MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF THE CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1996 AT 7:00 P.M.
Agenda
1. Continuation of the public hearings on the Southern Village development application.
Mayor Waldorf called the meeting to order. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Mark Chilton, Pat Evans, Richard Franck, Lee Pavao and Edith Wiggins. Also in attendance were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos.
Mayor Waldorf
This is our third special and extra meeting of this month, not necessarily extra-special but here we are and we have business to get done so we’ll try to press on. This is a continuation of a public hearing from the Southern Village Development applications for what we’re calling reports 1-3 which are requests for modifications of the master land use plan. I’d like to remind everyone, the Council and the audience that this is not the main public hearing on these items. That has already occurred. This is primarily the Council’s opportunity to deliberate and decide and we would very much appreciate it if those who wish to speak would limit their comments to the changes that have been made and please stick to reports 1, 2 and 3. Reports five through eight will come later in the week, actually later in the month. One of the things that I’d like to just mention to the Council tonight is that the Manager and I went over the agenda for next Monday night’s meeting today and it’s very long and it’s very loaded and I hate very much to suggest this but I think that what might work out is that we try to deal with everything else next Monday night and that we try to schedule Southern Village action items five through eight for another evening. I’m not sure we can get it all done on Monday night, so possibilities are next Tuesday night, possibly next Wednesday night, possibly November the 4th, possibly November the 6th. Mr. Manager, you have any other information on that?
Town Manager Horton
The 29th would conflict at least in some ways with the work of some Council Members who are on the Horace Williams Committee. I think they have a meeting scheduled earlier that evening and I’m not sure how long that would last. It would certainly make for a long evening for them.
I also checked out the other dates and the 6th would be a very difficult time for the applicant . The applicant has a commitment that would take him out of town on that date so the 30th or the 4th would be the dates that we would recommend.
Mayor Waldorf
Okay, so the 30th is next Wednesday and the 4th is a week from Monday. So the proposal for those who came in late is that we segregate the second portion of the Southern Village proposals from the rest of an already massive agenda for next Monday night and just go ahead and suck it up and recognize that we have to have an extra meeting.
Council Member Andresen
When will the extra meeting be?
Mayor Waldorf
The dates that seem to be possible are the 30th which is next Wednesday night or the 4th which is the following Monday night.
Council Member Andresen
Maybe we ought to try to set it tonight.
Mayor Waldorf
I agree. So let’s have a show of hands. All of those who cannot make it on the 30th please raise your hand. Joe can’t make it. And who cannot make it on the 4th. Mark.
Council Member Chilton
I mean I can but..
Mayor Waldorf
I know, it’s the night before elections. So Monday the 4th it is. I thought it might be helpful for the audience to know this that presuming that we get through the first set of Southern Village items tonight that we’ll have a meeting where we deal with the second set on Monday November 4th. Do we need a motion Mr. Manager?
Town Manager Horton
We would bring a resolution to you at your meeting on October 28th that would make this formal.
Mayor Waldorf
But I hope that everyone here can remember that and take note of it. Let’s move on then to the first item on the agenda which is Proposed Changes to the Master Land Use Plan. I just want to reiterate that this evening is primarily the Council’s opportunity to discuss this and make decisions and we’d like for folks to limit their comments to changes. Mr. Manager?
Town Manager Horton
Roger (Waldon) will make a brief introduction concentrating on the key issues and any changes in information since the last discussion by the Council.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
A quick word about context and where we are when we view these applications. We had public hearings in May and June on this set of Southern Village applications. There are requests for change and adjustment to what’s already been approved. As the Mayor has noted, there’s also some new requests on the table. We had hearings in May and June and then recessed the hearings and then reconvening tonight the hearings tonight on the proposed changes. What we have is a request for the proposed change to the Southern Village Master Plan, a proposed change to the Southern Village Special Use permit for the north-east tract and the third application we’re talking about tonight is the requested change to the approved special use permit for the Village core. As the Mayor mentioned the bulk of our presentations and our material and your discussion that happened in May and June at those public hearings is still part of this hearing, part of the record and we do not intend to re-hash all of that although all that material is there. It’s in your packets for the record and we will be happy to respond to any questions about the changes from 1993 approvals that are being requested tonight.
What I’m going to focus on is what’s different between when we last convened in June and tonight because what has happened, there were a number of concerns and issues raised at the hearings in May and June. The applicant has responded to those issues that were raised with some revisions and adjustments to try and accommodate the concerns that were raised in June and so we will want to be talking about those tonight. Let me show you a couple of overheads that I have and one of the reasons that I will be ¼ They are here and available and we can return to them at any point. For purposes of reminder of where we are, the area outlined in green is the Southern Village, the entire site. Outlined in magenta is the north-east tract and that is the second of the reports that we are considering tonight. Outlined in blue is the Village core. This is one may that we have found useful.
One of the changes that we have discussed in our memorandum is a change to the storm water management system that has been proposed; a substitution of a series of distributed ponds in lieu of a central lake and a few ponds. So I’ve got a map that we can come back to later that shows that configuration and show where those ponds will be. This last one has to do with this area right here in the Village core because the special use permit for the Village core is also proposing approval of a pair of office buildings that would be part of the special use permit for the Village core; These two buildings in yellow. There are several materials that we put at your places. There are letters, correspondence. I believe that one of the letters at your place is a letter from an attorney representing the Southern Village Apartments, offering those comments. Another item at your place is a memorandum about the issues related to the 1993 approval of the master plan that had been raised. A Council Member had been asking questions about comparison of the 1993 to the 1996 versions of the master plan with respect to the square footages that are referred to and so that’s on your table. And then the last item are some changes to the Resolution A for the master plan that we’re highlighting tonight.
There are a couple of things I’d like to point out. With respect to the master plan, there are some conditions of approval that there have been questions raised about this that I would just like to clarify. We had conditions that we were suggesting about safety railings that would be placed along 15-501 heading up to South Columbia St. and I wanted to make it clear for the record that when we’re calling for safety railings along that segment of road, we’re calling for these railings along a bridge, not along the entire section of road. So it’s to protect pedestrians and bicyclists as a measure of safety across the bridges, across Morgan Creek and 15-501. A couple of other things about the master plan recommendation. Council member Brown had pointed out to us that the 1993 master plan approval called for a 62,500 square foot limitation on commercial space in the Village core and with some reference to then other commercial space that would be located elsewhere in the Southern Village and that what the 1996 master plan that’s on your table tonight for approval calls for 80,000 square feet in the Village core. We are suggesting to you that in order to be clear about intentions about this that you specify in a resolution of approval, if that’s what you approve tonight, that you clearly specify limitations of the number of dwelling units overall in the Southern Village, on the amount of square feet of office space and the square feet of retail.
Mayor Waldorf
Roger, are those specifications in the Resolution A stipulations?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
They’re not in the packet that was sent out to you a few weeks ago. If they’re not at your places tonight then there was a late afternoon break-down. I’ll go get that so we have that language that clearly specifies those limitations.
Council Member Andresen
Could you explain to us why the difference between 62,500 and 80,000 square feet?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
It’s the applicant’s proposal. So you approved 62,500 square feet and in the materials that the applicant is proposing the limitation on the Village core would be 80,000 square feet. And our recommendation to you is that you keep it at 62,500 square feet. So we just wanted to clarify that. In that regard, there’s one other item that came up about the Village core in June and I wanted to call everybody’s attention to it. There is a limitation in the old master plan approval that called for a maximum of 15,000 square feet for the size of a grocery store and I remember that that was an item of discussion in May and June and I just wanted to call your attention to the fact that that is still in there. There is still a 15,000 square foot limit. We have not recommended raising that.
One other clarification with respect to the northeast tract, it’s not clear what a “natural trail” is. In the northeast tract you might recall that in May and June when we were talking about this, the applicant had suggested and we had agreed with the idea of pulling the greenway, bikeway for one short segment up close to the road. We thought that that was a good idea but then the Greenways Commission had suggested that if that be done that there should be a natural trail along the creek to allow the walkers to continue to walk along the natural trail. I just want to clarify that what we mean by a natural trail is something very modest and informal. Really just a matter of clearing away a little bit of brush formalizing a path that is already there along the creek. We are not talking about a major new graded, paved or graveled path along the creek.
With that introduction, let me remind us all of what’s in the packet that we have before us tonight. We have three reports. Report #1 deals with the request to modify the master plan for Southern Village and at the back of report #1 we have a recommended resolution of approval. So our recommendation to you is that you approve tonight resolution 1A that would approve the changes in the master plan with the condition and I’m sorry that that language about the specifying the maximum number of dwellings in the commercial and office space didn’t get to you. I’ll get that while someone else is talking. Report #2 tonight discusses the request to modify the northeast tract. Resolution 2B is also recommended. We recommend that you adopt resolution 2B which would approve those changes to the northeast tract. Then resolution 3A would modify the Village core special use permit. So we’re recommending that you adopt those resolutions and then there is one final resolution that we recommend that you adopt which is 3B. I mentioned those two office buildings in the Village core. In addition to this special use permit overall the applicant is requesting approval to allow the construction of those two office buildings that I pointed out. So our recommendation to you tonight is that you adopt resolution 1A, 2A, 3A and 3B which would approve master plan, the northeast tract, Village core modifications and then those two office buildings. The applicant is here and has some things that I know he wants to say.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I would like to go back to what you were talking about the approval of the 62,500 square feet. In the documents that we approved in 1993, traditional neighborhood design guidelines are mentioned in several of the documents that we passed and they are also mentioned in the documents that are registered in Orange County and so I suppose that those are legal documents. I noticed that there were stipulations that the design guideline that we were presented with in 1993 was to be revised but the revisions were specified in the resolution that we passed. But in looking at the actual revised guidelines I notice that.. and this was amended on March 4th, 1994 and this was actually after the applicant were registered in Orange County, but I noticed that the Village Core store front district is listed in that document as 80,000 square feet, so I would assume that that would need a correction too, if it is not in compliance with the our land use plan as we passed it in 1993.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
I’m glad that you saw that. I think that you are correct.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
And it might be well just to check and see if there are not some other things. We need to have that accurate too.
Mayor Waldorf
Questions only.
Council Member Andresen
I think these are key questions and I must say that I think we need to hear from the public and I think we need to have a discussion but the overview you’ve given is really an overview and we haven’t gotten much into the detail of this at all and there are many many questions and I’m wondering exactly organizationally how we’re going to take these on. I have two important questions to ask you now. One is, is the staff supporting reduction in the Village green district land area for the modification of the master plan?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
That was part of our recommendation.
Council Member Andresen
And why are you recommending that because it’s so foreign to the Village Green type of concept which we began this project with?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
There is still a Village Green in there but the applicant has proposed adjusting the limits of Village Green versus the other districts and based on experience over a couple of years of building and selling a seeing what the market is. So the change seemed to us to be quite minor and modest and reflecting what the market was seeking out there and it seemed like a reasonable approach.
Council Member Andresen
Okay. My next question has to do with the density option under the modifications of the master plan. It says here in one of the stipulations that under the density transfer option the developer may acquire land or obtain restrictions on the development of land if it is located within the same drainage basin as the Southern Village to help meet density thresholds for purposed to meet the watershed protection district. I’m wanting to know, first of all, why you’re recommending this and how it will work because it sounds to me like a TDI, a transfer density type of system and that seems to me kind of precedence setting here and I’m wonder why the staff is recommending.. since the density can’t be met on the site why you would offer other options to the developer?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
The watershed protection guidelines¼ can you help me by¼
Council Member Andresen
Yes, page 17, condition 12
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
As we were looking at the different ways of meeting the watershed protection requirements, both our local ones that are based on state requirements, there are different ways in our ordinance that you can do that. One is a low density option where the densities and impervious surfaces are low enough that there is no structural solution required, no ponds required. If the density and amount of impervious surface exceed a certain threshold then the structural solutions require the pond, for example. The applicant suggested that one idea and there is nothing in place right now but it seemed like a good idea and a creative approach, he wondered about the idea of buying development rights for nearby property that is in the same drainage basin. You’re absolutely correct, Ms Andresen, that it related to the concept of transfer development rights although it is not exactly that. It would be a way of ensuring that development didn’t occur within a certain area, within the same drainage basin such that the development that does occur in Southern Village and elsewhere does not exceed the thresholds that require a structural solution. The applicant requested that option be made available in the event that that seemed to be a desirable solution in the future and we thought it was a reasonable approach so we are recommending it.
Mayor Waldorf
I think we need to move on now to public comment. There’s plenty of time afterward for the council to ask questions. Again, I would say to the members of the public who signed up to speak this is not the main public hearing but it’s primarily an opportunity to comment on the changes from the information as it was presented in June. The first person is Jeff Poupar followed by Beth Merenshaw.
Jeff Poupart
My name is Jeff Poupart. I am President of the Culbreth Park Homeowner’s Association. Culbreth is located on the northern border of Southern Village. We had a Homeowner’s Association informational meeting on Oct. 27th and D.R. Bryan and Jim Earnhardt from Southern Village tried to address some of the concerns of Culbreth Park concerning their development. In general we were pleased with some of the modifications to the original plans. The issues in which Culbreth Park are most interested are; first we are gratified to learn that the buffering green space between our development and Southern Village will be larger than originally planned. These changes involve eliminating a road, keeping an existing wooded path as a right of way and preserving an historic oak in the west path as a mini-park. Second, the presentation from Southern Village included information as to some of the erosion control challenges, the necessity for clear-cutting and other dilemmas faced during construction on the steep terrain in the north east tract. Southern Village assured us that erosion control is a prime concern to them and we should feel free to contact them or any realtor authority if we saw a compromise of the existing erosion control devices. However, we remain very concerned. Will Fan Branch be further impacted if 16 to 20% of the wetlands in the RCD are compromised as proposed in this special use request? I’ve personally witnessed an increase in the silt-loading of Fan Branch, I used to walk my dog there every single day before they started the clear-cut and Fan Branch ran perfectly clear with mussels on the bottom, just a perfect, pristine creek and now you can actually see it forming a delta of silt where it joins into Morgan Creek and Fan Branch is actually dirtier than Morgan Creek where it used to be the other way around. But we do appreciate the high density aspect of Southern Village where you can have high density and then preserve a lot of the southern area, small area but¼..
Third, they presented the original greenway plan and explained numerous reasons why the plan should be modified. They then presented the new plan drawn up by Greenways Inc. and picturing myself as a pedestrian, I feel the new plan is probably safer than the original plan would have been. We strongly feel that Southern Village should abide by its original agreement to build the greenway to the north side of the creek using this new design. This timely link will ensure that the rapidly growing southern area will become unified with the rest of Chapel Hill. Fourth, the community of Culbreth Park is divided on the lake versus pond issue. We are disappointed that the current lake proposal does not seem to offer the recreational aesthetic benefits of the original plan. There are numerous opinions and concerns about the proposals from residents in our development, especially form those whose lots directly abut Fan Branch Creek RCD. These concerns include increased traffic noise from 15-501 from the cutting necessary for the lake whose incarnation offers little value to Culbreth Park residents. Finally, we would much prefer not to have a stub-out road onto Culbreth Road due to traffic impacts. Traffic impacts can already be observed on a daily basis, most notably in the morning on Culbreth Rd. However, should a stub-out road become absolutely necessary, we strongly support the required left hand turn lane as listed in Resolution 1A, 10P. We continue to look forward to working with the town and Southern Village to preserve the exceptional quality of life we enjoy.
Ruth Marenshaw
Good evening, my name is Ruth Marenshaw and I am here on behalf of the Board of Directors of Chapel Hill Day Care Center, a center with which over the last two years most of you have become intimately familiar. We’re here to speak with regard to the Village Core of Southern Village. We are very happy to be in permanent quarters at the far end of Southern Village. If you haven’t been down that way, we are on the far side of the traffic roundabout. Right now we are the Village core. It’s us and a parking lot. We would like to have neighbors and we would like to encourage you to do whatever you can to facilitate the orderly development of that end of Southern Village. Thank you.
June Dunnick
As you review these modifications, I recommend that we consider two points. The number of playing fields in this proposal is limited to one soccer field. This is not sufficient to meet the needs of this Village development. Two, the combined number of trips of this and other new neighborhoods on NC 54 will prevent a reasonable traffic flow pattern for this road.
Alisa Corrin
Dear Mrs. Mayor and Members of the Town Council. My name is Alisa and I go to Frank Porter Graham Elementary School in the 5th grade. I think building so many houses in Southern Village is a bad idea. I think it’s a bad idea because the houses are really close together and they hardly have any front or back yard. I’ve heard a lot of kids were going to move to Southern Village and I can tell you one thing, kids like to play in a big yard better than a small yard where they might have to go into the street to catch an overthrown ball and I think the parents won’t like them going into the street either. Sincerely, Alisa.
Hall Corrin
Madam Mayor and Members of the Town Council. My name is Hal Corrin and I live at 116 Fanbranch Lane. I’m 8 years old and in the 3rd grade. If you keep on building houses then there won’t be any more walks with our dog, we won’t see fish at the creek anymore. Fun and love for the creek won’t be there anymore. A lot of people love the creek. The creek is some animal’s home. You can’t always put people first. Animals can’t live everywhere, people can. Think about everybody’s feelings about .. and the animal’s and yours. Thank you for your time.
Jennifer Conrad
I seem to have a very difficult act to follow. I’m a former board member of Chapel Hill Day Care and a member of the development team that helped develop the new facility. In fact, I think I was the first person that Jim Earnhardt approached about locating in Southern Village. And I remember being stunned that they would want a non-profit Day Care center in Southern Village, with emphasis on the “non” part of the non-profit. I’d like to say that during the two year process of our relocation in which I’m sure I did telephone most of the Town Council members as well, they were extremely helpful in guiding us through a process in which we had little or no in-house expertise. But as they spoke about the Village core, we became quite excited about the possibility of being there. I think that part of the reason that we were excited, we were excited about being close to houses where the parents of our children might live and being close to office buildings and so forth where our parents would eventually work. We are at the moment fairly isolated and we hope the board will consider the changes to the Village Core that we think will make us less isolated in the future. Thank you.
Jane Steenstra
I’m Jane Steenstra, my husband and I are residents of Southern Village. While serving on the Southern Village evaluation group and then subsequent public hearings on related matters, I have listened to many negative comments concerning Southern Village. One of the things that has struck me during this experience is that those who are speaking in opposition seem to have lost sight of the vision that the Town of Chapel Hill had in designating a Village pattern for the area now know as Southern Village.
I’d like to say a few positive things about Southern Village. Sociologists tell us that fabric that unites American communities is disintegrating because we don’t get to know our neighbors, much less, care about them. The reasons for this disintegration are numerous but the physical layout of a community is one. As a resident of Southern Village, I can report to you that people do get to know and appreciate each other because we see them and talk with them. And while we are all involved in the larger community the neighborhood orientation of Southern Village makes it a great home base for people of all ages. Of the comments directed against Southern Village, the majority of concerns are environmental impacts yet most of the advantages afforded by a village plan as set forth in the June 1992 Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan involve environmental considerations. Examples include a reduced dependence on cars, a concentration of buildings which allows for more surrounding land to remain undeveloped and economy in the distribution of public services. These are long-term benefits for our environment. It might be difficult for some folks to think in terms of the finished product at this point in time when so much of the development process at Southern Village is incomplete but I ask our critics to try to be patient along with those of us who live in the midst of the construction. It is going to get better.
I invite our critics to look ahead to the time when the raw earth will again be clothed with vegetation and they will be coming to Southern Village to enjoy our recreation facilities, shops and other public places. Chapel Hill made a good decision in 1993 when it provided for the creation of a village type of development. Mr. Brian, Southern Village developer, has demonstrated good faith in executing that vision and I hope that the Chapel Hill Council will see fit to give a speedy approval for the completion of the project.
Scott Glasser
I’m a resident of Southern Village and I would like to speak to the lake versus ponds issue tonight but I’d like to preface my comment tonight with a thank you to our neighbors in Dogwood Acres, Smith Level Road and Culbreth Park. I think it’s through their diligent efforts that we’ve been able to identify significant improvements in the plan so that the plan that is before you now is significantly better than it was and I find that it’s when the developer works with all the residents of southern Chapel Hill that we arrive at the best solution for the region. Regarding the lake versus ponds issue, let me state some assumptions. First of all, that state requirements and local ordinance require wet water retention in the area to satisfy requirement for flood control and water quality control. Secondly, that the plan the developer has put before you are the only viable alternatives for satisfying these requirements and third that the data that the developer has provided to us regarding maintenance costs, RCD impact, alga growth and mosquito control and such things is accurate. Given these assumptions, neither plan I would consider an amenity, however, I believe that the distributed homes option is workable. I do not believe the lake is and this is why. The lake and ponds option provides the greatest ground disturbance especially in the RCD biofactor of about 2 to 1.
With regard to aesthetics I think clearing the tree buffer between Southern Village and 15-501 would be very undesirable and I think a grass slope and a concrete spillway as a frontage on 15-501 would not be desirable. Furthermore, in terms of maintenance, the long slope and the narrow shape of the lake complicates a maintenance issue of the lake significantly, complicates mowing, mosquito control and such things and maintenance costs for the lake would be greater than the distributed ponds by about a factor of about 9 to 1. Since the homeowners would be expected to bear this burden, it’s certainly a cost that we would not want the council to impose on us. The ponds, there are some issues. We have been told that the alga growth issue will be taken care of by the depth of the ponds. There are various mosquito control measures the developers committed to us using 3 to 1 slopes on the side of the ponds, possibly using mosquito fish or mosquito larvae killing bacteria and we expect these to be followed up on. And the maintenance requirements and costs are in line with the developer’s estimates. Under these assumptions and conditions, I do believe that the distributed ponds option is acceptable and let me reiterate, I do not believe the lake option is acceptable. Regarding the relocation of pond I across Wilson Creek for the staff recommendations I do not have an opinion except that I would like to see the staff specify where that pond should go prior to approving their recommendations.
