modifications be made, it was being recommended that alternative buffers be approved by the Appearance Commission.

Edward Holmes, speaking for the applicant, stated they have been working for several years to find an ideal plan for this facility. He said double-walled tanks have already been installed, and plans are underway to environmentally protect the area. Mr. Holmes said they are pleased with the site plan, and have a vested interest in approving the overall quality of the property. He said he was concerned about the restriction on construction in Department of Transportation right-of-way. Mr. Holmes said there is a lot of demolition necessary, and he is concerned that this restriction may impact that. He said they would prefer that the dumpsters not be located where they are currently sited, and asked that the Appearance Commission be given the final approval of the location of the dumpsters as well as the canopy height, since if the dumpsters are moved, this may affect the height of the canopy.

Mary Reeb, speaking for the Planning Board, stated they had voted 9 to 1 for approval of this request. She said they were willing to have an alternative buffer which would provide a landscaped screen. Ms. Reeb also stated the Board, if possible, would like the applicant to provide enough room between the curb and the gas pumps for two car widths, one for serving cars and one for bypassing parked cars.

Council Member Andresen asked the staff to respond to the question of whether or not it was really necessary to change an ordinance for the sake of one small development. She stated that service stations should be attractive since they are necessary. Council Member Andresen stated she believes the Town should contact the Department of Transportation to encourage them to allow the planting of a buffer along their right-of-way.

Council Member Evans said this is her neighborhood shopping area, and hopes that the applicant would make the area as attractive as possible. She suggested that maybe the applicant could make use of dumpsters already available in the shopping area rather than installing more. Mr. Holmes stated they had looked at this alternative, but believed the waste generated by this facility would make additional dumpsters necessary. Council Member Evans encouraged the applicant to consider using more brick on the exterior to make it more compatible with the existing shopping area. She also indicated that people have developed their own access by driving over the curbs, and is pleased that this problem will be solved. Council Member Evans asked where the phone booth would be located, and stated the parking should be provided in front or very near it. She also stated the buffer is very important, and if the size of the building has to be lowered, then it should be.

Council Member Brown asked what specifically the Transportation Board was referring to when it asked about the access to the new Credit Union site and avoiding the intersection of Hamilton Road and NC 54. Mr. Horton said he believed they were referring to avoiding the controlled intersection of Hamilton and NC 54 entering the station property from NC 54, by exiting the property through the rear on to Hamilton Road, next to the Credit Union.

Council Member Capowski asked the staff to check on the environmental status of the area, since tanks were replaced two years ago. He asked the staff to determine how this might affect the area.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

Item 4 - Report from the Southern Village Evaluation Group

Planning Director Roger Waldon gave a brief overview of the report. He stated that the Council had scheduled this Public Hearing time to receive the report and hear public comment.

Bruce Guild, speaking for the Evaluation Work Group, stated that the purpose of the Work Group was to respond to issues raised in the January 10 petition to the Council from the Smith Level Alliance. Mr. Guild said the first thing they were asked to do was to compare the development as built to date with the Southern Small Area Plan, including the Comprehensive Plan of June 23, 1992 and the original staff and developer's comments and public comments. He said the Work Group was also asked to compare the development as built to date with the Council-approved Master Plan and Special Use Permits. The third request was to prepare a response to those issues raised in the January 10 petition from the Smith Level Alliance.

Mr. Guild stated that the Work Group had reviewed the general concept of the village center in regard to the Southern Small Area Plan and found the existing development to agree closely with this concept. He said it was not feasible to review all the documentation within the allowed time frame, but they did review over 13 hours of videotape of public hearings and found no unfulfilled promises by any of the parties.

Mr. Guild said the Master Plan and Special Use Permits were made available to the Work Group. He said site visits were conducted and Work Group members were urged to note items which seemed to differ from those documents. Mr. Guild said the only significant discussion following these site visits centered around development within the Resource Conservation District. He said that although no nonconforming uses were found within the Resource Conservation District, the Council may want to review Article 5 of the ordinance to insure that watercourses are being protected as intended.

Mr. Guild said the Work Group had prepared a detailed response to the questions raised by the Smith Level Alliance, and the Work Group's answers to these questions are summarized in the materials presented to the Council in tonight's packet. He said the responses were prepared with the understanding that the findings should lead to recommendations to the Council to improve the final phase of this project and similar projects in the future.