Dee Stuckey
Good evening, my name is Dee Stucky. My husband and I live at 105 Braswell Place in the Southbridge neighborhood. We are greatly concerned about the increase in density proposed in the Southern Village development and the effects it will have on the surrounding neighborhoods and the Morgan Creek watershed. We are especially concerned about the planned cut-through connector road from Southern Village and the impact it will have on the neighborhoods along Culbreth Road. Of great importance is the threat to the safety of neighborhood children and their access to Culbreth Middle School. I invite the board members to observe the current traffic situation on a typical school day morning as Mayor Waldorf did several years ago at the invitation of Joyce Tennyson. This was in response to a request for a school crossing guard which subsequently was granted. The traffic now is certainly no less than it was at that time and would be dramatically increased by people using the cut-through to take advantage of the stoplight at either end of Culbreth Road. Not only residents of Southern Village would use this route but also Chatham Co. commutes attempting to avoid 15-501. If a recent traffic assessment study has been done on the impact a cut-through road from Southern Village would have on Culbreth Road we would like those figures to be made available. If such a study has not been done yet, we request that one be conducted. And as I listened to the earlier speaker talk about the vision of Southern Village, it indeed sounds like a very desirable environment but I hope that it doesn’t come at the expense of the pre-existing neighborhoods.
Julie Coleman
Good evening Mayor Waldorf and Council. I’m only going to do two points because I feel they’re important. On page 45 of your packet #11 it says, “Please describe the reason for the stub-outs to the west. The Southern Small Area Plan contemplated a network of streets and roads that would provide good connection throughout the area. Connections were envisioned between this Southern Village property and the property to the west.” This is not true. I was on these small area plan and that was never brought up. I am for this village. I know quite a few people in the Southern Village don’t think I’m for the village but I was one of those that did vote for the Village and as three or four other members did it was under the idea that it was a small village, self-contained and had access to 15-501.
I just talked to a Cary city planner and he has also looked at Southern Village and he loves the Village concept but it’s the village concept on the wrong topography and that is the problem we’re having. It’s just that if it was on a flat topography,¼it’s about the same amount of acres of the fair that I just went to today and the fair’s all flat and you can put a lot in it. This is not flat lands and that is an issue and the issue’s also the original idea of the Small Area Planning as self-contained.
Reagan May
Good evening, my name is Reagan May and I’m here wearing a couple of different hats. First, I’m here on behalf of the residents of Southern Village. There are quite a few of us here this evening. There are quite a few of us that were here last week who were unable to be here tonight. We’ve chosen to make our voices heard through just a couple of speakers tonight, partly out of consideration for your time but also partly out of consideration for the fact that we want to see this development allowed to move forward and we want that because we believe that what we’re experiencing at Southern Village is good. It’s good for us and for our children. It’s good for those businesses that will join Chapel Hill Day Care in the Village core one day. It’s going to be a good place for us to do business, to go to shops and surrounding public services. It’s going to be a place we believe we’ll take out of town guests and you’ll take out of town guests and say, “This is a wonderful part of our community. We had something to do with it.” We believe it’s going to be good for our community as a whole. We applaud those of you who had a part in the southern area plan, in seeing the vision for utilizing that total space, concentrating development in areas of high density so that the surrounding area could be left largely undeveloped. We think that’s a marvelous plan and we applaud it. But with equal emphasis, we applaud those who day in and day out are working to make that vision of your and others a reality and we realize that there are going to be changes along the way that will be necessary to make that vision a reality and we’re here tonight to say that we would like you to approve those changes. We believe that it will be good for us and for the community as a whole.
I’m also here tonight wearing another hat. That of Janis Owens who was here last week. Because she’s a leader of Girl Scouts in Chapel Hill, she was unable to be here tonight. She wanted to make comments regarding the proposed changes to the Village core on behalf of the members of Christ United Methodist Church. May I read her statement? “I’m Janis Owens representing the members of Christ United Methodist Church. Christ Church held its first service almost one year ago in Culbreth School auditorium. Since that first service, we have received our charter and our membership has grown dramatically. We’re still holding our services in Culbreth School but in less than one year we’ll be breaking ground for our new church at Southern Village. Our building design committee is now involved in the design phase of the construction process and our capital campaign committee has been very successful in raising the funds we need to begin construction. We are, of course, excited about the prospect of having a new church in which to worship and about becoming an integral part of the Southern Village community. Being a neighborhood church, our parking needs will include off-site and counter cyclical spaces near the church site. The changes for the proposed parking lot would provide many of the spaces our church will need on Sunday mornings. I would like to urge the council to agree with the recommendation of the town staff and approve the construction of the central parking area. Thank you.
Joanna Haymore
Recently a local commentary by a former city planner, now a consultant in RTP quoted a few figures and offered a metaphor I’d like to share. We just reached the 1 million mark for population in this region. In the next ten years we can expect 500,000 more people. That’s another Raleigh, Durham, Cary and RTP coming in. The metaphor goes like this. If you put a frog in boiling water, he or she will hop out but if you slowly boil the water, the frog will get cooked. I know that many of you believe that Southern Village is an attempt to meet a need in this region, that it was something good but I want you to think of the larger picture before you make your decisions tonight and in the next few weeks. Southern Village could be a real model but as it stands now, it doesn’t allow enough green space, enough natural space to maintain the quality of life that really prevents us all from being cooked, really swept into a huge megatropolis. Do you believe for one moment that the surrounding area will not also, when developed, push for density? Changes in the plan have been made to accommodate public input but it isn’t adequate. What will happen to the quality of life here when the next 500,000 people come? Part of the answer to this lies in your hands. You are the government and we are the people so these are things that I think. Protect the natural environment to the maximum possible. That’s wet lands, creek and beautiful stands of trees. Limit stub-outs areas like the Smith Level Road to preserve the precious rural character. Make sure that 100 feet or greater buffers lie between dense and existing neighborhoods to preserve the characters of each. These last three points are also the view point of Jean Francis who has adjoining property to Southern Village, with whom I met this past week. And she said that I could also speak for her since she lives elsewhere. Thank you.
Livy Ludington
I’d like to start out the way I usually do when I have spoken about the Southern Village and this is to all the people who live in the Southern Village. I think all of us applaud the concept but what we’re talking about is the reality and the number of people who will be living there and the impact it will have on the land and on the people who live around it. The maximum number of dwelling units is 1,388. That doesn’t even include the stores and offices that will be there as well. So we’re talking about something that is tremendous. It’s the largest development that we have ever had in this area.
I want to thank the Town Council for your resolution last night concerning Mason Farm. For you to see how important that is, that there is a sort of a cruel twist to this, that would be if you approve the density for the Southern Village and with Meadowmont also being there, Laurel Hill Parkway, which we all fought years ago in order to protect Mason Farm is going to be right back on there again. DOT has never taken it off of their plan and I saw sort of buried down in the packet of materials that you need to dedicate land for the Laurel Hill Parkway so please think about having protected it with your resolution last night, the impact that you’re going to have on it when this Laurel Hill Parkway is built. The athletic fields of UNC will be nothing compared to the impacts that that road would have.
Speaking of density, it took me a while to see this part about the transfer of density, this off-site density. To me, that’s the main problem.. to see how we could allow the density there to be transferred elsewhere when what we’re trying to do is protect Jordan Lake Watershed that is now drinking water for people and will be used by many people in the future. I also noted that the plans for storm water management and transportation plans.. the staff calls for these plans to be submitted. I don’t understand why those very plans have not been submitted for the entire site. It seems that all of that should have been done long ago. That you should see storm water and traffic impact long before. In the case of the lake versus the ponds, I still have a question. What happens if the lake is not built? Are houses going to be built in that area? Somehow I’ve missed that. In that case, it means there is even more density, houses that would be built instead of preserving the land. Finally, the ponds, if they are built, I think that everyone needs to look very carefully at the maintenance of those ponds. That the cost will be passed onto the homeowners. I think there should be a realistic assessment, evaluation of what those maintenance costs would be so that people have a good idea about how much money they will be paying for that. And finally whether or not you pass something like this, we always talk about public health, safety and welfare in terms of transportation and water quality. We’re talking about public health, safety and welfare. So please think on those. Thank you.
Dave Cook
My name is Dave Cook and I live on Smith Level Road. As to the Resource Conservation District, the ordinance as it was intended is simply not being upheld by the Planning Department. Whether their leniency in interpretation is their own inclination or comes from some direction from the Town Council, I don’t know but it is as effective in undermining the Resource Conservation District as any deliberate effort to do so by developers who might have a vested interest in doing so. In this last report, the question is, “Why were there no (this is on page 46 of your packet) Resource Conservation District’s variances obtained as part of the Southern Village Construction Plan? The second question is “What uses have (?) in the Conservation District? The first question, they don’t answer it. The question isn’t were there any variances, the question is why were there no variances. The second part, they do what others sometimes have done when trying to assure maximum use of property within the town’s jurisdiction as it pertains to the Resource Conservation District. They simply leave out the second part that which says, “permitted uses shall be subject to the provisions of section 5.6, 5.8 and the key words in section 5.5.1 where there is no practical alternative to their location within the Resource Conservation District.
The Planning Department leaves out any reference to section 5.6 which, for example states and I’d like to cite the gentleman who spoke from Culbreth earlier in regard to the silt in Fan Branch, “Cutting or filling will be permitted within the water course only if the resulting change of the hydraulic characteristics of the water course will reduce or maintain the velocity of flow during the base flood discharged in the vicinity of the development.” We have already seen evidence during this past rainy summer and during the recent storms that the encroachments to the Resource Conservation District during phase 1 of the building of Southern Village were a far cry from meeting these standards.
The language of the Resource Conservation District ordinance is much weaker than it was eight years ago. In the name of clarity, its original intent has been lost by recent translations. This, in combination with permissive interpretations by the Planning Department, is effectively gutting the integrity of the internal water course system of Chapel Hill. If we imagine this process to continue the effects on the future, it will be disastrous. I cite from a part of the RCD ordinance that was left out in the last translation which has great bearing on the future protection of the Resource Conservation District and on the town’s well being in general. It comes in that section that relates to the granting of variances. It said that a variance shall not be granted if the “issuance of the variance will set a precedence for future development in the Resource Conservation District which cumulatively may increase the flood hazard.” With this development and the interpretations of the Resource Conservation District ordinance we are looking at the future by way of the precedents that will be put into place by its approval. I request that a panel be put in place whose charge it will be to present to council and ordinance that will greater insure the integrity of the Resource Conservation District so as not to be eroded by a mission of language or by interpretation. I offer to the development being considered by the town council as it affects the Resource Conservation District and the actions or non-actions of the Planning Department in the planning of this development as evidence for the necessity of activating such a panel.
Margaret Brown
Good evening council. As I was looking through your documents for the evening, one thing did come to my attention that I have been very interested in for many, many years. I’d say 10 now and has been something I’ve worked on in the county. So I was very surprised to see it included here as part of the Southern Village in what I would certainly consider an ad-hoc fashion and that is, if I can refer you to page 17, some of the people mentioned it before, the density option. The county has been considering several density transfers and purchases of development right options for many years. From my understanding of it and I don’t think anyone understands this issue, this is not something to be entered into lightly. It is a program that someone should develop and I would suggest if the town is interested at this point that we all join together, all the communities and the county in developing a good transfer development option program. Take it to public hearing and really understand what the criteria would be for establishing these purchase of development rights.
I think one of the big things that the county has worked on is setting up a GIS mapping so that if this program were put into place we would understand how to purchase development rights that really accomplish something in terms of contiguous property and protecting sensitive area and wildlife corridors. And that is really what transfer development rights are all about. It’s a program to set up for good planning. This, to me, is in effect a way to circumvent a water shed protection regulation. So I was very disappointed to see it used that way because I think that if we really look at density transfer in a very positive way it could accomplish a lot in our county and in our community. So I would like to ask you not to include this as part of the Southern Village #12 but to refer it perhaps to shaping Orange County’s future where it could be looked at in a concept and in a way that would really help our entire area and our entire county and really establish the criteria standards that it deserves.
Will Allen
Good evening. My name is Will Allen, I’m a resident of Southern Village and I rise in support of Resolutions 1A, 2A, 3A and 3B. I’m just going to hit off a few points that relate to the changes in the plan. For the reasons that Scott Glasser stated this evening, I am also in favor of the distributed ponds option. I think the staff did an excellent job of going through the advantages and disadvantages and I think that’s the better selection in this case. I would like to highlight that I think it’s very important that the second crossing of Fan Branch be included. I think that good planning in this context involves multiple street connections and to have two that length and northeast tract and the west tract are going to be very important or you’re going to have a lot of traffic focusing on one length there. So I think those two are very important. I think that’s a good change.
In regards to the road, the “cut-through road”, I would characterize it a little bit differently. It’s a road, I believe it goes to the north linking it to a future subdivision know as Culbreth Ridge. Because of the interconnected winding street patterns of Southern Village, it would make little to no sense for anyone other than those in the northern portion of that Southern Village property to use that for circumventing the¼. In making that decision, I think it’s more important to link Southern Village to that Culbreth Ridge neighborhood. I also support the church in the additional parking in the village core. I think it will be very important to attract the kind of mixed-use retail development at the scale that is in the current plan. I would strongly encourage you to take a look at, if the developer agrees to it and you think it’s a good idea, to increase the size of the grocery store to maybe 20,000 square feet. I think that you have a better chance of getting that kind of retail in there at that and adjust one of the other pieces accordingly. The open space issue, I’d like to point out that in my participation on the Southern Village evaluation group that the development contains 33% open space which far exceeds a lot of other developments in that area and that in most case, actually in some cases it exceeds the buffer standards as specified by the town where there are no buffers technically required between two residential uses. In my work on the Southern Village evaluation group, we discussed this Laurel Parkway thing and I don’t think that’s a credible thing to consider. We had comments in that sessions that said that that was removed from these DOT plans. I really don’t think that that’s anything to consider. I agree with Margaret Brown on the density transfer issue. It’s a much broader thing and I’m out of time so¼
David Latowski
Good evening, as a profession performing civil and environmental engineering I have concerns about various aspects of this development project. However, for expediency I will focus on the interrelated concerns about water quality and stormwater run-off. With all due respect and with terms like Village Green and neighborhood district aside, this current development plan is high density housing project carved onto land with highly erodible soils and moderate to steep slopes. As such and with respect to the town’s ordinances enacted to protect water quality in the town’s watershed and the watershed of downstream communities, this type of development project should, in turn, provide for maximum protection to the adjacent surface water feature and the bottom land flood plane areas RCD along those waters.
Based on my additional review, the current plan proposed by the developer, I feel that the option to use a system of wet detention ponds is a more workable storm water management solution than a lake along Highway 15-501. However, it appears that the current design and/or siting of some of those ponds is seriously flawed given their proposed function as storm water management facilities and sediment retention. As currently proposed three of those ponds are situated in the local drainage sub-basin bottoms such that during storm events surface water run-off and ground water discharge from adjacent undeveloped lands must flow through these three ponds. This is completely improper siting and unnecessary. The ponds should be engineered facilities designed to manage concentrated storm water flows off a large extent of impervious surfaces of the development. They should not be located where they are forced to accommodate unnecessarily the storm water flows off of adjacent lands. Furthermore, the locations of these three ponds will also cause the unnecessary destruction of wetlands. In fact, one of these ponds may well come under the NC Dam Safety Log, given the size of the sub-basin behind it. The protection of surface water quality in a development like this and absolutely minimum disturbance of the flood plain should be required and consequently none of the ponds should be located in the RCD nor should any building lots be created which encourage more that 10% of the area on the RCD.
The purpose of the ponds is to simply collect storm water run-off from the development so that these storm flows can be released at a more moderate rate, the receiving streams, the basin shape is relatively inconsequential. However, if, as is being proposed that these ponds service silt and sediment control devices then pond shape and location of inlets and outlets is critical to the efficiency of sediment retention. Again, it appears that some of the ponds are improperly designed to perform this function. To conclude, in the lease it appears that some of the ponds need to be redesigned and/or relocated out of the RCD. The developer is now requesting the plan with an increased number of housing units at the cost of poor design. This needs to be revised. Thank you.
H. Coleman Day
I have a couple of slides but it may run a little over 3 minutes.
Mayor Waldorf
I really want you to stay within the three minutes. This is not even the public hearing. This is a continuation of the public hearing and you folks have spoken before.
Council Member Andresen
Madam Mayor could you take a council poll to see if we would be willing to give him a few more minutes. If he could do it in five minutes and get what he has to say out.
Mayor Waldorf
Yes, I’ll take a Council poll. Who wants to give him 5 minutes? 1,2,3,4,5 Council Members. Okay. You have five minutes.
H. Coleman Day
I’ll be as brief as possible.
Mayor Waldorf
I would appreciate that. The Council has not yet had time to discuss and deliberate this matter. We need to discuss it and decide and this is our 3rd night of public hearings, we have a 4th coming up next week so brevity would be appreciated.
H. Coleman Day
The one coming up next week may be best handled tonight with just one thing on the agenda because it’s a big deal here as you well know. As a taxpayer and resident of Dogwood Acres, I wish to address the Town Council on the following points related to reports 1-3 in the development plan for a Southern Village. One, I would like to request that the pedestrian and bike corridor between Southern Village and Purefoy Road be built as required in the additional master plan for Southern Village. I find neither payment in lieu of performance nor shifting the funding for the project to other greenway projects as proposed acceptable. The pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that encourages means of transportation other than automobiles is a fundamental reason this unusually high-density development was allowed in the first place and without pedestrian arteries, the entire concept of Southern Village is open to question. I would like to request that the density transfer option to meet watershed restrictions be denied. Other people have spoken on this same subject. To the best of my knowledge the developer has failed to receive approval of this proposal from any of the surrounding landowners who would be affected by such action. I feel that the developer has no right to downgrade the stability of neighboring properties to increase his personal profit. Furthermore, the density transfer as proposed does not, “Maintain or enhance contiguous property.” And is therefore not in compliance with the Chapel Hill requirements to request for special use permits.
I would like the Town Council to consider restricting development in the western tract of the Southern Village to R2 because the developer is not controlling stormwater run-off or erosion in the current development and will evidently be unable to control it in the western tract which has steeper grades. The temporary retaining pond behind the Southern Village Apartments failed repeatedly, due to siltation causing the developer’s inability to stabilize the erosion prone soil on steep slopes.
I’d like to show some slides of the site area: This is the storm water retention pond. What we have here are photos of the pond behind the Southern Village apartments which has failed repeatedly, in even a light rain it will not hold. It flows straight into Morgan Creek. You’ve got a least a dumpster’s worth of trash below this thing. This is the slew scape that comes into the Southern Village retention pond. When this is flowing at maximum capacity I can run a 20 foot rod from the top of that thing and not find the bottom. It’s a hazard to all the children that live in that apartment complex. The erosion is tremendous. There are multiple dump truck loads of silt that need to be removed from this thing. I’ve been in contact with erosion management at the county level and in phone contact with the developer as recently as last Friday and on my way here it still has not been touched. I did check. This is the chute through which the silt goes out. It is completely covered and clogged with debris. Up in the top section which is actually the bottom is the skimmer that’s supposed to allow a gradual discharge. It’s completely imbedded in the ground. It cannot do its job anymore. These are performance issues that I have asked the developer to address and if this is allowed, this is what is going to be on the other side of the creek. This is garbage, tons and tons of garbage outside of this particular retaining pond. This is erosion on the other side of the same pond. The erosion ditch is up to my hip. I can stand in it, it’s so deep now. The entire development consists of the same quality of property, the soil.
Obviously the low density option is not an option. The property is zoned at R2. If the property is maintain at R2 on the western tract, certainly the developer will suffer. The number of these darn ponds that we’re all talking about would be greatly reduced because the sheet water run-off would be greatly mitigated by the land left alone. Again, we’re looking at this same erosion. This is erosion looking from this retention pond into Southern Village apartments. These rivulets are knee-deep. There was not one effort to seed in the spring. All the grass died in June. I haven’t seen any effort to re-seed one blade of grass. Also, in addition to that the growing season for grass in the fall is just about over. We’re overdue for a frost. These seeds should already be in and sprouting. We’re going to be faced with this same erosion through the entire winter. We’re now looking down from Southern Village apartments to the U.S. 15-501 corridor. These rivulets show the erosion down to the retaining fence that was planted between the Southern Village apartments and private property. They have been eroded to the max, they’ve overflowed, they’re down to the neighbors property. I don’t feel this is responsible management. This is the county’s responsibility here for stormwater management, for erosion control but I’m trying to impress upon is that we are setting a precedent and if we cannot maintain control in the existing thing why would we allow this to continue and just become a much large disaster as many people here have talked about.
This particular slide is OWASA’s stormwater sewer, out from underneath there. It’s completely in the wide open. It was several feet underground. These are retention ponds that have failed. I think I’ve made my point. These two white things on the side, we’re on Edgewater Dr. we are inside the RCD. Those are oil filters. This is what we’re trying to prevent. I met as recently as today with the town planning and the town engineering staff as to the ponds and storm water management. It apparently is up to you as a town council to provide the leadership to determine what will happen. That the RCD ordinances, flood water control, the ultimate path is on your shoulders and I plead with you to look forward and set a precedence for this subdivision to Meadowmont and all to come that we do value the RCD. It is up each individual, you, not the RCD regulations, it’s you. You need to set a standard. Toward that vein, I’ve got something to hand to you, and I’ve got to get some help in adding to the wording to the conditions for development in the western tract.
David Taylor
Good evening my name is David Taylor. I live at 103 Meeting Street in Southern Village. I’m also an architect in Chapel Hill. I was also a member of the Southern Village mid-term evaluation group and have followed that various issues that have been raised since last spring. As a result of the public debate, I believe the development.. or I have witnessed changes to the development that I believe will make for a better development and a better neighbor in southern Chapel Hill. I believe it’s been and win -win situation for new and existing neighbors, residents alike. My main purpose for being here is to speak in favor of the modifications to the Southern Village master plan and in particular to the revisions to the proposed greenway phase from Culbreth Road to Purefoy Road But before I begin that I’d like to speak to two other points. Number one is the stub-outs to the west and also to Culbreth Rd. It is my belief that stub-outs are crucial to creating a network of streets in southern Chapel Hill. Without these stub-outs to future developments, you will put more and more stress on U.S.15-501, Culbreth Road and Smith Level Roads because you will have no other options. That means for Southern Village residents as well as the neighbors to the periphery of A Southern Village. The second is the request for the density issue. Without the change to the density to allow higher density, the development will be damaged, in my opinion. The retail center, the mass transit and any attempt at affordable housing depends on higher densities to be affective. In our office right now, I saw a development in northern Chapel Hill where lots at starting at $110,000. There is not attempt made at affordable housing. Within A Southern Village I believe that there will be attempts made to create housing for $100,000, that is housing, not just lots but true housing and also apartments and other residences about shops that may be more affordable for working class families.
In the early 1990’s, the Town Council adopted the village concept in southern Chapel Hill and this should be allowed to come to its fruition. Speaking on the greenway. This was the previous concept that was submitted. Some of the difficulties in this plan were the two bridges going across Morgan Creek. It was found by later design that the topography and the rock out cropping that are located under Morgan Creek bridge crossing right now made this unfeasible. Additionally, the crossings across the ramp D onto 15-501/54 are hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. Those are the two main problems with this plan. The new plan takes the intersection at Culbreth Rd. and splits pedestrians and bicyclists into two separate networks which I believe is the best solution. It provides two bicycle paths, one on each side of 15-501 and also a separate 5 foot wide sidewalk for pedestrians only. The intersection #2 there would be much safer than crossing over an on-ramp where somebody’s trying to increase speed onto the by-pass. And intersection #3 up there would then bring pedestrian and bicyclist together on a short stretch up to Purefoy Rd. Safety is the main issue here as well as feasibility of construction. So in conclusion I’d like to express my support of master plan modifications as they are currently before you.
Lloyd Kramer
Good evening, I’m also a resident of Dogwood Acres and I would like to say that I think the revised plan represents a significant improvement over the previous proposals that we saw. As a resident of Dogwood Acres, I’m particularly pleased by the point that the buffers are to be expanded slightly and I would like to propose, on page 5 of this report, the notice that the council might want to consider buffers of more than 20 feet. They were first expanded from 10 to 20 and I would like for you to perhaps consider that possibility of expanding even somewhat more. Secondly, I want to reiterate that I also support the idea of the ponds over the lake. I think that is an improvement and I think we need to protect the trees along 15-501. But I’m also concerned about the erosion control and I think that the council should look very closely at the way in which the ponds be managed along the creek. The third point I wanted to make is I would like to support Margaret Brown’s proposal on the density transfer option, that this be taken in consultation with representatives of the county and not be pushed through without further consideration.
John Kent
Mayor Waldorf and members of the council my name is John Kent. I’ll be brief, I have just three things. One is that I hope that you will wait till Tuesday the 28th to vote since there may be things that if you voted tonight, you’d lock yourself in on. Number two, I am concerned that the Laurel Hill Parkway has reared it ugly head again in this packet I have tonight and I thought we settled that a long time ago. It should not be there as far as I’m concerned. The other thing is that I would hope that we could get this erosion problem under control. I think we really do have a bad one here. I’ve been doing Stream Watch for six years now on New Hope Creek and we do look monthly at things like this. I haven’t been out there yet but I’ve heard and I’m definitely going to be out there before Tuesday.
Mayor Waldorf
I don’t have any other citizens who signed up to speak. I think the applicant has some points that he’d like to make and I think the staff has a couple points they’d like to make, clarify statements that were made during the public hearing. So why don’t I call on the staff first to make any clarifying points that they wish to make and then Mr. Bryan can come forward.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Three points that were raised that I thought the Council might be interested in staff’s comments. Laurel Hill Parkway is dead on the south side of town. The Council voted to remove it from the Thoroughfare Plan, the DOT voted to remove it from the Thoroughfare Plan, the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization voted to take it off the Thoroughfare Plan. It is not there. I don’t know what the reference is to comments in the packet. I’m not aware of that. I haven’t found it. But we’re not requiring right of way for the Laurel Hill Parkway. It’s not there. On the question of RCD. The question, “Why were no RCD variances obtained for any development in Southern Village?” I don’t know how else to say it. None were required. The activity within the RCD represented permitted uses. Our ordinance does not require variances for the kinds of activity that have been occurring in Southern Village, so there were no RCD variances sought and none granted because none were required.
The question of density transfer. First, this was an item that we brought to public hearing in May and June. It was in your packets earlier. The reason that we brought it forward at that time is because it seemed like another option. I want to clarify that what’s being proposed is density transfer in not transferring density outside of Southern Village to someplace else. The idea is buying development rights on property surrounding it so that development doesn’t occur. It’s in effect permanently lowering density surrounding Southern Village such that if you take the whole, it’s a low density option so it’s not transferring density out, it’s transferring density in. It’s not a formal transfer of development rights program. It is related to that concept. We certainly agree that the idea of pursuing transfer of development rights as a program county-wide is an idea that deserves study and has considerable merit. This is not a formal program. This is just a way to ensure that property surrounding Southern Village and a drainage basin remains at these densities.
Council Member Andresen
Roger, I’m completely confused now.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
If you had a ten acre parcel of land and the threshold were that if you had four units per acre, if you’re below that density then certain conditions apply, if you’re above that density then other conditions apply. If you had a ten acre piece of land and say if you’re at 40 units that’s the cut-off point. If you were to acquire permanent easements that said that on an adjacent piece of land that said that no development was going to be occurring, then you’ve got 20 acres where you’re applying that density standard. So, we have already with our zoning and land use planning transferred density into this 300 acres that we’re calling Southern Village. That was the town’s plan for this southern area. One of the things that the town did to help procure that was to down zone areas surrounding Southern Village. This proposal would be one further step to actually purchase or somehow acquire easements prohibiting or limiting developments surrounding to assure that density stays low.
Council Member Andresen
Let me just clarify. What’s on the table now is to change the density from where to where?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
To not change the density at all.
Council Member Andresen
Or to offer some possibility for what?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
To offer the possibility that if a developer can negotiate with adjacent, nearby property owners that they will not develop their property that then that non-development can be added to the development in A Southern Village to allow it to meet the low density thresholds.
Council Member Chilton
But now when you’re saying that doesn’t change density anywhere, that’s premised on the notion that there’s still this upper limit of however many dwelling units in Southern Village which is 1388. So when you say, there’s going to be no increase in density because of this, they’ll still bump up against 1388.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
That’s correct. We’re not talking about something that would allow more units. What we’re talking about is arranging the world such that development densities overall across a larger area are small enough so that these permanent bottom ponds wouldn’t be necessary. So it’s not a question of how many units there are, the question is whether or not there would have to be a pond or not.
Council Member Chilton
So the inclusion on page 17 #12 density options.. Let me put it this way, several of the speakers asked that that be deleted. If that’s deleted that guarantees that we must have ponds. But if that’s included then we would have to weigh the economics and aesthetics of ponds versus buying these development rights.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
This kind of option is already allowed by state law. This is not creating something new. This is an option that is available to developers who are developing property in the watershed by state law and our regulations.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
It seems to me that we’re talking about something else too. I think it was clear that this was transferring density in there must have been some reason and you cite the ponds as the reason, the need. Could you please also relate it to the watershed regulations which have just been put in place? Without some sort of density transfer, could this kind of density be built under the present¼ without some regulations?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Oh yes. The current proposal approved in 1993 with a maximum 1388 dwelling units and that maximum has not changed. The Council approved the development in 1993 in anticipation of the watershed regulations. Watershed regulations did in fact come down as we expected they would. We have them. The development as it is being proposed, is consistent with those watershed requirements. There are two options in the watershed requirements. A developer who chooses to develop in the watershed can either do so under a low density option in which there are no structural ponds required or a developer can do it under a high density option in which permanent ponds are required to help hold and filter pollutants from run-off. So Southern Village right now is being developed under the high density option. That’s the way the master plan called for it and that’s why there are being proposed ponds or a lake.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
The thing about it is it seems to me we’re going to have stormwater run-off and the important things is this drainage basin has been transferred¼ What we originally were presented with was perhaps some adjacent property owner’s could help in this and sort of help with this density transfer. I suppose that didn’t happen because now we’re talking about a drainage basin and I don’t know where the whole drainage basin if that goes down to Jordan Lake or not, but what actually is going to happen to the water? This is something on paper that we’re going to be transferring something to something, maybe down at Jordan Lake but we’re going to still have the problem with storm water run-off.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
The purpose of the watershed requirements, I hasten to point to that this is not something that the council is required to do by any means. If the wisdom of the Council is that you don’t like this idea, with the stroke of a pen, that condition can be stricken from the resolution. The approach statewide and with our ordinance to watershed management is not on a site by site basis. It’s trying to protect the quality of water in a large watershed. It is watershed management that’s looking at the entire watershed trying to either minimize impervious surfaces or where impervious surfaces exceed a certain threshold, having ponds in place to capture the run-off. The whole approach to watershed management is an area-wide one and this idea fits into that approach. But it’s not a necessary component at all. It seemed like a reasonable option.
Council Member Capowski
Roger, three years ago when we approved this and we did a down-zoning of 2500 surrounding acres and we set a maximum of 1388 dwelling units and a maximum of 225,000 square feet of other type of space, neither of those two would be changed by the density transfer option, right? How, then would the density transfer option, increase the density at all?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
It wouldn’t.
Mayor Waldorf
It wouldn’t. It’s just switching and it mitigates against sprawl it seems to me.
Town Manager Horton
The basic thing it would do is preserve the acreage in another place so that it could not be developed.
Council Member Chilton
Maybe D.R. (Bryan) can answer this as well as anybody. The one concern I have about this,¼ actually this sounds a good bit better than I thought it did. D.R., can you buy development rights to land that is actually undevelopable? I’m just trying to understand this but it seems to me that you could go in and say, “Well we bought up all the rights to all this development land that’s in the RCD” which in reality could never have been built on anyway and then say well and once you aggregate that in with the property that we have, whatever that percentage threshold is.
D. R. Bryan
The density transfer option has nothing to do with density. So if 1388 units is the max, under the plan that we have submitted, I think there are between 1200 and 1250 units. We’re not asking to increase that at all. What we’re saying is that the State allows for development right transfer in the watershed and so we asked the staff is that something that would be available in Chapel Hill? Here’s how it would work. Let’s say of the nine distributed ponds that we have, if one of those ponds serves 50 houses, what the development rights transfer would allow us to do is to either build the pond there to serve those fifty houses or we could go to an adjoining property owner or another property owner in our 2000 acre watershed and say, “Mr. Capowski, if you will promise on paper here with negative easements to never build anything on your property, (let’s just say you have 25 acres) if you don’t build anything on your property then we would then be allowed to choose either to have you do that or to build the pond.” So it’s really a method in which we could eliminate the ponds. So let’s just say we have a particular pond in a sensitive area with wetland that we don’t want to build and that pond serves 50 houses, we could go get someone else to agree not to build fifty houses. By doing that, we would not have to build the pond.
Council Member Chilton
Well, to my question then, what’s to stop you from buying this negative easement on property that effectively couldn’t be built anyway so that¼. I mean I’ll sell you some RCD’s
D.R. Bryan
Right, somebody could say here’s 100 acres of RCD and we say great, don’t build anything on it. We have not discussed any of those at all. Pretty much what we’ve discussed with the town is what you see. So as far as whether they have to be actual non-RCD or those things¼ we felt like it was a good idea to have that as an option.
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
I think the idea of this provision is to leave this as a potential option. Specifically, to respond to your question Mr. Chilton, it would have to be a bonafide restriction and it’s not a restriction if it’s on something that isn’t useable anyway but the idea that this now provides that it will be in a form approved by the Manager and it implies that the staff would have to find that it’s a legitimate restriction on this other property. It is just a conceptual thing at this point. It hasn’t really been fleshed out in any detail.
Council Member Andresen
I had a follow up question. If you decided not to build the pond then because you were able to acquire these rights, would you be able to do anything else with that area?
Town Manager Horton
No ma’am.
Council Member Capowski
Mark, I understand your questions about buying land that can’t be developed but isn’t solvable by a simple amendment to the item 12 which would put in the word “developable land”?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
I think this all would be worked out in the details but my point is simply that you don’t restrict land unless there’s something to be restricted and I think it’s implied that you couldn’t provide land that isn’t useable because then it wouldn’t be restricting anything but you can add that language.
Town Manager Horton
That’s a good addition and we’d welcome it.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
The question for us is whether we should not work out these things before we pass anything rather than pass something which is so unknown.
Mayor Waldorf
I think it’s been clear that that stipulation is clearly sever-able from the rest of the resolution.
Town Manager Horton
I would recommend that you add in the word developable. I think that solves the problem. It was always in our intent that there be an equivalence and by adding in the word developable, I think that that solves the problem.
Mayor Waldorf
I think that the applicant needs to make a statement about the stipulations that are new since the previous public hearing and anything else you want to say.
D. R. Bryan
First, I’d like to say thank you for coming out here again and thank you to everyone who has worked hard on this plan. Everybody but Ms. Wiggins has probably heard everything you want to hear from me so I will be as brief as I possibly can and really would like to just address two of the changes. Then anything that you may have some questions on we have all kinds of slide and people here to answer any kind of questions. Two things that I’d really just like to mention briefly. One is Ms. Brown about why the Village Green is a little different from what it was in the master plan. The original master plan envisioned pretty much three large district or three different land uses. One was the Village Core, one was what we call the neighborhood district and one was the village green district. Village Green was primarily residential but could have up to 20% non-residential homes in it. In the northeast tract, in the first phase of development, this was the Village Green district which has a green and lots fronting it. We had a Village Green district in the original master plan centered here, a small one here and one here. When we put our plans together and we actually put the streets on the plans of the west tract, we altered these lines to actually meet up with property lines. That’s a detail that we did not have originally. So they were going to change somewhat just because they were marrying the property lines or the lot lines.
The second thing which also goes into¼ the only thing that I’ll talk about in relation to some of the public comments from this summer which I think might have something to do with the master plan, is we had a Village Green district here and one here. Village Green district allows attached homes, multi-family so we actually had a Village Green district here with townhouses on this property line. There were several people who spoke tonight and spoke this summer opposed higher density next to existing single-family homes. So we actually, this summer, moved any of the Village Green district which allows higher density, anything that was pretty much west of this line, we just moved all of those districts to a more central area which is here just to eliminate that opposition from neighbors. The zoning in the Village Green district requires a change in the original zoning. So that was another thing about the master plan that people objected to. They wanted similar zoning next to the houses here on Dogwood Acres Drive. We contacted all eight people who lived here and asked them to come work with us this past summer on changing our plan. So based on those conversations everything that you see in yellow is no longer being requested for a rezoning. So everything in yellow which backs up to adjoining properties just to eliminate that as an issue with neighbors, we just said, “We won’t build anything here that we couldn’t have built with no rezoning.” So with no Southern Village at all everything you see in yellow could be built with or without Southern Village.
There are some other changes having to do with the master plan. There was some discussion about the big oak that a lot of people talked about this summer, it’s a 48 inch oak right here that was actually on a lot in our original plan so we, in moving some of that Village Green district around, we eliminated some of the Village Green district and actually, if you remember the plan from this summer, we had a road going through here and 15 or 14 lots on rough topography. We just eliminated all of the lots there and tied the big oak with some common area into that 14 or 15 acre part. We were fortunate in that the big oak survived Fran also. We are available for questions.
Mayor Waldorf
If the council would finish up our question asking and then we need to adjourn the public hearing.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I have a lot of questions. One of the important questions that I have of the staff is the difference between the 1993 plan and the revised plan, Roger, regarding road stub-outs. On the 1993 plan there are only two stub-outs but on the one that we have before us tonight there is an additional stub-out. Could you please explain that because I didn’t see anything about it in the modifications. It’s a stub-out that’s south of the one that looks like the original stub-out.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Correct. On the 1993 there is something called future road access and there is one of them shown¼ There is no detail about how those street networks would work on that plan. There is more detail now and you’re correct there are two shown now and there was one shown before.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I think that that’s an important point especially since a modification was not requested. I should think that for another stub-out that a modification would need to be requested and you can correct me if that is not accurate.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
That’s what we’re talking about as a modification.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
But it’s not specified anywhere. There’s no discussion of it and ¼ Does this plan itself represent a modification without any kind of notice or any kind of discussion of it in the memo?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
The plan that is on the table.. That is what the applicant is requesting. He’s requesting approval of that plan that’s the 1996 master plan that you’re referring to.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Well, I think that we should have some discussion about that because I think that it’s very important that this was originally presented to us as a pedestrian transit oriented plan and now we are seeing it more and more road oriented and I think that when we have a discussion that that is certainly an important point.
Council Member Chilton
Could we see the area map that shows the adjacent lots?
Council Member Capowski
I’m a little confused. We’re doing a master land use plan right now for the whole site? A modification plan. Does that cover permitting or not permitting the northern stub-out and either one or two stub-outs to the west?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
The master plan doesn’t permit anything. The master plan is the guide for development. Development has to be permitted subsequent to its special use permit that comes before you.
Council Member Capowski
Okay, because there is no language in the master land use plan about stub-outs, either the one up through Cobble Ridge or the stub-outs to the west. Is that correct?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
The proposal is the drawing and the related materials so it’s on the drawings.
Council Member Capowski
So then if we approve the master land use plan modifications as in R-1a with the drawing that comes with it then we are indeed approving two stub-outs to the west and one stub-out to the north. Is that correct?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
You’re approving a master plan that shows and then the next step is the special use permit. So the final approval of roads stubbing-out in any direction doesn’t occur until the special use permit.
Mayor Waldorf
Which is items 5-8.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Yes.
Council Member Capowski
But isn’t there a widget in the application for a special use permit under the aegis of a master land use plan which says it’s got to follow the master land use plan?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Yes sir. I would expect that whatever master plan you¼. You’ve got a master plan in place so any special use permits that you are reviewing right now should be compared to the master plan for consistency. And if you modify the master land use plan tonight or some other night then any subsequent special use permit should check it against that modified master plan for consistency.
Council Member Capowski
Now, none of the three proposed stub-outs is in this special use permit that we have even had a public hearing on yet?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Yes you have. In May and June you had public hearings on what I generically call the west tract. Basically the portions of A Southern Village that haven’t had special use permits yet. Again, the package of proposals that came forward that we took to public hearing in the spring, the first set of reports was for modification of existing approvals and along with it was a set of four applications for stuff.
Council Member Capowski
So the bottom line of this discussion is, if we want or if we don’t want a stub-out to the north and two to the west, we make that decision tonight?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
If you wanted to not have those stub-outs, I would suggest to you that the appropriate thing would be to take that action. That’s correct.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I have a question about the materials which we are presented and which are legal documents and I want to make sure that this is correct. This is a legal document if we adopt. This is actually a legal document as we adopted it in 1993, the master plan that was adopted. It’s mentioned in the resolution and it’s mentioned in the documents filed in Orange County. The master plan, this is a legal document, right? The resolution is also a legal document. All of the things mentioned are legal documents. These are questions. Are they are separate legal documents? Because there are a number of legal documents that are mentioned, the traditional neighborhood design guidelines, etc. So all of these are part of it then? Because some of the things are not mentioned in the resolution but they are mentioned here or noted here on the master plan or on some of the maps that are mentioned here in the resolution. So could you all comment on that?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
The answer is yes.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Thank you. I think there’s some confusion because the resolution does not mention everything. Specifically on the maps but the maps are just as much legal documents as¼.
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
The maps are incorporated by reference, they are referred to in the resolution.
Mayor Waldorf
But the pictures on the western tracts are not given permission to be enacted until special use permits that apply to those tracts are, in fact, approved by the council. Correct?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
The master plan stands for what it stands for. That is, it doesn’t allow anybody to do anything, it is the basis for someone to come in for a special use application. But it is a legally approved master plan and for the status that it has.
Council Member Evans
In regard to the stub-outs, I think we all need to realize that we’re going build a school on this site. In order for kids to get to school we don’t want to have everyone have to get out on the main thoroughfares in order to get their kids to school. Of course want stub-outs. We want stub-outs so that the people who live in Cobble Ridge can drive their kids here. We want to able so that in the future, 25 - 50 years from now, that school will still be there, the land to the west will likely be developed in some way. It should be opened up to Smith Level so that people from the adjoining¼. This will be a greater neighborhood. To think that we would leave it as an isolated pocket that only fronts on 15-501 is, I think, one of the things that has cause so many problems on our thoroughfares in Chapel Hill now. We can’t move from one neighborhood to another with either getting on to 15-501 or the by-pass or Airport Rd. or wherever. So I think we need to do better planning in the future. Of course we need to ask for this to be stubbed-out. To include those stub-outs is the same idea as removing the roads that are in the area. They are now proposed to be preserved as a park. So it’s not that we’re adding so many roads. I mean, I think the idea of preserving that as a park over there where the oak survived Fran is a real bonus and we want to have that in the plan. So there are changes and I think they’re all for the better of what’s been proposed.
Mayor Waldorf
I would like to know if there are other questions that council members need to ask to get information into the record and ask those questions, get then answered and then adjourn the public hearing.
Council Member Evans
The issue was raised would you be able to build homes in the site where the lake was proposed?
Town Manager Horton
No.