Mr. Guild briefly mentioned the Work Group's concern that Smith Level Road be protected using stub outs. He said the Work Group had discussed this, and asked if the intention of the Council was to eventually connect this development with Smith Level Road. He said there was some discussion about the rate this development was progressing and asked if the appropriate infrastructure was in place. Mr. Guild also indicated the neighbors were concerned about the possible negative impact from the development, and asked that the Council keep these concerns in mind.

Julie Coleman stated she had watched 11 of the 13 hours of videotapes, and suggested that the Council take another look at the tapes, especially the older ones, to refamiliarize them with the issues. She pointed out the neighbors in the area are concerned about the rate of development and the impact, and stated she does not believe the drainage is working effectively in the area.

Will Allen, a member of the Work Group and a resident of Southern Village, stated he believes the process used and the makeup of the Work Group was very effective. He said that monitoring the development on an ongoing basis was a very worthwhile and should help in evaluating the Special Use Permits.

Livy Luddington, a member of the Work Group, said that the process used was worthwhile. She said she would like the Council to pay attention to protecting the wildlife in this development and in others proposed in the future. Ms. Luddington said she hoped the devastation could be controlled. She also said she would like to preserve as many natural resources as possible in the area.

Robin McWilliam, a member of the Alliance, said he also believed that the process was a good one. He stated he does think that the nearby neighbors' concerns may not have been given the proper weight due to the brevity of the report. Mr. McWilliam said the nearby neighbors may not always be well informed, but this process had allowed them to become better informed. He asked that the quality of life of the neighbors been considered, and that they be notified of anything which might have an impact on them. He also asked that the potential traffic volume increase not be forgotten.

David Cooke, a member of the Work Group, said he is concerned about the impact on the Resource Conservation District. He said that it appears to him that a variance is needed because of the original intent of the ordinance, which was to protect single-family housing. Mr. Cooke said in this situation there is a lot more flexibility on where a road is place. He stated when watching the video, the developer indicates the Resource Conservation District is being protected, but that is not really what happened.

Council Member Evans thanked Mr. Guild for chairing this Work Group. She said she would like to know exactly where the line is for the University Lake watershed. Council Member Evans pointed out that the greenway trail was paved so that it would provide an alternative mode of transportation to the University's property, specifically bicyclists.

Council Member Brown, referring to erosion control, asked if it was common for sedimentation ponds to fail. Mr. Horton answered that the technology for sedimentation control is not always carried out effectively in all cases. Council Member Brown asked what the Council could do about it. Mr. Horton stated that when the Council refers the issue to the Manager, the staff would then work on obtaining the information necessary to answer these concerns.

Council Member Brown, referring to the Resource Conservation District, said she had looked over the site, and did not believe that the intent of the ordinance had been fully carried out. She said the Resource Conservation District section of this property had been bulldozed, filled, and seeded. Council Member Brown said that the Resource Conservation District ordinance should be enforced during any future development of the site. She said that she hopes the Council will do better in the future. Council Member Brown also asked that the potential traffic impact be studied and a goal be developed. She indicated mass transportation would be one way to address this issue. Mr. Guild said that once the commercial areas was in place, the hope was that many residents would stay within the area, but there was no way to know this until the areas were built-out.

Council Member Andresen said the value in this process is to see what has worked and what has not. She said she is also concerned with the environmental impacts, as some areas will be disturbed more than others. Council Member Andresen asked if the traffic mitigation efforts had worked. She also said she does not believe the buffers were adequate, and asked staff to take another look at that. Council Member Andresen said she is also concerned that the Resource Conservation District be enforced. She said she agreed with Ms. Luddington that wildlife should be protected as much as possible. Council Member Andresen said she would also like OWASA to look at the resources in this area. She stated when land is disturbed, there would be runoff which causes deterioration. Council Member Andresen asked if the steep slope ordinance was in effect when this project was approved. Mr. Horton responded it was not in effect at that time.

Mayor Waldorf stated the Council would formally communicate with OWASA about the issues raised tonight, and asked to staff to assist with that. She agreed with Council Member Andresen concerning the impact on wildlife, and agreed that the Resource Conservation District should be more strictly enforced.

Council Member Brown said she thought some discussion should take place regarding whether or not the intent of the ordinance was being carried out.

Council Member Andresen asked when this matter would come back before the Council. Mr. Horton said a hearing on Southern Village is scheduled for May 15th.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.