Council Member Andresen
I had a question regarding page 21. It really starts on page 20 dealing with recreation space. It says here under 15 that if a Homeowner's Association is responsible for ownership and maintenance of the recreation area and if the recreation area and facilities are not properly maintained, the town may assume responsibility for same subject agreement between the Homeowner's Association and the town. This strikes me as something rather unusual and new and I was wondering why the town would be offering such a thing because there’s nothing in here about costs or who will foot the bill here for recreational maintenance here.
Town Manager Horton
The key point on it is that we could not be required to do it.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Exactly right. The key word there is “may” and for those private recreation areas we would always want the Homeowner's Association to maintain them. However, if circumstances played out where the town council saw that there would be some benefit or advantage to the town taking over maintenance, say there were being used actively and became an important part of the public recreation facilities and they weren’t being maintained, this would allow the town to step in and maintain them. It carried no requirement that the town do so.
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
Could I just add that we would not suggest that the town consider doing that unless that town were to assume the title to the facilities as well. We’re not going to be maintaining private facilities.
Mayor Waldorf
Does that need to be made clearer?
Council Member Andresen
I’m not sure what the intent of putting it in would be because I can’t imaging why we would want to do that or assume responsibility for it. So I was wondering why the staff inserted it at all.
Town Manager Horton
If the council wishes to strike it certainly that would be all right.
Council Member Andresen
Did we receive stormwater management plans on any of this area?
Town Manager Horton
We did not get a stormwater impact statement. The Town Engineer can comment on the extent to which we received plans.
Town Engineer George Small
We would not receive detailed stormwater management plans until the individual special use permit, the elements of the overall master plan are submitted.
Council Member Andresen
But we are looking tonight at the modifications of special use permits, are we not?
Town Engineer George Small
Well we don’t have construction plans for those yet. That’s when we would receive that detailed storm water management plans and hydrous reports and what have you.
Council Member Andresen
Well if we’re dealing with the modification of the Village core special use permit then we should already have it, right?
Town Engineer George Small
Those that we have construction plans for, we would have received information on them, right. Those that we don’t have detailed construction plans on, we have not reviewed those yet. But we have the normal requirements that we do for any other subdivision. We didn’t receive stormwater impact statements but we would receive detailed hydrous reports.
Council Member Andresen
I guess I just thought we were supposed to get a storm water management plan at the special use level and that isn’t right. One thing I just haven’t been able to figure out, are the roads in this area all public?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Will be. The roads are being built to town standards. We’re inspecting them as they are being constructed. The town won’t take over maintenance of these until Southern Village is annexed and becomes part of the Town.
Council Member Andresen
And fire protection. I understand that volunteer fire departments are offering fire protection. We’re growing a very large village here. What’s the point when our town is going to assume responsibility for fire protection.
Town Manager Horton
They need to qualify for annexation and the council would need to proceed with an annexation before we would provide any fire protection on a regular basis as the first responder. We are available now to provide fire protection for mutual aid but have not yet been called upon to do so, I don’t believe.
Council Member Andresen
What’s your best guess, Mr. Manager on when the area would be annexed?
Town Manager Horton
I think three to five years.
Council Member Andresen
I have talked to a few people down there in the Chatham volunteers and they feel overburdened. So I’m concerned that we are approving development where we don’t really have the means to provide it with service.
Council Member Capowski
George. When we approved this back several years ago we assumed two things. One, that there would be some reasonable way to get up South Columbia Street on a bicycle and that Southern Village would also be an integral part for pedestrians and bicyclists of a future Morgan Creek Greenway. Are you, as our engineer, happy with the albeit imperfect bicycle plan? Is it about as safe as it can be?
Town Engineer George Small
It’s a reasonable compromise and it’s about the best we could do. We worked with the developer and with the DOT and among ourselves to try to figure out a way to get there and this is about the best we can come up with.
Council Member Capowski
Now lets turn to the Morgan Creek Greenway. I’m a little confused. Are we certain, without getting into the details, that the applicant here will be paying his fair share of the eventual Morgan Creek Greenway?
Town Engineer George Small
Certain as we can be now. We asked for as detailed an estimate as we could get. We walked it, went out and measured distances that we assumed that would be required between abutments and we feel that this is the best we can do now for actual construction costs and engineering and materials.
Council Member Capowski
And what will be built by the applicant north of Culbreth Road?
Town Engineer George Small
My understanding is that they would not build any of that greenway that’s across Morgan Creek at this time. They would make a payment in lieu for that stub-out across. The greenway would terminate at Culbreth Road and then pedestrians and bicyclists would use the 15-501 bikeways or sidewalk.
Council Member Capowski
So those two bridges that Roger mentioned will not be built but¼..
George Small
No that will be in the future to tie into the Morgan Creek Greenway.
Town Manager Horton
Part of the trouble is figuring whether or not it is really possible to do that. And we have some data that’s about whether or not it’s really possible to do it in a manner that the council would feel comfortable with.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
I have just a word I might be able to add on that. Those two bridges, that greenway link north of Culbreth, we’re talking about the developer building it or providing payment in lieu. Our cost estimate of what that would likely be is about $113,000 so that might be helpful to the council that that’s the level of payment in lieu that we’re looking at.
Council Member Capowski
And all that is in the wording of the master land use plan?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
In the wording of the master land use plan is the, in our recommended conditions of approval, language about payment in lieu. It doesn’t refer to a specific number but I thought that it might be helpful to get that into the record.
Town Manager Horton
And I won’t accept anything less than that.
Council Member Chilton
Could you show me on the overhead map where the thing that is not going to be built isn’t?
Town Manager Horton
I wouldn’t say that it was not ever going to be built. We just have a question about it.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
So, for purposes of orientation. Here’s Culbreth Road, here’s Mount Carmel Church Road, and here’s U.S. 15-501 coming up here and turning onto North Columbia and there is the existing ogreenway that comes up here right now and comes up to Culbreth Road and then comes over. So that exists right now. What resolution 1a that we’re recommending would approve is improvements to U.S. 15-501 to accommodate bike lanes and then a spur that would come up here for recreational purposes that would cross right here and then would cross Morgan Creek again in approximately this location. So that it would be something that would traverse about like this to connect to the land north of Morgan Creek. We expect a future greenway to be along the creek.
Council Member Chilton
So when you say two bridges you’re talking about one over Fan Branch and Morgan Creek.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
George, I would like to ask you a question. One of the stipulations is regarding lower high density option. It’s in the permanent retention basin installation and it says, “Compliance with town watershed protection district regulations, if applicable, shall be demonstrated with provision of multiple permanent ponds.” But it says, “For those portions of the development complying with low density option as identified in the development ordinance permanent storm water retention shall not be required.” But is it the density in some areas that is the problem or is it the location? For instance, a low density development in one area could have serious, if the topography is such, could possibly have serious problems as related to run-off. I realize that the amount of paved surfaces is important but it’s a question. Is location important as well?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
If you mean topography, sure. Yeah, the way it’s developed.. You could have drainage problem on your lot and you might only have 10% of it developed. Sure, you could but this is simply the regulations that we work under with the low density option, it wouldn’t be required to put a pond in.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
But it does not mean that there would not be some problems.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
It doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be or there would be?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Right. Thank you very much. There is one section that I would like to have somebody explain to me and it’s on page 10 in the land master land use plan and on page 7 in resolution 2a. Could you please explain exactly what that means. It’s #2 under stipulations specific to the development of resolution 2a? And #2d on page 10 in the master land use plan. It’s that “each special use permit or special use modification shall be required to comply with the land use intensity but individual site by site applications for development within the boundaries of the special use permit shall not be required and demonstrate compliance with the land use intensity requirements” Could you please explain that?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
The best example I can think of to describe it the Village core where the idea is that the land use intensities for the entire Village core would have to meet certain requirements in the ordinance but that on a site by site basis it wouldn’t so that, for example, if somebody comes in with a cinema or a pharmacy or something else and the development plan and program calls for carving out a small lot to put that pharmacy in on the street in the Village core, that that building and that lot standing on its own would not have to meet our land use intensity ratios but that we would be keeping a tally to be sure that for the entire Village core, for the entire area covered by a special use permit that our land use intensity ratios were all met.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Thank you. Could you also talk about the Fan Branch vehicular crossing and what that would do. There doesn’t seem to be any provision for wildlife. Could you please give us some indication about the environmental implications of that.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
So here is Fan Branch and we’ve got a vehicular crossing here. One of the things that, as we pointed out in May and June, is different about his compared to the 1993 master plan is an additional crossing here which we thought was very important. We were actively encouraging the developer to do that because without it, it seemed that it put far too much pressure on this one point of access to this area and it seemed like that helps accomplish the traditional neighborhood design objectives of having a grid-like system, multiple means of getting about and redundancy in the road systems and so on. So the crossing is at Fanbranch is there and there. The other part of your question?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Well, this is an additional crossing, an additional going into the RCD so it would be an additional environmental impact on that area. Did you look at the trade-offs between those. You’re talking about what would actually occur as far as degradation of the RCD?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Yes. In making our recommendation to you that is something that we looked at and again.. Our staff approach to this whole development has been in the context of the larger southern area which calls of concentrated development on this parcel in an urban-like environment and then preservation and very much lower densities about the rest of the 2500 acre subdivision area. So in this case, trying to create this village, this traditional neighborhood design, this reasonably intense walk-able set of neighborhood, it seemed that the trade-off of having this point of access here and not just relying on this one road to channel all this traffic through there was good idea and a reasonable trade-off.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Thank you. Another question I have is regarding the impervious surface area and you are recommending counting the park and ride lot which is actually on this property as part of the public facilities on adjacent town-owned property even though it’s on this property. It’s going to cause problems on this property. Why not actually realistically look at that? What was the thinking behind that?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
Either way was an acceptable way to approach looking at it. Given that that piece is a town-owned property and we originally were calling for that park and ride lot on our southern park site then it seemed a very workable situation and win-win for everybody to move it up onto this property. It seemed like a very reasonable approach to consider that still part of the town property for purposes of calculating impervious surface.
Mayor Waldorf
Is there a motion to adjourn the public hearings?
Council Member Andresen
One more question. Roger, I had a question regarding the lakes and the ponds. We have a letter from the state that says it’s possible to build the lake. I noticed that you have a stipulation in here dealing with the ponds that would be located within the RCD would be designed so as not to be inundated by the flood waters from the base flood discharge. I feel real concerned about either one of these alternatives, frankly. We need something there obviously and we need to manage¼ this area serves a much larger drainage area than just the area that’s being disturbed so what I’m concerned about from representing the taxpayer’s point of view is the kind of problem, mega-problem we could be stuck with if this system that is designed by the developer does not work. And the people that live in this area, and there are going to be a lot of them, will be before us asking us to do something. I guess I’m wanting to know¼ The staff seems to like the pond option. I’ve seen the tract of ponds at Hilton Head that are man-made and other places. I have a pond myself and it’s beautiful but I wonder about how these are really going to look and whether we have adequate stipulations in here that are really going to assure that these are going to be amenities and not just ugly clay holes in the ground. And so I’m wondering what you can do to reassure me on this point and also to react to the point that was made by one of the citizens in regard to not having these ponds be directly in the flood-way area. So that when a flood like Fran comes along everything isn’t wiped out and there isn’t a huge mess.
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
On your last question, I think I’m going to let the engineer offer comments on that. With respect to offering you reassurances I’m not sure that I can offer you reassurances. I agree, I’ve seen good examples and bad examples of ponds. We did everything we could to build in to the recommended stipulations design concepts and ideas about how we wanted these designed and built and we will be looking at the specific construction drawings and maintenance plans very carefully. One of the things we’re requiring is maintenance plans. We’re requiring that a bond or some other assurity instrument be posted such that if maintenance is not being properly done that there be some resources available to..
Council Member Andresen
Roger, how about the concept of the escrow account that was in the original proposal that the council approved. We wanted to be sure that the lake was built and we wanted to be sure it was built well so that there was an escrow account so that when so many houses got built so much money went into this pot. How about the idea of maintaining an escrow account for the ponds?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
That was our idea behind the assurity instrument, behind the bond. Not having an escrow account but having a financial back-up for exactly that purpose in case maintenance were not handled accurately.
Council Member Andresen
Is that likely to be used?
Town Manager Horton
It’s a surety bond and we’ve had a lot of experience with it.
Council Member Andresen
How often have we called the bonds when we’ve had them?
Town Manager Horton
We’ve not had to do it very often but.. the legal mechanism is very clear and it is a sound method and it gives us a lot of assurance. There are a couple of things that I would add to what Roger said. In addition to the requirement that’s in this stipulations that the design be approved, I think that the homeowners and the folks who live in that area and the market itself is going to drive the developer and ultimately the Homeowner's Association to keep them in good shape. They’re going to want them to be amenities as you suggested and so will contribute to the value of their property rather than detract from it. So we’ll insist on the best design that we can bring forward in the original process. I think market forces will help keep it in good shape and then we have a surety bond that¼
Council Member Pavão moved, seconded by Council Member Evans, to adjourn the public hearing.
Town Manager Horton
Madam Mayor, the applicant still needs to make a statement.
Mayor Waldorf
It’s all right for the motion to be made and seconded, you can still make your statement before we vote.
D.R. Bryan
Mayor Waldorf, we just have a couple of changes we would request in the stipulations. The first one, report #1 of the modification of the master land use plan, we have three changes we would request. The first one relates to the timing of building the greenway from Culbreth Road north up to Merritt’s Store. In the modification that you have it states that the greenway, and this is not the greenway over the creek but this is the greenway over the bridge, would be built along with Arlan Park, the northeast tract that is part of that development and as part of the development of the west tract.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Could you show us where this is in the text so that we could follow it?
DR Bryan
Okay, page 13 and 10g.
Town Manager Horton
And on page 13 it would be at the 4th paragraph down counting the one that has been lined through.
DR Bryan
And we are requesting that this be changed in both the northeast tract, report #2 and the master land use plan modifications to eliminate the connection with Arlan Park or the northeast tract.
Mayor Waldorf
And what’s the reason for that?
DR Bryan
The reason for that is that the DOT is planning on widening the bridge over Morgan Creek beginning in April, 1998. So we would like for our building of the greenway and the sidewalks to coincide with that which would be with the west tract. We are getting ready to plat the last twenty lots in the northeast tract in the next two weeks. So we ask that that be tied to the west tract not the northeast tract.
Mayor Waldorf
So in other words, you don’t want to build it and have DOT tear it up?
DR Bryan
That’s right.
Town Manager Horton
We’d have no objection there.
DR Bryan
The second item I think Roger may have alluded to, in paragraph 10g in the master land use plan, it’s 3k on the northeast tract, there’s a statement about safety railings on each side of the highway. I think that was meant to be east side. I think the intent there was that the railings on each side of the bridges and not the entire greenway.
Town Manager Horton
That’s consistent with our intent and we would accept that change as a reasonable one.
DR Bryan
The last has to do with what Ms Andresen, you just asked, “How can the developer be required to have nice looking ponds?” We are asking to delete the requirement that we screen the ponds because we want the ponds to be attractive. We don’t want the ponds to be something that we have to hide. So that’s something that we would like to have¼.
Council Member Andresen
But the requirements said that vegetative screening shall be provided, vegetative screening surely is attractive, isn’t it?
DR Bryan
Well, if it’s 20 foot Leland Cypress hiding the pond from the adjoining lots, we would think it would be more attractive to be looking at the pond.
Council Member Andresen
What do you propose, grass? What are you proposing?
DR Bryan
Sometimes it might be grass. Sometimes it might be shrubbery.
Council Member Andresen
To me that’s the same thing as vegetative screening. I’m just have trouble understanding your point.
DR Bryan
We read the vegetative screening as being something like a buffer.
Council Member Andresen
Maybe we can come up with a different term.
Town Manager Horton
What you really need to call for is a suitable landscape development around those ponds and we’ll work on some improvement in wording for that.
Mayor Waldorf
So landscaping shall be provide around the permanent detention ponds. That could be ornamental grasses or whatever. Do you want to go ahead and talk about your requests on report #2.
DR Bryan
They mirror the master land use plan so the first one is the timing of the building of the greenway across the bridge. The second one relates to the bridge railings versus highway railings and the third is the pond screening.
Mayor Waldorf
Any other questions?
Council Member Chilton
When last you were here, as I recall, we discussed the size of the potential grocery store, the square footage. Do I understand that you are still requesting some change with respect to that that the staff is not recommending?
DR Bryan
There was some discussion about moving the maximum square footage of the grocery store from 15,000 to 20 or 25,000. We do not have tenant right now. One way or the other it would give us some flexibility if it could be moved to 20 or 25,000 it would keep us from having to take a year to get back here to ask this okay. It would be helpful.
Council Member Chilton
Let me ask the staff something real quick on that. That number isn’t in the resolution somewhere. It’s incorporated by reference. Okay, it ‘s in the design guidelines. There’s not anything about it currently though that guarantees that it would be grocery store type of use, if you see what I mean. In other words, if we increased it to 20,000 consistent with your proposal there, is it possible that some other kind of retail store is going to go in there?
DR Bryan
The way it’s worded, it’s actually on page 12 of the resolution, 5o. The design guidelines allow retail uses up to 10,000 square feet but a grocery store is an exception and it can be up to 15,000 square feet. It’s on page 20 of the master plan, 14 of¼.
Town Manager Horton
It specifically refers to grocery stores is the key thing.
Council Member Chilton
So it does have to be a grocery store?
Mayor Waldorf
Yes. That’s what it says.
Town Manager Horton
The developer has accepted that restriction.
DR Bryan
We would welcome an increase to give us some flexibility.
Council Member Chilton
Changing that number in 14o doesn’t change that amount of overall commercial retail space that they’re able to build though, if we add the language?
Roger Waldon, Planning Director
That’s correct.
Town Manager Horton
Mayor, in regard to the concern raised by council member Andresen, if you would take a moment to consider new language for stipulation #24. I would recommend modifying so that the title would landscaping around permanent retention ponds and so that the language said that “landscaping approved by the Manager will be provided around the retention ponds and such landscaping shall be in accordance with local and state water shed protection regulations.” That gives us a more comprehensive look at it and I think would improve our ability to hold it to a high standard.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I would just like to go back when we were actually approving this master land use plan and the resolutions, all of them. It seems to me that the 15,000 square feet of floor area for the grocery store was actually an increase at that time and that’s why it’s specified in there. It was an increase from what was originally requested for the grocery. Is that not correct?
DR Bryan
Yes ma’am.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
It began at something and you said that you would need at least 15,000 square feet so we actually increased it from something¼
DR Bryan
It was 10,000 square feet on every retail piece and we increased the grocery store to 15,000.
THE MOTION TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf
Floor is open for council comment or further motions.
Council Member Andresen
I’d like to ask how we’re going to approach this because we’ve got three different things. Are we going to do them one at a time?
Mayor Waldorf
I think we have to take them one at a time. I think the land use plan comes first. It seems to me that people were asking question about the whole range of issues so I’m not sure we have to go through that procedure again. If people have other questions¼
Council Member Franck
I think procedurally it may be easier if we get a motion on the floor and then begin talking about modifications.
COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1A, THE MODIFICATION TO THE MASTER LAND USE PLAN.
Mayor Waldorf
So R1a has been moved and seconded. Does your motion include the¼?
Council Member Franck
No we’re including nothing. We’re just getting the ball rolling here. If we’re going to keep the ball rolling and if I still have the floor, I would like to move the three modifications as subsequently modified by the Manager that were handed to us being #1 that we delete the words “Arland Park, the northeast tract” in this part of the development in paragraph 10g. The effect of that is to tie the construction of the Morgan Creek Greenway to the northwest tract rather than the northeast tract. The second one of those is to change the word “highway” to “bridges” also in 10g. The effect of that is to require safety railings along the bridges not along the entire highway and to replace item 24 with the language that was just read by the Manager regarding landscaping around permanent detention ponds.
Mayor Waldorf
Does the seconder accept these amendments?
Council Member Chilton
Yes.
Council Member Capowski
I would like to propose an amendment to insert the word “developable” in the master land use plan on page 17 in paragraph 12. And I think it needs to go in two places. In the second line between the words “acquire” and “land” and in the third line between the words “of” and “land”.
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
That’s fine. I had actually, the second time, just put “that” land to refer back. Could I ask you to also consider adding at the end of that paragraph town Manager and just add in “Town Attorney”.
Town Manager Horton
I’d support that change.
Mayor Waldorf
Could we get the language of the motion???
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
The proposal is on the second line of item #12 which is on page 17 after the words, “the developer may acquire” insert the words “developable” before the word “land” and then it would read, “or obtain restrictions on development of that land.” And then at the end of that paragraph just say after the words “Manager” just the add the words, “and Town Attorney.”
Mayor Waldorf
Are you moving an amendment to the motion? Are you asking the mover to accept this amendment?
Council Member Capowski
Well, I’d like to hear Julie’s comment first.
Council Member Andresen
I would like to delete it and let me say why. Delete the whole stipulation for this reason. We understand now it isn’t going to lead to greater density, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether he has to build a pond or not. The purpose of the pond is storm water retention so I think this is really dangerous, that this is ripe for abuse and I think that we should seriously consider deleting this.
Council Member Franck
I will actually support that. I was going to move that and be happy to do that after or before we vote on Joe’s motion.
Mayor Waldorf
Joe hasn’t really made an amendment.
Council Member Capowski
I make that amendment, the one Ralph just read.
Mayor Waldorf
I don’t believe it’s been seconded.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Council Member Andresen
Procedurally, I just want to know what’s happening here because¼
Mayor Waldorf
What’s happening is that there’s a motion on the floor, Richard move Resolution 1a, he amended it to include the changes that the developer was requesting and the seconder (Council Member Chilton) accepted those amendments. Now Joe is proposing an amendment to the resolution that’s on the floor.
Council Member Franck
Julie, what we can do is after we vote on this, you and I can propose to delete the whole thing.
Council Member Brown offered a substitute motion to delete condition number twelve. Council Member Franck seconded the motion.
Mayor Waldorf
Is that procedurally okay, Mr. Attorney?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
Well it would be to substitute an amendment for another amendment which would then have to be voted upon.
Mayor Waldorf
So the substitute motion is that item #12 be deleted which has been seconded.
Council Member Chilton
Can I ask a question at this point? If the developer decided to pursue #12 here, would that mean that none of these ponds were built or that some number of the ponds not have to be built?
Town Manager Horton
It would depend on how much land he bought and how much equivalency he could establish.
Council Member Chilton
It’s not an all or nothing ¼ Maybe he’d have to build 7 or 4 just depending on how ¼. And do we have any sense of how much land we’re taking about?
Town Manager Horton
I think the developer had done some estimating. I’d have to ask him to comment on that.
DR Bryan
The State regulations require and the Town regulations require that if you develop more than two units per acre, you have a stormwater facility. So let’s just say that a typical pond would serve 100 houses, we would have to purchase all development rights on 50 acres so nothing could be built on 50 acres somewhere else for us not to build one pond that would serve 100 houses.
Council Member Chilton
50 acres for one pond? Okay. Here’s my comment on deleting #12. It seems to me that what these rules are all about is protecting water shed and the idea behind it is to protect the quality of water in Jordan Lake, the quality of the drinking water there. Of course, it has the effect of protecting the water quality of Morgan Creek downstream of this site. So it seems to me that there’s a lot to be said for not building these ponds because it’s basically a less invasive form of development in not building these ponds than if they are. The ponds are going to be in more or less RCD type areas? They are. So we’re talking about less initial disturbance and we’re also talking about the potential for the protection of a lot of land off-site from development. It seems to me like a pretty good deal, I actually will be surprised if the developer takes us up on this if that’s really going to save him that much money but¼ I think it’s a reasonable proposal.
Council Member Andresen
I think Mark you’ve got some interesting points. I would not like to see the retention ponds in the RCD at all and I think I would like to add that as a stipulation. As to the point of whether it’s going to in the end do greater good, that’s really the question, for water shed protection. It seems to me that it would be very¼ What we’ve done here is we’ve said ,”Let’s have a village and then let’s have 5 acre zoning around it.” It’s going to be very easy to go out and purchase development rights from folks who have no intention of developing their land. So to me this doesn’t make sense. I think that it’s ripe for abuse and as you suggested while we’ve inserted the word “developable” you know there’s all kinds of land and somebody sitting on a 5 acre tract which has a rocky slope going next to a stream or something, it’s still developable, he’ll sell it and get some money and then these storm water aren’t built and I’m just very concerned with the liability for the town. What’s going to happen if we aren’t going to be able to contain the water that we’re making by approving this development?
Council Member Chilton
Let me ask a follow-up question. I’m aware that we have some serious downstream flooding issues in many water sheds in town. Is Morgan Creek really one of them? Bolin Creek is really more the problem isn’t it?
Town Manager Horton
Morgan Creek is a problem although the number of homes affected would be far fewer because of the lack of development along Morgan Creek in Chapel Hill. But for instance the waste water treatment plant was completely flooded out by Morgan Creek. So it is a significant problem. These ponds wouldn’t help you at all in that kind of storm event.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I would just like to remind everybody of what Roger actually said and that was that Southern Village is part of a whole plan and we’ve already designated this whole area as far as the zoning and the developability that’s part of this so you would have to go outside of the Southern plan area, I would imagine, I don’t know it that’s the case but¼
Town Manager Horton
I think as long as you stayed in the drainage area basin that’s the key thing.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Would you define this drainage basin?
Town Manager Horton
I couldn’t but I’m sure the engineers could describe it.
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
The regulations would require that the density off-setting would be within that same watershed where you were developing.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
How extensive is that watershed? What is the drainage basin?
Council Member Andresen
What kind of area are we talking about?
Town Manager Horton
I think we need to bring an engineer to the table.
Council Member Chilton
The watershed that we’re talking about starts somewhere just south of Franklin St. ¼..
Council Member Franck
There’s a difference between the watershed and the drainage basin.
Town Engineer George Small
The drainage basin is over 2,000 acres and it is formed by Fan Branch and Wilson Creek which go to the south so the drainage basin starts in the south. The Southern Village development, over 300 acres is in the northern part of that drainage basin.
Mayor Waldorf
Mr. Attorney, will you help me with something. Even though we have discussed the substance of this substitute motion, what we need to vote on now is whether to substitute the motion to delete #12. Is that correct?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
Right. The motion is whether to substitute that for the other motion either of which would be an amendment to the main motion.
Mayor Waldorf
So, let’s vote on whether to substitute the motion to delete stipulation #12 for the amendment that Joe proposed. All in favor of substituting please say Aye, "Aye". All opposed no.
THE MOTION PASSES 5-4 WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDRESEN, FRANCK, BROWN AND CHILTON VOTING NO.
The proposal is to amend the motion by amending stipulation #12 to add in the word “developable” in the second line, the word “that land” in the third and add “and Town Attorney” in the last line. All right, Moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of this amendment of the motion that’s already on the table please say Aye, "Aye". All opposed no.
THE MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE 8-1 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN VOTING NO.
Council Member Capowski
Do we also have to make that change in the special use permits?
Mayor Waldorf
When we get to it.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO AMEND ITEM 11F ON PAGE 16 TO SAY THAT “NO PONDS WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE RCD”.
Council Member Capowski
I’d like to ask a question about it. What does that mean in terms of the proposal?
Town Manager Horton
We think that that would be problematic and I’d ask George Small to comment.
George Small
We struggled with that ourselves. The ponds need to be down near the streams which is where all the water tends to flow. We wouldn’t allow them to be in the flood-ways and if they were placed in the flood fringe areas of the streams then we would want them designed so they weren’t inundated. The problem would be¼ They could be located outside the RCD but that would begin to cut into developable area up nearer to homes or apartments or something. It’s a little more difficult to site them all the way outside the RCD which gets fairly extensive in a couple of cases. It could be done but it would be difficult.
Mayor Waldorf
This amendment has been made and seconded. Are there any further questions? All in favor of amending item 11f to say “no ponds shall be located within the RCD please say "Aye". All opposed “no”. (Ayes are Council Members Brown and Andresen). Any other amendments to the master plan?
Council Member Evans
I think it’s very important that this community have a viable grocery store to serve the residents there so that they don’t have to hop in the cars and drive somewhere else so I move that we increase the square footage for the grocery store. It’s on page 20, 14o. That the grocery may increased to 25,000 square feet of floor area.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PROPOSED GROCERY STORE TO 25,000 SQUARE FEET.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I have a question about that because of the situation below that. Actually, it’s in the 3c¼. I can’t find it right now but it has to do with when one square footage is increased that the square footage has to be decreased. It’s in 3a, it’s 12-6c and it says that in the Village core district “the percentage of retail floor area may be increased by up to 20% and the floor area of the alternate components accordingly be reduced.” So does that require that any alternate components be reduced by this square footage increase?
Council Member Pavão
They don’t exceed what the total square footage is of the area.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
So you are taking away from something else.
Council Member Chilton
This does not contemplate any increase in the total amount of square footage in the total commercial retail space.
Council Member Franck
I’d like to urge a vote against the proposed amendment. I think that the whole idea behind the Village is that we need to change our ideas about what types of developments can be viable and I think a 15,000 square foot grocery store, although it may not be the same type that we’re used to seeing, is viable. I think the reason that stipulation was there in the first place is because of the feeling that the bigger retail facilities aren’t necessary. You can have facilities that are smaller and I’d like to see us stick to that.
Council Member Andresen
Do you have any idea how big Weaver Street (Market) is Richard?
Town Manager Horton
I believe the applicant can answer that question and also another comparison might be the stores in Chapel Hill.
DR Bryan
I think Weaver Street is 9,000 square feet and Wellspring is about 13,000 square feet. As we started talking about this, if we’re going to make a change, I would like if you could, to say a grocery store/pharmacy combination up to 12,500 square feet, so we could break that 10,000 square feet. Some of the pharmacies now, since the big grocery stores have pharmacies in them, so the drug stores are now going into smaller spots but they are about half grocery store half pharmacy. And we’re actually talking to one now that would come into the village core but it would be about 12,500 square feet. And I hate to get back and say, “Well this is not a grocery store.”
Mayor Waldorf
I’m confused. You’re saying that you have a combination grocery store/pharmacy that totals 12,500 square feet?
DR Bryan
Right, but it only has dry goods. It doesn’t have meats, fish or vegetables.
Mayor Waldorf
So you’re saying that the flexibility you need is not in the square footage, it’s in the nomenclature?
DR Bryan
I would say both.
Council Member Franck
In any case that particular motion is not relevant to the motion that’s on the floor right now.
Mayor Waldorf
The motion that’s on the floor right now is that we change the stipulation 14o to say that the grocery store can be 25,000 square feet instead of 15,000 square feet.
Council Member Evans
I would like to withdraw my motion and change it to grocery store/pharmacy. And leave it at the 15,000 square feet. Council Member Pavao, the seconder, concurred.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I’m confused. If you say grocery store but you’re not selling any groceries? He said no meats, no vegetables, it’s only going to be dry goods.
Town Manager Horton
He’s selling only dry goods. It’s only canned goods.
D.R. Bryan
Paper goods, dry goods and canned goods.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
So you’re more interested in the pharmacy now than the grocery store?
DR Bryan
We’re interested in a grocery store but there’s a possibility that if we had this type of grocery store then it could be augmented by and butcher shop, a bakery that type of thing. Same thing we were talking about before, three years ago.
Council Member Chilton
So some of those other products would still be available in the village core area but in smaller shops.
DR Bryan
Right, right now the restaurant has meats and breads and that sort of thing.
Council Member Franck
If I could just point out that the language as proposed would say, “The grocery store/pharmacy” which means there would only be one.
Mayor Waldorf
All right. Let’s vote. All in favor please signify by saying "Aye". All opposed “no”. Passes unanimously Any other amendments? Joyce?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
The map is also part of this and I would like to propose some amendments to the map. The map has what Roger was talking about a difference in what was originally passed and that was shops retail in the village core store front has been increased from 62,500 square feet to 80,000 square feet. I would like to amend the map to decrease that 80,000 square feet as Roger is recommending back to 62,500 square feet. On program development project data.
Mayor Waldorf
Why don’t you just make a sweeping motion that the map be amended as necessary to conform with whatever we adopt in language.
Council Member Franck
I’m not sure the language is written anywhere else.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
That’s not specified anywhere. No, the map gives these figures which are given no place else and I think it’s important that this map be changed and the program development project data on the master plan .....
Town Manager Horton
Madam Mayor we suggested earlier this evening that the Council might want to incorporate those same numbers or whatever numbers the council wishes into stipulation #4.
Council Member Chilton
The top of the document that we just got a few minutes ago where it says...
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
But if we change this on the map, we would be safely doing that and then we could add this language to the resolution.
Mayor Waldorf
I wonder if we could do the text first and then deal with the map. It wouldn’t have any different impact and it would be a lot less confusing for me. Is that possible? Are there any other amendments that anyone wants to propose to the text?
Council Member Chilton
What about this language? Is anybody offering this?
Council Member Franck moved that #4 be changed to say “limits for development” and add the sentence at the end in addition “no more than 80,000 square feet of commerical floor area and no more than 45,000 square feet of office floor area shall be allowed for the development.”
Council Member Chilton
How about if Joyce just makes that motion and then Richard and I can accept it as a friendly amendment?
Council Member Brown made the motion as referenced above, as suggested by Council Member Chilton. Council Member Franck concurred with this arrangement.
Council Member Andresen
Number 28, Landscape protection plan. It’s a stipulation 28 on page 23. It says here that ,” a detailed landscape protection plan will be reviewed and approved by the town manager prior to issuance of a zoning compliance permit.” I’d like to see that either reviewed by the Appearance Commission or the Design Review Board whichever is in existence at that time.
Council Member Evans
We only have four members of the Appearance Commission.
Town Manager Horton
This would be the plan that would be used to keep trees from being damaged and things of that nature. It’s more of a technical matter than an appearance issue, I think. And the landscape architect is the person who would be best suited to review under our direction.
Council Member Andresen
Don’t we usually have the Appearance Commission review landscape and building elevations?
Town Manager Horton
Not on a landscape protection plan.
Council Member Franck
The landscape protection plan is that thing that is required by the tree protection ordinance that says you’re going to put up fencing around certain trees....
Town Manager Horton
If you look at #26 that’s the one that you want approved by the Appearance Commission.
Council Member Andresen
Okay, 26 is the one.... Okay, scratch that. Number 33, erosion control that’s on page 25. It has a nice little paragraph here about the erosion control officer reviewing final plans and the like. But we’ve got a real problem out here and I’d like to know what we could do to beef up this so that we don’t have situations where whole areas are not being seeded. This is the prime seeding area that the comment was made that’s absolutely correct that means that nothings’ going to be done throughout the winter. What could we do as a town to insure that as this development is being constructed that as many measures as possible are taken to prevent run-off?
Town Manager Horton
In accordance with the council’s instruction earlier we’ve already communicated the concern to the county government. We obtained the slides that Mr. Day presented tonight and we’re going to submit those to them so that the can have a clear picture of the kinds of problems that are being experienced. I think the key thing is to continue to put pressure on that division of the county government so that they will enforce the laws.
Council Member Andresen
Well, it just hasn’t happened though. That’s my concern.
Town Manager Horton
On the whole, I think that it has. There have been periodic lapses and there have been periodic problems particularly in the stormy period that we had during the month of September.
Council Member Andresen
I understand. But it’s a much bigger problem and we can’t ....
Mayor Waldorf
It’s not a problem we can solve in this stipulation.
Council Member Andresen
It’s not one we can solve in this stipulation but gosh if we’re going to keep approving things we ought to address it at some point as a policy issue.
Town Manager Horton
One option would be for the town to withdraw from its present arrangements in which the county provides the service and to begin providing it on our own. Then we would have to have inspections.
Council Member Andresen
I would also like to look at 15d which is on page 21 which is that the town could assume the responsibility of Homeowner’s Association. Does everybody like the fact that the town could ....
Mayor Waldorf
It says the town may assume responsibility.
Council Member Andresen
I understand. But I don’t like even having it in there.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I would support an amendment that says the Homeowner’s Association is responsible for ownership and maintenance of the active recreation area facilities.
Council Member Andresen
I think what it does it that it raises and expectation among the homeowner’s that if things aren’t kept up we’ll go to the town and have them run it. I think it’s not a good policy to have in here.
Mayor Waldorf
I don’t know if they’re going to read stipulation 15d.
Council Member Franck
Julie I would suggest that you move to amend that motion 15d
Council Member Andresen
Yes, I move to amend the motion 15d to put a period after “facilities” in the second line and delete the rest.
Mayor Waldorf
So you moved it Joyce and Julie you want to be the seconder? Yes. All in favor of that amendment which has 15d reading that “the Homeowner’s Association is responsible for ownership and maintenance of the recreation facilities.” please signify by saying "Aye". All opposed “no”. The matter passes unanimously.
Council Member Andresen
Do buffers relate to this one at all or is that for the more specific ones?
Council Member Chilton
It says, on page 23 at the top second bullet, “type b buffer, minimum width 10 feet along all other property lines coinciding with the perimeter of the 312 acre site.” My recollection is that we’ve been promised a 20 foot buffer, is that right?
Mayor Waldorf
Well, back to the previous paragraph on page 22, the master plan talks about several different types of buffers, some 30, some 10.
Council Member Chilton
Yes, but as a general category all the other buffers are 20 feet. Is that right? The developer is nodding yes.
Mayor Waldorf
It’s in the changed language in the memo so it needs to be changed here. Is it correct then to change paragraph #2 on page 23 to say 20 feet?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I’d like to suggest even wider buffers.
Council Member Andresen
Yes, I wanted to suggest that actually. I wanted to suggest thirty feet.
Mayor Waldorf
So is it recognized that this is just an editorial correction rather than an amendment?
Town Manager Horton
There will be other places in the other resolutions not only tonight’s but the ones that you will consider next week on so...
Council Member Andresen
Where does the Culbreth Park one come on, the twenty feet that the developer agreed to there?
DR Bryan
The question is where is the Culbreth Park ?
Council Member Andresen
Yes, I remember reading somewhere... actually it was more of a technical question but my question is where does it appear in our packet? Is it on the master plan or on these others?
Town Manager Horton
The master plan and the northeast tract would be the two that would affect Culbreth Park.
Council Member Andresen
And as of now the developer agreed to twenty foot buffers, is that right? You stated that earlier?
Mayor Waldorf
Are there any other changes to resolution 1a?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I would like to make an amendment that that type b buffer that we just changed from twenty feet to be thirty feet.
Council Member Andresen
I’ll second it.
Mayor Waldorf
All right. Moved and seconded. Actually, this is something that we have to have the applicant speak on. This is something that we have to either get his consent to or impose on him without his consent so maybe he has something to say here.
DR Bryan
Thank you. That question came up this summer and in response to that rather than have larger buffers we changed the entire design on the outer edge of the property to completely eliminate 13 lots up here on some steeper terrain so this is the area that backs up to Culbreth Park and then this area, everything here to the west of my stick here is the exact same zoning as what the adjoining property is and we’re sent letters and met with people and requested meetings with people and I think out of 8 property owners here, 1 has objected to the plan that we have here and requested more buffer. So we would like to keep it 20 feet.
Council Member Chilton
The places where you’re up against existing subdivisions are, you almost or barely touch along Culbreth Park... and then along Cobble Ridge where the stub-out is and then over here where Dogwood Acres is.
DR Bryan
There are eight lots that back up to us right here at Dogwood Acres.
Council Member Chilton
Along Cobble Ridge, the lots that you’re proposing to back up to there look to me to be about the same size, is that correct?
DR Bryan
That’s correct
Council Member Chilton
Although very different sizes down by Dogwood Acres.
DR Bryan
These lots are roughly 70 feet wide by 175 feet deep.
Council Member Chilton
The ones on this map that I’m looking at, the overview area map, oh that’s the old plan...
Mayor Waldorf
So if a 30 foot buffer were imposed that would mean for you, in practical terms that you would have to adjust the size of your lots?
DR Bryan
I think the way that the buffers are... We would be required actually to give that land to the Homeowner’s Association so that the lots would be 30 feet of no man’s land behind the lots.
Mayor Waldorf
So that would be owned by the Homeowner’s Association and maintained or not maintained by the Homeowner’s Association?
DR Bryan
That’s my understanding.
Mayor Waldorf
And that’s the situation with the 20 foot buffer that’s provided for in this stipulation?
DR Bryan
We would prefer to have a 30 foot buffer as an easement rather than actually deeded to the Homeowner’s Association. We could put a 30 buffer on individual lots. That would be a lot easier for us to do than to actually have a strip going around the entire site.
Mayor Waldorf
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying DR. Would you make that clearer?
DR Bryan
I’m saying that there are two ways to have a buffer. One would be to actually deed this strip to the Homeowner’s Association which is the way it is now. We would prefer to put up and easement of 20 or 30 feet on individual lots so that the lot would actually come to edge of the property but there would be a 30 foot easement that they would not be able to cut trees or build anything.
Mayor Waldorf
So it would be like a conservation easement?
Town Manager Horton
But the would cut trees is our experience and there would be a change in ownership and somebody would go out and cut down all the trees and then the buffer would be gone and it would be too late.
Mayor Waldorf
All right. So there’s a motion on the floor that, if everyone agrees that our previous vote was somewhat inconclusive, there’s a motion on the floor that third point under stipulation #23 be changed from a minimum 20 foot buffer to a minimum 30 foot buffer and it was seconded so let’s vote. All in favor please signify by saying "Aye". All opposed “No”. (Ayes are Andresen, Brown and Capowski). Motion fails by a vote of 3 to 6.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I have another one. I would like to eliminate an item on page fifteen. It’s the other vehicular crossing of Fan Branch. We’ve made so many incursions into the RCD. We’re going to put detention ponds there. We’re having real serious erosion problems, we’ve heard about how siltation is in this. I would like to make a motion that we remove stipulation 10q.
Mayor Waldorf
And that would be the uppermost crossing of Fan Branch?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
..That’s connecting the northeast tract.
Council Member Chilton
Wait. It’s the lower one.
Mayor Waldorf
Is it the one on the top or the one on the bottom? (The top) Okay, that’s what I meant. So that motion’s been made. Is there a second? Council Member Andresen seconded the motion.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
The RCD has been encroached on to a considerable extent already and I think that this project was presented as a project that was going to preserve RCD and going to provide open space and we are encroaching more and more on the RCD so I’m just trying to eliminate one more encroachment.
Mayor Waldorf
I wasn’t here to develop this project and vote on the master plan but I think it was also presented as a neighborhood that was going to be connected inside itself so I guess it’s something of a trade-off.
Council Member Andresen
Yes, I agree it’s a trade-off but I don’t see many stipulations that say how that RCD area is to be bridged so is that just going to be... I mean I can remember a time when the RCD was crossed very carefully with high bridges and the like and I’m wondering.... I think that crossing it twice is going to do an enormous amount of damage so I’m just wanting to know is there anything in here that says anything about how those RCD areas are crossed, set standards?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
I would think the standards would be the standards in the development ordinances for crossing the RCD.
Council Member Andresen
So they’re in there.
Mayor Waldorf
So the motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any other comment?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I just think that it’s real important that when we discuss this, this was also going to be a pedestrian development and vehicular traffic going to be discouraged and not only this is one more incursion into the RCD but it’s one more use of the automobile.
Council Member Evans
I think if you look at options the traffic would have here, it means that all of it would probably come in through the village core or through Cobble Ridge because those are the two most direct ways in to get from one area to another. I think it’s really important when you have this dense a development, to have more than one road that connects up. Because otherwise, you’re just putting a lot of traffic... I mean we may want to run a bus through here too. School buses, no doubt, will come through here. I think that we’ve got requirements that help preserve..... We have lots of places that we’ve built bridges even before we had the requirements to preserve the RCD and it’s done well but on transportation planning we need to...
Mayor Waldorf
Let’s vote on the motion to eliminate.
Council Member Andresen
I had one more question. The greenway goes up there. When it hits a road what happens? Do you walk over the road?
Town Manager Horton
Yes ma’am.
Mayor Waldorf
The motion is to eliminate point 10q, vehicular crossing of Fanbranch. All in favor please signify by saying "Aye". All opposed “no.” The ayes are Council Members Andresen and Brown. The motion fails by a vote of 2-7. Are there other amendments?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Yes I would like to go to the map if there are no other changes to the text. I would like to change the village course to a front district under program development project data from 80,000 square feet to 62,500 square feet. Council Member Andresen seconded the motion.
Mayor Waldorf
All in favor please signify by saying "Aye". All opposed “no.” The matter passes unanimously.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I would like to remove the new stub-out that is shown right below west tract parcel B on the new master plan.
Council Member Franck
It’s the southern most of the two stub-outs to the west.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
It is new on this plan from what was passed in 1993. There’s no stub-out listed then.
Mayor Waldorf
So, that’s a motion. Council Member Andresen seconds the motion.
Council Member Franck
I’d like to point out that I’m not sure that it’s exactly new. I think the previous plan was not as detailed and did not show a complete road network. It merely showed a conceptual network of where the connections would be and it clearly did show one connection to the west. In the cases that there’s going to be a connection to the west I think it would be definitely preferable to have two connections to the west to disperse traffic over more than one road. Especially since it’s not going into areas that are already developed. I mean the roads are most likely not going to be connected to anything for quite some time until the property owners there decide to develop them. I have to agree with the comments Pat made earlier that building something like this and not connecting it is total insanity. While it is a village and while it does offer services to... I’ve heard the word “self-contained” and that’s just not the way we live. It’s not going to be self-contained. People are going to need to get off-site, giving them more options on how to do that relieves the traffic burdens everywhere.
Council Member Capowski
Roger, could you put up a lower magnification map that goes over to Smith Level Rd? How closely can you point out where the two western stub-outs will be? Joyce, your proposal is to eliminate the southern one?
Council Member Chilton
The thing about this is¼ could somebody point out where the Carrboro Town line is? So both of the properties that are being connected to are in Chapel Hill? Okay, they are in our ETJ. So the town council will get to review those two projects. If I owned one of those two properties and I was going to build a subdivision there, say A Southern Village doesn’t exist for a moment, I pretty much have a right to connect my subdivision onto Smith Level Rd, don’t I? If we build a stub-out to that, do they still have the right to connect to Smith Level Rd? (Yes) In other words, isn’t it possible that depending on the order in which these properties are developed that the two properties developed into subdivisions might be only given one access onto Smith Level Rd.
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
That could be. That’s not entirely our call. It’ partly up to the state DOT.
Council Member Chilton
I see. So the state DOT will determine that sort of thing.
Town Manager Horton
Under their normal rules they would have an entitlement to get a driveway cut.
Mayor Waldorf
But a stub-out is not a destiny. A stub-out is a possibility. Just because a stub-out is there it doesn’t mean that a road has to continue from it.
Council Member Chilton
Where I was headed with that is that having two stub-outs into two different properties doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re talking about two entrances onto Smith Level Rd. but it probably does mean that¼ it’s not necessarily but¼
Town Manager Horton
You’d have to assume lots of things and somebody could always assume something differently.
Council Member Capowski
There is one other factor here. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that we as a council adopted as part of the adoption of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro annexation boundary, the council adopted more or less the saving of the pastoral view of Smith Level Rd. so this is an adopted council policy.
Council Member Andresen
I would just like to add to that point because I was on that work group. The implications of the stub-out are big because the folks and all the neighbors that engaged in the Small Area Planning didn’t expect a cut-through to Smith Level. It is a big issue and the council has adopted a policy about preserving the pastoral character of this road and keeping it two lane and I just don’t see ¼ This is really betraying that trust.
Mayor Waldorf
We need to vote on this point. We need to deal with resolution 1a and we need to move onto the others so Pat..
Council Member Evans
I served on the Southern Small Area Plan and we did talk about connecting up. We talked about connecting up to Dogwood Acres, we talked about connecting up to Smith Level Rd and to other areas. So we did talk about it and we did recommend it.
Council Member Chilton
As I recall there was a recommendation that was not approved by the council in the adoption of the modifications to the comprehensive plan. Carlton Rd, the council rejected.
Mayor Waldorf
So the motion is to remove the lower stub-out that is shown on this version of the map that we have before us tonight and it has been seconded. All in favor please say "Aye". All opposed “no.” Ayes are Council Members Andresen, Brown, Capowski, Chilton and Mayor Waldorf. Nos are Council Members Evans, Franck, Pavao and Wiggins. The stubout is deleted.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I think an automobile dominated village is contradictory to the original concept of this plan and I would like to go on the record to delete the next stub-out onto Smith Level Rd.
Mayor Waldorf
All right. Moved and seconded All in favor please say "Aye". All opposed “No” . (Ayes are Brown and Andresen). The motion fails 2 to 7. All in favor of Resolution 1a as amended, including the amendments to the map, please say "Aye". All opposed “no.” The resolution passes 7-2, with Council Members Andresen and Brown voting no. All right, Resolution 2a.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF MASTER LAND USE PLAN FOR SOUTHERN VILLAGE (96-10-22/R-1a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Master Land Use Plan Modification proposed by Bryan Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 126, Block A, Lots 4, 4K, 4N and 20; Tax Map 122, Block B, Lots 8M, 8S, 8T, 8U, 8V and 8W; Tax Map 126C; Tax Map 126D; and Tax Map 126E, if developed according to the Master Plan, Sheet MP-1, dated July 31, 1996 and stamped "received August 31, 1996,” the Wet Detention Facilities Plan, Sheet WD3, dated “Project Date 11 July 1996” and dated August 29, 1996, the general principles outlined in the "Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines" (Submitted by the applicant and subject to the revisions listed in conditions below), and the conditions listed below, would:
1. Maintain the public health, safety and general welfare;
2. Maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
3. Conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
These findings are conditioned on the following:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. Application Deadline: That an application for a Special Use Permit for development of at least one phase be accepted by the Town Manager by June 28, 1995 or the above Master Land Use Plan shall automatically expire.
2. Land Uses:
a. Land uses within the various districts (Village Core Storefront, Village Green Entranceway Transition, Village Green, Neighborhood District, and Village Core Apartment District) must be limited to those described in the uses shown on the Master Plan (and included in the Neighborhood Guidelines) submitted by the applicant and Subsection 12.3 (schedule of uses) of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance.
In a case where the Master Plan and Neighborhood Guidelines list a use not included in a particular zoning district according to Subsection 12.3, the use shall not be permitted. Uses shall be in accordance with those defined in Article 2 of the Development Ordinance.
b. That the south central square in the Village Storefront District may be used for a fire station but for no other drive-through use.
c. That the primary use of the middle central square in the Village Storefront District may be parking.
d. That each Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification shall be required to comply with the Land Use Intensity requirements of the underlying zoning district, except as may otherwise be approved by the Council, but individual site-by-site applications for development within the boundary of the Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification shall not be required to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use Intensity requirements.
3. Accessory Dwelling Units: That an accessory dwelling unit may be constructed only on a residential lot at least 50 feet wide, with provision for at least 2 parking spaces on the lot, behind the primary dwelling unit. This restriction shall also be included in the restrictive covenants for the development.
4. Limits for Development: That no more that 1,388 dwelling units shall be allowed for the development. This total number of dwelling units includes, but is not limited to, dwelling units in single-family homes, two-family homes, accessory apartments, townhomes, and apartments. In addition, no more than 80,000 square feet of commercial floor area and no more thar 145,000 square feet of office floor shall be allowed for the development.
5. Stormwater Management Plan: That a general stormwater management plan for the entire site be submitted for review with the final plans for the first phase of development. A detailed stormwater management plan, based on the Town's HYDROS program, shall be submitted with each Final Plan application for approval by the Town Manager. Stormwater management plans shall be approved by State and Federal agencies, if so required.
6. Transportation Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for any operation of the proposed office or commercial uses, the applicant prepare for approval by the Town Manager, a Transportation Management Plan. This Transportation Management Plan shall include provisions to reduce automobile traffic and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation.
7. Preservation of Existing Cemeteries and Graves: That the existing cemeteries be preserved in the two "green areas" in the northeast tract as shown on the plans, and that all federal and state regulations regarding preservation of, relocation of, and development around gravesites be complied with; and that ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the cemeteries be included in the establishment of a property owners' association.
8. Ownership and Responsibilities
of Common Areas: That owners' association(s) be created for the maintenance
and regulation of the private (residential, office, park, landscape, and commercial)
areas. All property owners, excluding governmental bodies, must be represented
in the owners' association(s). The owners' association(s) may have maintenance
responsibilities for development elements which affect the entire development,
including the stormwater management facilitiesy.
In addition, separate neighborhood association(s) and owners' association(s) for the Village Core Storefront District shall be created for the maintenance and regulations of the residential and commercial areas. The documents creating these entities shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager, and shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development.
The responsibilities of these entities shall include the ownership and maintenance of the private alleys, private green spaces, private parks, the existing cemeteries, and the perimeter buffers. These entities shall also be responsible for any "add on fees" charged by Duke Power for special street lighting.
9. Water and Sewer Line Extensions: That preliminary utility extension plans be reviewed and approved by OWASA as part of the final plans for the first phase of development. Thereafter, prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for any phase of development, OWASA and Town Manager approval of detailed phase-specific utility extension plans must be obtained. The plans may include water and sewer line construction both off-site and on-site.
Where possible, sewer lines shall be located outside the Greenway system and placed within street rights-of-way.
10. Required Improvements: The sequence and extent of the following improvements, unless otherwise noted, shall be determined with approval of subsequent Special Use Permits for the phases of development, according to the relative scale and impact of each phase.
a. That one-half of a 120-foot right-of-way along the Highway 15-501 frontage be dedicated, with additional right-of-way dedicated at the project entrances off Highway 15-501 if determined to be necessary by the Town Manager. The entire dedication shall occur prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development.
b. That the developer reserve (not dedicate) a 100-foot right-of-way along the southwest property lined (west of Fan Branch) for the Laurel Hill Parkway Corridor until such time as the Thoroughfare Plan is amended by the N.C. Board of Transportation to remove Laurel Hill Parkway and the Council adopts a resolution releasing this right-of-way reservation.
c.
That the developer shall install a traffic signals or shall provide
a signal payment-in-lieu to the Town for the intersections of
Highway 15-501 and the proposed northern and southern entrance to the
village. The signals must be installed or payment-in-lieu made by the
developer prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for any phase of development
using this intersection for primary access, including the proposed park/ride
lot.
d. That the developer add a left turn lane and a right hand deceleration/turn lane on Highway 15-501 at each of the two proposed entrances into the village from Highway 15-501.
e. That three lanes be provided at each entrance off Highway 15-501 - one lane into the development, one lane for right turns onto Highway 15-501, and one left turn lane onto Highway 15-501.
The right-of-way and pavement width at the southern entrance shall be wide enough to accommodate an additional left turn out onto Highway 15-501 at the southern entrance.
The right-of-way width at the northern entrance shall be wide enough to accommodate a fourth lane.
f. That sidewalk be installed on at least one side of each public street (except the alleys).
g.
That the applicant provide an asphalt pedestrian/bicycle path, sections of which
would be within the greenways and recreation areas along Wilson Creek and Fan
Branch, and across along Morgan Creek. The Greenway shall be
deeded to the Town and shall contain a pedestrian/non-motorized vehicle easement.
Asphalt
paths shall be provided from the southern property line, extend through the
village site, extend beyond the northern property line, across under
Culbreth Road (or as a surface crossing on Culbreth Road), to Morgan
Creek and over Morgan Creek, parallel to Morgan Creek (north side) to
a point on the east side of the Highway 15-501 bridge, and join South Columbia
Street.
A bikelane and a sidewalk shall be provided along the south side of Culbreth Road, from the current termination of the greenway/bicycle path at Culbreth Road to the intersection of Culbreth Road and Highway 15-501. Install pedestrian signs and crosswalk striping across Highway 15-501, across Culbreth Road and across Mount Carmel Church Road.
For cyclists, construct a bikelane on both sides on Highway 15-501 from the Culbreth Road intersection north to Purefoy Road with a safety railing on each side of the bridges.
For pedestrians, construct a sidewalk on the west side of Highway 15-501 to the point of the northern-most entrance ramp (ramp onto westbound Fordham Boulevard). Install pedestrian signs and crosswalk striping across Highway 15-501 and across this exit ramp intersection. Provide a sidewalk from this intersection north to Purefoy Road on the east side of Highway 15-501.
A paved path suitable for bikes and
pedestrians shall be extended from the Morgan Creek bridge north approximately
600 feet to Purefoy Road, subject to approval by NCDOT, and subject to approval
by private property owners, if applicable.
The location, width, and design/construction standards for the bikelanes, sidewalks and paths are to be approved by the Town Manager.
The construction and completion of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements described above shall be required as part of the development of the West Tract. The construction of the greenway trail link to the north side of Morgan Creek from Culbreth Road shall be constructed and completed as part of the development of the West Tract.
A payment-in-lieu of constructing the connection to the north side of Morgan Creek from Culbreth Road, the amount to be approved by the Town Manager, may be provided to the Town. In the event that a future decision is made by the Town Council not to construct this link, the funds may be used for other greenway purposes in the immediate area that connect to the existing Southern Village greenway.
h. That the greenways shown on the plans, the primary public greens in the Village Core Storefront District, public parks, public recreation areas, and community recycling center(s) be dedicated and deeded to the Town.
Within the development, a several block long portion of the improved greenway path may be shifted away from the creek and up to the public roadway subject to Town Manager approval. For this several block section, a six (6) foot wide tree lawn shall be provided between the back of curb and the improved ten (10) foot wide path and a three (3) foot wide shoulder shall be provided between the path and the beginning of the slope down to Fan Branch. For this several block section, a natural surface trail shall be provided near the creek.
i. That community yard waste/compost site(s) be provided, with the number and location to be approved by the Town Manager. Property owners' association(s) shall be responsible for the management and maintenance of the yard waste/compost site(s), until such time as both the association and the Town agree to the Town taking on same responsibilities.
j. That adequate transit stops, with benches and possibly shelters, be provided as appropriate. The Town Manager, as subsequent Special Use Permit applications are reviewed, shall determine the number and location of transit stops to be located within the site as more is learned about the use of future buildings and potential transit needs.
All streets shall be built to Town standards, and shall be dedicated as public streets. The Town Manager may require certain private alleys to be built to Town standards to withstand service vehicles.
k. That play equipment, benches, and/or picnic shelters be provided in the neighborhood parks, with type, number, and location to be approved by the Town Manager.
l. That each road stubout to a subsequent phase be extended (cleared and graded) at least 100 feet into the adjacent future phase(s). Signage shall be located at each roadway stubout that indicates the roadway will be extended for future development.
m. That traffic control signage and pavement markings conform to the standards in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The Developer shall be responsible for maintaining the signs until the development is annexed by the Town.
n.
That a wet detention basins and/or other stormwater management
facilities be provided in accordance with Condition #12 below, and with all
applicable Town regulations, including the Town's Water Supply Watershed Protection
regulations (expected to be adopted by July 1, 1993), State regulations,
and federal (FEMA) regulations.
Design and
construction of any stormwater management facility shall be approved by the
Town Manager and may include acceptance by the Town of the maintenance responsibilities.
All plans and final plats shall include dedication of permanent easements and
construction of a paved or gravel drive for ingress/egress as necessary for
construction, maintenance operations and equipment. The drive shall be in a
location to be approved by the Town Manager.
o. That empty duct banks for future streetlights and signal cables be installed from Culbreth Road to and along this property's frontage on Highway 15-501, if deemed necessary by the Town Manager.
p. That the developer improve Culbreth Road at the entrance to Cobbleridge Subdivision, Phase 3 and 4 (aka Culbreth Ridge Subdivision) to provide a left-turn lane into Cobbleridge Subdivision, Phase 3 and 4, including any necessary tapers.
q. That a vehicular crossing of Fan Branch shall be required to link the portion of the development identified as Arlen Park, the Northeast Tract, to the West Tract.
r. That a pedestrian connection be provided to the Dogwood Acres development.
s. That all wetlands within the development be identified as part of Final Plans and, where possible, wetlands to be preserved shall be located in common area rather than on individual lots.
t. That all wetland disturbance shall be approved by the appropriate State and Federal agencies.
11. Obtaining Right to Develop
in the Northeast Corner of the Site: If the wet detention basin must be
located as shown on the Master Plan, the developer shall acquire the OWASA-owned
property in the northeast portion of the site, or obtain from OWASA any necessary
easements prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for construction of
the wet detention basin.
11. Permanent Retention Basin Installation:
a. Compliance with the Town Watershed Protection District regulations, if applicable, shall be demonstrated with the provision of multiple permanent ponds. For those portions of the development complying with the Low Density Option identified in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall not be required. For those portions of the development complying with the High Density Option identified in the Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall be required in accordance with the requirements of the Development Ordinance.
b. The size, accessibility, location, and design of each pond shall be approved by the Town Manager.
c. These wet retention ponds shall meet or exceed the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management requirements and shall be approved by the Town Manager.
d. The property owner shall post a performance bond or other surety instrument satisfactory to the Town Manager, in an amount approved by the Town Manager, to assure maintenance, repair, or reconstruction necessary for adequate performance of the engineered stormwater controls.
e. For purposes of calculating impervious surface area for compliance with the water quality regulations, the proposed public park/ride lot shall not be counted as part of this development; it shall be counted as part of the public facilities on adjacent Town-owned property.
f. For ponds proposed to be located within the Resource Conservation District, the ponds must be designed so as not to be inundated by the flood waters from the base flood discharge.
g. Maintenance of the ponds shall be the responsibility of the developer or a property/homeowner’s association. A maintenance plan shall be provided for each of the retention ponds, to be approved by the Town Manager. The plans shall address inspection, maintenance intervals, type of equipment required, access to each pond and related matters.
h. Escrow account funds required as part of the 1993 Master Land Use Plan approval shall be returned to the developer upon provision of a performance bond or other surety instrument identified in item (d) above for the first pond(s).
i. As part of every application for Final Plan Approval, Zoning Compliance Permit, and residential Building Permit, the developer shall provide an up-to-date cumulative total for impervious surfaces in the particular sub-basin.
j. The minimum permanent pool depth shall be at least three (3) feet in addition to enough volume to store the accumulated sediment between clean out periods.
k. All sediment deposited in the ponds during construction activity on contributing sites must be removed before “normal” pond operation begins.
l. Emergency drains shall be installed in all ponds to allow access for repairs and sediment removal as necessary.
m. Anti-seepage collars shall be used on any structures penetrating dams or water retaining embankments.
n. Public storm drainage systems or other utilities shall not be located within a pond or dam structure.
o. Proposed pond “I” shall be relocated to the west side of Wilson Creek in order to eliminate the need for an aerial stormdrain pipe creek crossing.
p. The proposed aerial stormdrain pipe creek crossing to proposed pond “B” shall be accommodated within the roadway crossing of the creek.
12. Building Threshold for
Permanent Detention Basin Installation:
a.
That after the impervious surface or building threshold (500 units or Town-approved
percentage of impervious surface, whichever occurs first) has been reached for
the entire property covered by this Master Land Use Plan approval, no additional
building permits shall be issued for any part of the Southern Village until
adequate stormwater management/water quality protection measures have been completed
in compliance with all then applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.
For the purposes of calculating this threshold, each dwelling unit and each
1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area shall constitute a "unit".
A note to this effect shall be place on all final plats and plans.
b.
For every unit, the developer shall set aside $500.00 in and escrow account
for the pond construction. For the purposes of the fund calculations, each
increment of 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area would count as a
"unit".
c.
Once 500 "units" have been constructed, the pond shall be constructed
to accommodate buildout of the entire site.
d.
The developer shall submit a monitoring plan and data for totalling the "unit"
number and impervious surface area as each building permit application is submitted
to the Town Manager. The monitoring plan shall be reviewed for approval by
the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first
phase.
12. Density Options: A density transfer option shall be available to the developer. Under the density transfer option, the developer may acquire developable land or obtain restrictions on development of that land and use that land, if it is located within the same drainage basin as the Southern Village, to help meet density thresholds for purposes associated with the Watershed Protection District regulations. Restrictions on development of such land shall be structured in a manner that will allow the Town to assure that the restrictions are permanent, and shall be in a form approved by the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
13. Service Stations: For any service station within this development, the following stipulations shall apply:
a. That all applicable Federal and State regulations, including those pertaining to water supply watershed protection, be complied with.
b. That all applicable Town regulations, including those pertaining to water supply watershed protection, storm drainage, and hazardous materials be complied with. Below is a partial list:
- an emergency contingency plan shall be prepared, in accordance with the requirements of Federal regulations, as part of the development application. The report must be updated annually;
- any storage container for hazardous materials (such as gasoline) shall be equipped with leak detection devices and shall be double-walled or have other secondary containment features;
- storage areas shall be protected by a dike of appropriate size, and;
- all floor drains that might collect hazardous materials must be connected to a tank or catch basin of appropriate size, and shall not be open to the site's natural drainage system.
c. That the plans and operation of the service station comply with Subsection 18.7.15, and all other applicable sections of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, which include the following standards for service stations:
- the lot must be at least 20,000 square feet in area;
- the lot must front and have direct access to an arterial or collector street;
- provisions must be made for ventilation and dispersion and removal of fumes, and for the removal of hazardous chemicals and fluids, and;
- the service station driveways must be at least 300 feet from any intersecting street, and at least 750 feet from any other service station driveway.
d. Additional protective measures for stormwater quality:
- that surface runoff from the gas station be routed to an oil-sand separator for liquid waste collection to filter the grease, oils, and other pollutants from the stormwater above the stormwater inlets;
- provisions for a waste disposal plan, addressing disposal methods and record-keeping for solid waste, waste trapped in the oil-sand separator, grease traps (and/or other filtering devices), and liquid waste in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. The plan and records are to be provided to the Town annually;
- for the fuel tanks: provision of double-walled piping with automatic leak detectors, and double-walled tanks with interstitial monitoring and automatic alarm systems; registration with the State and annual tank fees paid to the State, and;
- provision of monitoring well(s) with a regular monitoring program.
14. Design-Related Stipulations: The following revisions/additions shall be incorporated into the applicant's Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines. A revised copy of the Guidelines shall be submitted to the Town's Planning Department, and shall supersede the original set of guidelines. The revised guidelines must be received and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development. Subsequent revisions may be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager. At a minimum, the following revisions shall be included in the Guidelines:
a. All sidewalks within public rights-of-way shall be at least 5 feet in width. Alternatively, the Town Manager may approve a narrower width in situations where there are topographical or other constraints.
b. Landscape protection measures shall be to Town standards. The Town Manager may review and approve other methods on a case by case basis. Because uses other than single-family and two-family lots are allowed in the Neighborhood Districts and Village Green Districts, tree protection fencing shall be required during construction of public utilities and roadways and in other areas as determined to be necessary by the Town Manager.
c. Include specific street construction standards and materials, maximum slopes and vertical curve data, curb type, drainage methods, and typical cross-sections.
d. Address landscaping of street side slopes and traffic islands.
e. Address lighting of streets and alleys.
f. All alley/street intersections must be at least 100 feet apart. The Town Manager may approve narrower separations on a case by case basis.
g. No alleys shall intersect a street at a point where the street slopes over 15%.
h. Widths of the rights-of-way for public alleys shall be:
Ø with no curb and gutter - 30 feet;
Ø with curb and gutter - 24 feet.
i. That all driveway locations, for residential and non-residential uses, be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager.
j. Front yard driveways and parking areas shall be prohibited for the lots fronting on Street R-R (the continuation of the northern entrance into the site in the northeast Neighborhood District).
k. Provide more specifics on the provisions for refuse and recyclables storage, pads, access, and other solid waste management issues.
l. That all signage shall be reviewed for approval by the Town's Appearance Commission.
m. That the building setbacks for the perimeter of the 312-acre site be in accordance with Subsection 18.8.9.4 of the Development Ordinance. All other setbacks shall be as described in the Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
n. That speed limits and on-street parking shall be regulated by the Council.
o. That the floor area limitations for different uses within the Village Core Storefront District shall be in accordance with the submitted Guidelines, except that the grocery store/pharmacy may be increased to 15,000 square feet of floor area.
15. Recreation Space Requirements for Residential Components:
a. That recreation space of sufficient area and type, according to Article 13 of the Development Ordinance, be provided for the residential components, including amenities such as playground equipment, benches, and/or picnic shelters. The plans for the recreation space shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager.
The recreation space may be dedicated and deeded to the Town of Chapel Hill for Parks and Recreation purposes only, or to an owners' association (to be determined by the Town Manager). The developer remains responsible for the recreation space unless the Town or an owners' association accepts the property.
b. That the developer provide an additional recreation site centrally located, adjacent to the Resource Conservation District and a public street, dry and level, accessible from the Fan Branch greenway system, including a graded, multi-purpose playing field at least 300 feet by 150 feet, and including a regulation volleyball court and basketball court.
c. That the above recreation site be located as part of the developer's next residential Special Use Permit application. (Not as part of the Special Use Permit applications already submitted.) No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for the residential units within this phase until all the active recreation facilities have been provided to the Town Manager's satisfaction.
d. The homeowners' association is responsible for ownership and maintenance of the active recreation area and facilities.
e. That no private recreation facility on this site may be used to fulfill the Town's recreation space requirements for this development.
16. Review Process: For subphases and blocks and buildings within a development phase, the following review processes apply:
Residential:
Single- and two-family development to be approved by the Town Manager.
Attached townhouses to be approved by the Planning Board as Site Plan Reviews.
Multi-family development, including that in the Village Core Storefront District, to be approved by the Planning Board as Site Plan Review.
Village Core Apartment District to be approved by the Council as a Special Use Permit.
Non-residential:
Development to be approved by the Planning Board as Site Plan Review.
Signage:
All signage to be approved by the Town's Appearance Commission.
Each application shall demonstrate compliance with the Development Ordinance, including the intensity regulations of Article 13.
Stipulations Related to the Resource Conservation District
17. Boundaries: That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District for the entire site be indicated on final plans submitted for the first phase of development. A note shall be added indicating that "Development shall be restricted within the Resource Conservation District in accordance with the Development Ordinance" on this plan and on all plans and plats for subsequent Special Use Permit applications.
18. Variances: That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation District be obtained before application for final plat or final plan approval for the subject phase(s) of development.
19. Construction Standards: That for encroachment(s) into the Resource Conservation District, the requirements of and standards of Subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development Ordinance must be adhered to, unless the applicant as granted administrative exemptions. Encroachments include, but are not limited to:
Ø street crossings
Ø pedestrian/bicycle paths along and over the streams
Ø wet detention basin/stormwater management facility
Ø utility lines
Stipulations Related to State and Federal Government Approvals
20. State or Federal Approvals: That any required State or Federal permits or encroachment agreements (including, but not limited to, those needed for improvements to Highway 15-501, for lake and dam construction, for stormwater management and erosion control, and crossing over/under Highway 54, for water and sewer extension, and for development in the Water Supply Protection Area) be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of development.
21. NCDOT Approvals: That plans for improvements to State-maintained roads be approved by NCDOT prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of development.
Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements
22. Survey of Rare and Specimen Trees: That a survey of rare and specimen trees, as defined in the Development Ordinance, shall be submitted for review with each application for Special Use Permit.
23. Buffers: That the following buffers be provided, and that if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements that this vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:
Ø Type D buffer (minimum width 75 feet, as measured from the new right-of-way line) along Highway 15-501. For the northeast tract, this buffer shall be located between Highway 15-501 and any proposed building, and may be on either or both sides of the proposed detention basin in keeping with the Entranceway Plan objectives with a minimum of 30 feet of landscape bufferyard provided adjacent to Highway 15-501. This buffer may need to be expanded to comply with the State water supply watershed protection regulations, if required by the State.
Ø Type B buffer (minimum width 50 feet) behind the existing residences fronting on Highway 15-501 , excluding utility easements.
Ø Type B buffer (minimum width 20 feet) along all other property lines coinciding with the perimeter of the 312-acre site.
No utility easements may be included within the buffers, except for necessary perpendicular crossings.
Supplemental plantings may be necessary to fulfill the requirements for buffers, screening of parking lots, and entranceway plantings.
24. Landscaping Around Permanent Detention Ponds: That landscaping approved by the Town Manager shall be provided around the permanent detention ponds, and that such shall be in accordance with local and State watershed protection regulations.
25. Street Tree Plantings: That the developer shall provide street tree plantings in all phases of development where no existing trees are shown as remaining within twenty feet of the curb on the Landscape Protection Plans submitted with final plan applications. Locations are to include:
- at entranceways on Highway 15-501
- along entrance roads
- in the parks, greens, and cemeteries.
These trees will be installed to Town standards as detailed in the Town's Design Manual.
26. Landscape Plan Approval: That preliminary and detailed final landscape plans (including buffers and street tree plantings), landscape maintenance plans, and lighting plans be reviewed by the Town Manager and/or the Appearance Commission for approval in conjunction with application for a Special Use Permit for each phase of development.
27. Plantings Along the Highway Frontage: That plantings be provided and existing vegetation preserved along the highway frontage in general compliance with the Town's Master Landscape Plan for Entranceway Corridors along Highway 15-501.
28. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for each phase of development.
This plan shall include areas of vegetation to be preserved, the anticipated clearing limit lines, proposed grading, proposed utility lines, a detail of protective fencing, and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas.
The plan shall show the use of tree protection fencing between infrastructure construction and existing vegetation in:
Ø all required buffers
Ø all common areas (public or private)
Ø all areas designated to be used for residential, non-residential, or mixed-use development
Ø other areas, to be determined by the Town Manager.
Stipulations Related to Steep Slopes
29. That each submittal for Special Use Permit or Zoning Compliance Permit include a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10%or more and demonstrating how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance:
- for slopes of 10 - 15%, site preparation techniques shall be used which minimize grading and site disturbance;
- for slopes of 15 - 25%, demonstrate specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation, and;
- for slopes of 25% or greater, provide a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineering/environmental aspects of the site.
Each Final Plan application shall demonstrate compliance with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance. The Town Manager shall decide if the proposed building and site engineering techniques are appropriate.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
30. Subsequent Special Use Permits: That subsequent Special Use Permit applications demonstrate compliance with the approved Master Land Use Plan and all applicable provisions of the Development Ordinance, except for specifically permitted modifications to the regulations granted by the Council.
31. Solid Waste Management:
a. That a solid waste management plan, including provisions for recycling and for management of construction debris, be designed and submitted with each application for final plan approval.
b. Refuse and recyclables storage and collection shall be as follows:
I. Shared dumpsters and compactors in parking lots behind the buildings in the Village Core Storefront District, where possible;
II. Where dumpsters and compactors are not used, the primary method of refuse and recycling collection will be curbside service. Exceptions may be made by the Town Manager on a case by case basis.
For single-family and two-family lots, refuse collection will be provided by curbside service, subject to individual Town Manager approved exceptions. A note to this effect shall be placed on final plats and plans.
32. Fire and Safety: That a preliminary fire hydrant plan and fireflow report for the entire site be submitted with the final plans for the Special Use Permit application for the first phase of development. A detailed phase-specific hydrant plan and fireflow report shall be required prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for each phase of development.
33. Erosion Control: That a general soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for the 312 acre site be reviewed by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer with the review of the final plans for the first phase of development. A phase-specific detailed erosion control plan shall be submitted with each final plan application for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer.
34. Delete Stub-out: That sheet MP-1 us hereby amended to remove the southern of two stub-outs, shown along the western property line be deleted.
35. Square Foot Limitations: That sheet MP-1 is hereby amended such that the table labeled “Program Development” lists a maximum of 62,500 square feet of floor area for “shop/retail” in the Village Core Storefront District (rather than 80,000).
36. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
37. Non-severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for Southern Village Master Land Use Plan Modification in accordance with plans and conditions listed above.
This the 22nd day of October, 1996
Town Manager Horton
Madam Mayor, Roger Waldon has gone through Resolution 2a and identified all of the changes that would need to be made in order to be consistent with the Council’s actions on the first resolution.
Mayor Waldorf
Good. Do we need him to go through them?
Town Manager Horton
I would recommend that you trust us to be in tally with what the Council has done. We feel confident we can do that accurately. The minutes would come back to you for your approval. Nothing is final until the minutes are approved by the Council.
Mayor Waldorf
So all the substantive changes that were made to the master land use plan have been identified by the staff and will be processed in the documentation. Are there any other amendments?
Council Member Evans moved the adoption of Resolution 2a. Council Member Pavao seconded the motion.
Mayor Waldorf
And it’s implicit that it’s 2a as to be consistent with 1a. Okay, it’s been moved and seconded. Are there any other amendments?
Council Member Andresen
I really have a question for the staff and that is in both tables that appear with each item there was phrase called land use intensity ratio and it says that the staff approves it but I couldn’t find anywhere in here where it spoke to it. I don’t know whether I missed it entirely or what. What are we talking about here?
Town Manager Horton
If you could show us where?
Council Member Andresen
Page 6, on the table it has say applicant requests land use intensity ratios. I don’t know what that means he’s requesting. And then on the right hand side it says “staff recommends approval”. I don’t know what that means.
Town Manager Horton
That’s simply an error. I’m not sure what was intended to be there but it’s just an error. And it’s done in the other tables too, I presume. Is that correct? (Yes) They met the requirements and that was the intention, to indicate that there was not a disagreement.
Council Member Andresen
Okay.
Mayor Waldorf
Are there any amendments? Is there any further discussion?
Council Member Andresen
I’d just like to think about it before you put it to a vote.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I just want to say that I have the same reservations about this that I had about the other. I think that we began this process sometime ago with one idea. I think it’s turning into something else. I also think there are things that we have not resolved such as storm water management, land preservation, those kinds of things. So I am going to vote against this as well.
Council Member Andresen
I have a suggestion. On page 12 c, dealing with the retention ponds “meeting or exceeding North Carolina Division of Environmental Requirements and shall be approved by the Town Manager” I think it would be nice if we asked the DEM to review these as well and reviewed by the DEM. I don’t know whether you had intended to do that anyway Mr. Manager.
Mayor Waldorf
You mean you wouldn’t rely on the town staff to measure whether they’d meet or exceed the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) requirements?
Council Member Andresen
Yes, I want an additional layer of¼. And they have a real interest in this because they are also legally in charge of flood control. I mean it’s a reasonable thing for them to do.
Town Manager Horton
I think it’s a policy question for the Council to decide.
Council Member Andresen
So the wording would be “these wet retention ponds shall meet of exceed the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management requirements, be reviewed by them and shall be approved by the Town Manager’s.”
Mayor Waldorf
Moved and seconded All in favor please say "Aye". All opposed “no.” The ayes are Council Members Andresen, Brown and Chilton. The motion fails by a vote of 3-6.
Resolution 2a is on the floor. The resolution passes by a vote of 7-2, with Council Members Andresen and Brown voting no.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND VILLAGE GREEN DISTRICT OF THE NORTHEAST TRACT OF THE SOUTHERN VILLAGE (126-A-4) (96-10-22/R-2a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit - Planned Development Mix Use proposed by Bryan Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 126, Block A, part of Lot 4K; Tax Map 126C; and Tax Map 126D, if developed according to the terms of the Master Land Use Plan or subsequent modifications, Site Plan of the Northeast Tract, Sheet NE-3, dated March 28, 1996, the general principles outlined in the "Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines" (Submitted by the applicant and subject to the revisions listed in conditions below), and the conditions listed below, would:
1. Be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Comply with all required regulations and standards of the Development Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Article 12, 13, 14, and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Be located, designed and operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
These findings are conditioned on the following:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. Construction Deadline: That construction begin by June 28, 1998 with a valid Master Plan and be completed by June 28, 2008.
2. Land Uses: That this Special Use Permit Modification shall be required to comply with the Land Use Intensity requirements of the underlying zoning district, except as may otherwise be approved by Council, but individual site-by-site applications for development within the boundary of the Special Use Permit or Special Use Permit Modification shall not be required to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use Intensity requirements.
3.2 Required Improvements:
a. That one-half of a 120-foot right-of-way along the Highway 15-501 frontage be dedicated, with additional right-of-way dedicated at the project entrance off Highway 15-501 if determined to be necessary by the Town Manager. The entire dedication shall occur prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development.
b. That the developer add a left turn lane and a right hand deceleration/turn lane on Highway 15-501 at the entrance into the neighborhood district, subject to NCDOT approval.
. That the entrance off Highway 15-501 be constructed at a width which accommodates three lanes: one lane into the development, one lane for right turns onto Highway 15-501, and one left turn lane onto Highway 15-501. The right-of-way width should be such that it accommodates the addition of a fourth lane should it be necessary in the future.
d. That sidewalk be installed on at least one side of each public street (except alleys).
e. That any public parks, public recreation areas, and community recycling center(s) be dedicated and deeded to the Town.
f. That adequate transit stops, with benches, and possibly shelters, be provided as appropriate. The Town Manager shall determine the number and location of transit stops to be located within the site as more is learned about the use of future buildings and potential transit needs. The streets shall be built to Town standards, and shall be dedicated as public streets.
The Town Manager may require certain private alleys to be built to Town standards to withstand Town service vehicles.
g. That each road stubout to a subsequent phase be extended (cleared and graded) at least 100 feet into the adjacent future phase(s). Signage shall be located at each roadway stubout that indicates the roadway will be extended for future development.
h. That traffic control signage and pavement markings conform to the standards in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The Developer shall be responsible for maintaining the signs until the development is annexed by the Town.
i. Detailed phase-specific utility extension plans shall be reviewed for approval by OWASA and the Town Manager. These plans shall include water and sewer line construction both off-site and on-site.
j.
That a wet detention basin and/or other stormwater management facilities
be provided in accordance with Condition #5 below and with all applicable Town
regulations, including the Town's Water Supply Protection regulations (expected
to be adopted by July 1, 1993), State regulations, and federal (FEMA) regulations.
Design and construction of any stormwater management facility shall be approved
by the Town Manager and may include acceptance by the Town of maintenance
responsibilities. All plans and final plats shall include dedication of
permanent easements and construction of an improved drive for ingress/egress
as necessary for construction, maintenance operations and equipment.
k.
That the applicant provide an asphalt pedestrian/bicycle path, sections of which
would be within the greenways and recreation areas along Wilson Creek and Fan
Branch, and across along Morgan Creek. The Greenway shall be
deeded to the Town and shall contain a pedestrian, non-motorized vehicle easement.
Asphalt
paths shall be provided from the southern boundary of the northeast tract, extend
along Fan Branch, beyond the northern property line, across under
Culbreth Road (or as surface crossing on Culbreth Road), to Morgan
Creek and over Morgan Creek, parallel Morgan Creek (north side) to a
point on the east side of the Highway 15-501 bridge, and join South Columbia
Street.
A bikelane and a sidewalk shall be provided along the south side of Culbreth Road, from the current termination of the greenway/bicycle path at Culbreth Road to the intersection of Culbreth Road and Highway 15-501. Install pedestrian signs and crosswalk striping across Highway 15-501, across Culbreth Road and across Mount Carmel Church Road.
For cyclists, construct a bikelane on both sides of Highway 15-501 from the Culbreth Road intersection north to Purefoy Road with a safety railing on each side of the bridges.
For pedestrians, construct a sidewalk on the west side of Highway 15-501 to the point of the northern-most entrance ramp. Install pedestrian signs and crosswalk striping across Highway 15-501 and across the exit ramp intersection. Provide a sidewalk from the exit ramp intersection north to Purefoy Road on the east side of Highway 15-501.
A paved path suitable for bikes and
pedestrians shall be extended from the Morgan Creek bridge north approximately
600 feet to Purefoy Road, subject to approval of NCDOT, and, if necessary, approval
by private property owners.
The location, width, and design/construction standards for the bikelanes, sidewalks and paths are to be approved by the Town Manager.
The construction and completion of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements described above shall be required as part of the development of the West Tract. The construction of the greenway link to Morgan Creek and across Morgan Creek shall be constructed and completed as part of the development of the West Tract.
A payment-in-lieu- of constructing the connection to the north side of the Morgan Creek from Culbreth Road, the amount to be approved by the Town Manager, may be provided to the Town. In the event that a future decision is made by the Town Council not to construct this link, the funds may be used for other greenway purposes in the immediate area that connect to the existing Southern Village greenway.
l. That community yard waste/compost site(s) be shown on the final plans and provided on the site, with number and location to be approved by the Town Manager.
m. That play equipment and/or picnic shelters be provided in the neighborhood parks and private green, with type, number, and location to be approved by he Town Manager.
o. That a vehicular crossing of Fan Branch shall be required to link the portion of the development identified as Arlen Park, the Northeast Tract, to the West Tract.
p. That the greenways shown on the plans, the primary public greens in the Village Core Storefront District, public parks, public recreation areas, and community recycling center(s) be dedicated and deeded to the Town.
Within the development, a several block long portion of the improved greenway path may be shifted away from the creek and up to the public roadway subject to Town Manager approval. For this several block section, a six (6) foot wide tree lawn shall be provided between the back of curb and the improved ten (10) foot wide path and a three (3) foot wide shoulder shall be provided between the path and the beginning of the slope down to Fan Branch. For this several block section, a natural surface trail shall be provided near the creek.
q. That all wetlands within the development be identified as part of Final Plans and, where possible, wetlands to be preserved shall be located in common area rather than on individual lots.
r. That all wetland disturbance shall be approved by the appropriate State and Federal Agencies.
4.3. Accessory
Dwelling Units: That an accessory dwelling unit may be constructed only
on a residential lot at least 50 feet wide, with provision for at least 2 parking
spaces on the lot, behind the primary dwelling unit. This restriction shall
also be included in the restrictive covenants for the development.
5.4. Ownership
and Responsibilities of Common Areas: That an owners' association be created
for the maintenance and regulation of the private (residential, office, park,
landscape, and commercial) areas. All property owners owning land within the
area of the Master Land Use Plan approval, excluding governmental bodies, must
be represented in the owners' association. This owners' association may have
maintenance responsibilities for development elements which affect the entire
development, including the stormwater management facility.
In addition, separate neighborhood association(s) and owners' association(s) shall be created for the maintenance and regulation of the residential, office, and commercial areas. The documents creating these entities shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager, and shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
The responsibilities of these entities shall include the ownership and maintenance of the neighborhood compost sites, private alleys, private green spaces, private parks and recreation space, existing cemeteries and grave sites, and the perimeter buffers. These entities shall also be responsible for any "add-on fees" charged by Duke Power for special street lighting.
5. Building Threshold
for Permanent Detention Basin Installation:
a.
That after the impervious surface or building threshold (500 units or Town approved
percentage of 24% impervious surface, whichever occurs first) has been reached
for the entire property covered by the Master Plan for Southern Village, no
additional building permits shall be issued for any part of the Southern Village
until adequate stormwater management/water quality protection measures have
been completed in compliance with all then applicable local, State, and Federal
regulations. For the purposes of calculating this threshold, each dwelling
unit and each 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area shall constitute
a "unit". A note to this effect shall be placed on all final plats
and plans.
b.
For every dwelling unit, the developer shall set aside $500 in an escrow account
for the pond construction. For the purposes of the fund calculations, each
increment of 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area would count as a
"unit".
c.
Once 500 "units" have been constructed, the pond shall be constructed
to accommodate buildout of the entire site.
d.
The developer shall submit a monitoring plan and data for totalling the "unit"
number and impervious surface area as each building permit application is submitted
to the Town Manager. The monitoring plan shall be reviewed for approval by
the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first
phase.
6. Permanent Retention Basin Installation:
a. Compliance with the Town Watershed Protection District regulations, if applicable, shall be demonstrated with the provision of multiple permanent ponds. For those portions of the development complying with the Low Density Option identified in the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall not be required. For those portions of the development complying with the High Density Option identified in the Development Ordinance, permanent stormwater retention shall be required in accordance with the requirements of the Development Ordinance.
b. The size, accessibility, location, and design of each pond shall be approved by the Town Manager.
c. These wet retention ponds shall meet or exceed the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management requirements and shall be approved by the Division of Environmental Management and the Town Manager.
d. The property owner shall post a performance bond or other surety instrument satisfactory to the Town Manager, in an amount approved by the Town Manager, to assure maintenance, repair, or reconstruction necessary for adequate performance of the engineered stormwater controls.
e. For purposes of calculating impervious surface area for compliance with the water quality regulations, the proposed public park/ride lot shall not be counted as part of this development; it shall be counted as part of the public facilities on adjacent Town-owned property.
f. For ponds proposed to be located within the Resource Conservation District, the ponds must be designed so as not to be inundated by the flood waters from the base flood discharge.
g. Maintenance of the ponds shall be the responsibility of the developer or a property/homeowner’s association. A maintenance plan shall be provided for each of the retention ponds, to be approved by the Town Manager. The plans shall address inspection, maintenance intervals, type of equipment required, access to each pond and related matters.
h. Escrow account funds required as part of the 1993 Master Land Use Plan approval shall be returned to the developer upon provision of a performance bond or other surety instrument identified in item (d) above for the first pond(s).
i. As part of every application for Final Plan Approval, Zoning Compliance Permit, and residential Building Permit, the developer shall provide an up-to-date cumulative total for impervious surfaces in the particular sub-basin.
j. The minimum permanent pool depth shall be at least three (3) feet in addition to enough volume to store the accumulated sediment between clean out periods.
k. All sediment deposited in the ponds during construction activity on contributing sites must be removed before “normal” pond operation begins.
l. Emergency drains shall be installed in all ponds to allow access for repairs and sediment removal as necessary.
m. Anti-seepage collars shall be used on any structures penetrating dams or water retaining embankments.
n. Public storm drainage systems or other utilities shall not be located within a pond or dam structure.
o. Proposed pond “I” shall be relocated to the west side of Wilson Creek in order to eliminate the need for an aerial stormdrain pipe creek crossing.
7. 6. Preservation of
Existing Cemeteries and Graves: That the existing cemeteries be preserved
in the two "green areas" in the northeast tract as shown on the plans,
and that all federal and State regulations regarding preservation of, relocation
of, and development around grave sites be complied with; and that ownership,
maintenance responsibilities for the cemeteries be included in the establishment
of a property owners' association.
8.7. Design-Related Stipulations:
The following revisions and additions shall be incorporated into the applicant's
Neighborhood Guidelines. A revised copy of the Guidelines shall be submitted
to the Town's Planning Department, and shall supersede the original set of guidelines.
The revised guidelines must be received and approved by the Town Manager prior
to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development.
Subsequent revisions may be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager.
a. All sidewalks within public rights-of-way shall be at least 5 feet in width. Alternatively, the Town Manager may approve a narrower width in situations where there are topographical or other constraints.
b. Landscape protection measures shall be to Town standards. The Town Manager may review and approve other methods on a case by case basis. Because uses other than single-family and two-family lots are allowed in the Neighborhood District and Village Green District, tree protection fencing shall be required during construction of public utilities and roadways and in other areas as determined to be necessary by the Town Manager.
c. Include specific street construction standards and materials; maximum slopes and vertical curve data; curb type; drainage methods; and typical cross-sections.
d. Address landscaping of street side slopes and traffic islands.
e. Address lighting of streets and alleys.
f. All alley/street intersections must be at least 100 feet apart. The Town Manager may approve narrower separations on a case by case basis.
g. No alleys shall intersect a street at a point where the street slopes over 15%.
h. Widths of the right-of-way for public alleys shall be:
- with no curb and gutter - 30 feet
- with curb and gutter - 24 feet.
i. All driveway locations, for residential and non-residential uses, be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager.
j. Parking areas shall be located behind the multifamily and non-residential buildings where possible.
k. Provide more specifics on the provisions for refuse storage and recycling containers, pads, and access and other refuse management issues.
l. That all signage shall be reviewed for approval by the Town's Appearance Commission.
m. That the building setbacks for the perimeter of the 312-acre site be in accordance with Subsection 18.8.9.4 of the Development Ordinance. Setbacks within the development shall be as specified in the applicant's Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
n. That speed limits and on-street parking shall be regulated by the Council.
o. Front yard driveways and parking areas shall be prohibited for the lots fronting on Street R-R (the continuation of the northern highway entrance into the site).
9.8.
Land-Use Related Stipulation: That land uses within these two
districts (Neighborhood District and Village Green District) shall be limited
to those described in the uses shown on the approved Master Plan (and included
in the Neighborhood Guidelines) and Subsection 12.3 (schedule of uses) of the
Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. In cases where the Master Plan and Neighborhood
Guidelines list a use not included in Subsection 12.3 of the Development Ordinance,
the use shall not be permitted. Uses shall be in accordance with those defined
in Article 2 of the Development Ordinance.
10.9. Review
Process: For subphases and blocks and buildings within this phase, the
following review processes apply:
Residential:
Single-family and two-family development to be approved by the Town Manager.
Townhouses to be approved by the Planning Board as Site Plan Reviews.
Non-residential:
Buildings to be approved by the Planning Board as Site Plan Reviews.
Signage:
All signage to be approved by the Appearance Commission.
1110. Stormwater Management
Plan: That a general stormwater management plan for the entire 312-acre
site be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of the first Zoning Compliance
Permit. A detailed stormwater management plan, based on the Town's Hydros program,
shall be submitted with applications for plat approval and Zoning Compliance
Permits for approval by the Town manager.
1211. Steep Slopes:
That each submittal for Site Plan approval of Zoning Compliance Permit include
a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10% or more and indicating
how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations
in the Development Ordinance:
- for slopes of 10-15%, site preparation techniques shall be used which minimize grading and site disturbance;
- for slopes of 15-25%, demonstrate specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation; and
- for slopes of 25% or greater, provide a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineer/environmental aspects of the site.
Each final plan application shall demonstrate compliance with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance. The Town Manager shall decide if the proposed building and site engineering techniques are appropriate.
1312. Encroachment
Agreements: That any required State or local encroachment agreements (for
landscaping and other required improvements) be approved prior to issuance of
a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Recreation Area
1413. Recreation Space
Requirements for Residential Component: That recreation space of sufficient
area and type, according to Article 13 of the Development Ordinance, be provided
for the residential components within this phase of development, including amenities
such as playground equipment, benches, and/or picnic shelters. The plans for
the recreation area shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager. The
recreation space may be dedicated and deeded to the Town of Chapel Hill for
Parks and Recreation purposes only, or to an owners' association (to be determined
by the Town Manager). The developer remains responsible for the recreation
space unless the Town or a homeowners' association accepts the property.
Stipulations Related to the Resource Conservation District
1514. Boundaries:
That the boundaries of the Resource Conservation District for the entire site
be indicated on final plans submitted for the first phase of development. A
note shall be added to all final plats and plans, indicating that "Development
shall be restricted with the Resource Conservation District in accordance with
the Development Ordinance" on this plan and on all plans and plats for
subsequent Special Use Permit applications.
1615. Buildable Lots:
That no lot be created that would require a Resource Conservation District Variance
in order to be built upon.
1716. Variances:
That all variances necessary for development within the Resource Conservation
District be obtained before application for final plat or final plan approval
for the subject phase(s) of development.
1817. Construction
Standards: That for encroachment(s) into the Resource Conservation District,
the requirements and standards of subsections 5.6 and 5.8 of the Development
Ordinance must be adhered to, unless the application is granted administrative
exemptions. Encroachments include, but are not limited to:
- street crossings
- pedestrian/bicycle paths along and over the streams
- wet detention basin/stormwater management facility
- utility lines.
1918. State or Federal
Approvals: That any required State or Federal permits or encroachment agreements
(including but not limited to those needed for improvements to Highway 15-501,
for stormwater management and erosion control, for water and sewer extension,
and for development in the Water Supply Protection Area) be approved and copies
of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill
prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of
development.
2019. NCDOT Approvals:
That plans for improvements to Sate-maintained roads be approved by NCDOT prior
to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of development.
Stipulations Related to landscape Elements
2120. Landscape Protection
Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan be approved by the Town
Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
This plan shall include areas of vegetation to be preserved; the anticipated clearing limit lines; proposed grading; proposed utility lines; a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storage areas.
The plan shall show the use of tree protection fencing between infrastructure construction and existing vegetation in:
- all required buffers
- all common areas (public or private)
- all areas designed to be used for multifamily (including townhouses) and
nonresidential, or mixed use development
- other areas, to be determined by the Town Manager
2221. Street Tree
Plantings: That the developer shall provide street tree plantings in the
following locations;
- at the entranceway on Highway 15-501
- along the entrance road from Highway 15-501 into the neighborhood district
- in the parks, greens, and cemeteries
2322. Landscape Plan
Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers and street tree
plantings), landscape maintenance plans, and lighting plans be reviewed by the
Town Manager for approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
The following buffers shall be provided, and if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements that this vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:
- Type D buffer (minimum width 75', as measured from the new right-of-way line) along Highway 15-501. This buffer shall be located between Highway 15-501 and any proposed buildings, and may be on either or both sides of the proposed detention basin in keeping with the Entranceway Plan objectives with a minimum of 30 feet of landscape bufferyard provided adjacent to Highway 15-501. This buffer may need to be expanded to comply with the State water quality protection regulations, if required by the State.
- Type B buffer (minimum width 50 feet) behind the existing residences fronting on Highway 15-501, excluding utility easements.
- Type B buffer (minimum width 20 feet) along other property lines which coincide with the perimeter of the 312-acre site.
Supplemental plantings may be necessary to fulfill the requirements for buffers, screening, and entranceway plantings.
2423. Plantings along the Highway
Frontage: That plantings be provided and existing vegetation preserved
along the highway frontage in general compliance with the Town's Master Landscape
Plan for Entranceways Corridors along US 15-501.
2524. Landscaping
Around permanent Detention Ponds: That landscaping approved by the Town
Manager shall be provided around the permanent detention ponds, and that such
landscaping will be in accordance with local and State watershed protection
regulations.
Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer and Other Utilities
2625. Fireflow:
That a preliminary fire hydrant plan and fireflow report for the 312-acre site
be submitted with the final plans for the first phase. A detailed hydrant plan
and fireflow report shall be required prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance
Permit for this 71-acre phase. The following flows and pressures shall be provided:
- For non-residential: 2,500 - 12,000 gallons per minute, at 20 pound per square inch residual pressure;
- For multifamily: 1,500 - 2,500 gallons per minute, at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure; and
- For single-family: 750 gallons per minute, at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure.
2726. Sewer line locations
relative to greenways: That where possible, sewer lines shall be located
out of the greenway system and placed under nearby streets.
2827. Utility Service Laterals:
That prior to paving streets, utility service laterals (including cable and
telephone) shall be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot. Sanitary
sewer laterals shall be capped off above ground.
2928. OWASA Easements:
That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded
before final plat approval.
3029. Duct Bank for
Future Utilities: That the Town Manager may require installation of empty
duct banks for future street lights and signal cables along internal streets.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
3130. Solid Waste
Management Plan: That a detailed solid waste management plan, including
a recycling plan and plan for management of construction debris, be approved
by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
For single- and two-family lots, refuse/recyclable collection will be provided by curbside service, subject to Town Manager-approved exceptions, a note to this effect shall be placed on final plat(s).
3231. Transportation
Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for
any portion of the proposed non-residential uses, the applicant prepare, for
approval by the Town Manager, a Transportation Management Plan. The required
components of each Transportation Management Plan may include:
a. Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;
b. Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;
c. Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;
d. Ridesharing incentives; and
e. Public Transit incentives.
3332. Detailed Plans:
That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater
management plans (with hydrologic calculations), landscape plans, and landscape
maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning
Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to plans approved by this application
and demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and the design standards
of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.
The Town Manager may require adjustments to the street design to enhance safety and maintenance operations.
The developer shall be responsible for assuring that all utilities, including cable television, be extended to serve the development.
3433. Certificates
of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy be issued until all required
public improvements are complete; and that a note to this effect shall be placed
on the final plats.
If the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plats.
3534. Sight Triangle
Easements: That sight triangle easements be provided on the final plat.
3635. New Streets
- Traffic Signs: That the property owners shall be responsible for placement
and maintenance of temporary regulatory traffic signs including street name
signs before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy until such time that the
street system is accepted for maintenance by the Town.
3736. New Street Names
and Numbers: That the name of the development and its streets and house/building
numbers, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance
Permit.
3837. Erosion Control:
That a general soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for the 312-acre
site be reviewed by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer with the review
of the final plans for the first phase of development.
A phase-specific detailed erosion control plan sh all be submitted with each final plan application for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer.
3938. Silt Control:
That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit
of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
4039. Continued Validity:
That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned
on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
4140. Non-Severability:
That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety
shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the Special Use Permit Modification for the Neighborhood District and the Village Green District in the Northeast Tract of the Southern Village in accordance with plans and conditions listed above.
This the 22nd day of October, 1996.
Mayor Waldorf
Let’s move onto 3a with I assume that as necessary staff will likewise make consistent with the changes to the master land use plan.
Council Member Pavao moved, seconded by Council Member Evans, to adopt Resolution 3a.
Town Manager Horton
Madam Mayor, we would offer one amendment. It is the memo that we had put on the table earlier that you include the specific square foot limitation in the resolution on page 8. It is item #6.
The mover and seconder expressed their concurrence with the proposed amendment.
Mayor Waldorf
Are there any other amendments?
Council Member Andresen
In the summary of staff recommendations, somebody’s going to have to help me out to know where this stipulation is, but the applicant requested that site plan reviews for two office buildings and a parking area and the staff recommends yes with conditions.
Council Member Evans
That’s 3b.
Council Member Andresen
And we’re only dealing with 3a now? Well I don’t know which one of these things on this table deal with 3a, that’s my problem. The density transfer option, which one is that in? I’m on page 6 where we really have the big concepts listed. What the applicant is requested and what the staff has recommended. Is that the same transfer option we were talking about before?
Town Manager Horton
Yes, that’s one that the Council has voted on.
Mayor Waldorf
That’s only addressed in the master land use plan, isn’t it?
Council Member Andresen
It’s addressed again in this one. I’m on page 6 of report 3.
Mayor Waldorf
It’s a chart but the chart’s not part of the resolution. I’m looking to see whether there’s any reference to it in the stipulation or whether we covered it in the master land use plan.
Council Member Andresen
I’ve got one. As a matter of policy, do we now issue stop work orders when there is stuff on the road and it’s not removed?
Town Manager Horton
No, we seldom have to issue an actual stop-work order. We almost unfailingly are able to get immediate compliance when one of the inspectors requires them to make a clean-up. We have excellent cooperation from that and it’s strictly enforced.
Council Member Andresen
I don’t recommend a change then.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
In all of these plans, I meant to put this in and in the heat of the other discussions I forgot to but it has to do with solid waste management. This is on page 18. I would like to insert a plan for management and reduction of construction debris as approved by the Town Manager. We’ve already passed the others and that probably couldn’t be included but I’d at least like to include it in this one.
Council Member Chilton
Reduction compared to what?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Well, when you manage it, you simply pick it up and take it to the landfill. When you reduce it you learn how to cut your woods so that you don’t have a lot left over, you don’t have a lot of drywall left over, those kinds of things.
Council Member Franck
So, a reduction compared to what would ordinarily be generated on the construction site? It’s important to be clear about what that means.
Mayor Waldorf
Yes, if you’re expecting someone to enforce it. Is that a motion? Is there a second?
Council Member Evans
What is the definition of this? Because I think any good developer doesn’t want to waste good lumber and drywall.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I’ve heard that a lot of waste,,, and the construction waste is one of the big components of our waste stream.
Mayor Waldorf
There’s a motion to amend #23 to say “management and reduction of construction debris” Is there a second?
Council Member Chilton
Why don’t you just accept it as friendly? I can’t believe there’s a problem.
Council Member Evans
I just asked what does it mean? Because if you’re going to enforce something you really need to know what it means.
Council Member Chilton
They had to submit this plan into the Town Manager.
Council Member Evans
It’s another plan that has to be submitted.
Council Member Chilton
No, it’s part of that plan that already has to be submitted.
Council Member Evans
It’s just changing the title of it?
Council Member Chilton
Well, hopefully the content as well.
Council Member Evans
Could the Manger clarify this for me?
Town Manager Horton
I understand what the Mayor Pro-tem is saying. In fact, our recycling staff have done some work with the contractors and developers to try and reduce that amount of waste that’s generated on construction sites. We’ve had varying degrees of success, I have to admit.
Mayor Waldorf
I’ve got proposed wording that may be a friendly amendment. How about ”plan to manage and minimize construction debris”. Are we ready to vote? All in favor please say "Aye". All opposed say “no.” The matter passes unanimously. That was on the main motion. It was a friendly amendment to minimize the construction debris. I was calling for the vote on the main motion. Do we need to retake that vote?
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
Yes
Mayor Waldorf
We are voting on Resolution 3a. All in favor please say "Aye". All opposed “no.” Nos are Council Members Andresen and Brown.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE VILLAGE CORE STOREFRONT DISTRICT AND THE VILLAGE GREEN ENTRANCEWAY TRANSITION DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN VILLAGE (126.A.4) (96-10-22/R-3a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that it finds that the Special Use Permit Modification - Planned Development - Mixed Use proposed by Bryan Properties, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 126, Block A, Lot 4 and part of Lot 4K and Tax Map 126E, if developed according to the Site Plan for the Southeast Tract, Sheet SE-3, stamped "received March 2, 1993"; the general principles outlined in the "Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines" (submitted by the applicant and subject to the revisions listed below); the plans dated November 10, 1995; and the conditions listed below:
1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of applicable provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 18, and with all other applicable regulations;
3. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and,
4. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modification to the regulations satisfies public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:
Modification to Section 14.6.7 of the Development Ordinance, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, which stipulates the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required, to:
Ø reduce the nonresidential parking number requirements by half; and
Ø count both on-street and off-street parking toward fulfillment of parking number requirements for both residential and non-residential development.
Modification to Section 13.7 of the Development Ordinance, Land Use Intensity (LUI ) Ratios to allow the application of Use Group B, Town Center-1 zoning district Land Use Intensity Ratios to development in the Village Core subject to the following overall limitations:
· 162,500 square feet of residential floor area
· 145,000 square feet of commercial floor area
· 62,500 square feet of office floor area
These findings are conditioned on the following:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. Construction Deadline: That construction begin by June 28, 1998 with a valid Master Land Use Plan approval and be completed by June 28, 2008.
2. Required Improvements:
a. That one-half of a 120-foot right-of-way along the Highway 15-501 frontage be dedicated, with additional right-of-way dedicated at the project entrance off Highway 15-501 if determined to be necessary by the Town Manager. The dedication shall occur prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development.
b. That the developer install a traffic signal or provide a payment-in-lieu to the Town for the intersection of Highway 15-501 and the entrance to the village core. The signal shall be installed or payment-in-lieu made to the Town prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development using this intersection as primary access.
c. That the developer add a left turn lane and a right hand deceleration/turn lane on Highway 15-501 at the entrance into the village core.
d. That the entrance off Highway 15-501 be constructed at a width which accommodates four lanes: - one lane into the development, one lane for right turns onto Highway 15-501, and two left turn lanes onto Highway 15-501. The entrance shall initially be striped to accommodate three lanes: one lane into the development, one lane for right turns onto Highway 15-501, and one left turn lane onto Highway 15-501.
e. That sidewalk be installed on at least one side of each public street, except the alleys and the highway.
f. That any public parks and public recreation areas be dedicated and deeded to the Town.
g. That adequate transit stops, with benches and possible shelters, be provided as appropriate. The Town Manager shall determine the number and location of transit stops to be located within the site as more is learned about the use of future buildings and potential transit needs. The streets shall be built to Town standards, and shall be dedicated as public streets.
h. That each road stubout to a subsequent phase be extended (cleared and graded) at least 100 feet into the adjacent future phase(s). Signage shall be located at each roadway stubout that indicates the roadway will be extended for future development.
i. That traffic control signage and pavement markings conform to the standards in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the signs until the development is annexed by the Town.
j.
That a wet detention basins and/or other stormwater management
facilities be provided in accordance with Condition #4 below, and with
all applicable Town regulations, including the Town's Water Supply Protection
regulations (expected to be adopted by July 1, 1993), State regulations,
and Federal (FEMA) regulations.
Design and
construction of any stormwater management facility shall be approved by the
Town Manager and may include acceptance by the Town of maintenance responsibilities.
All plans and final plats shall include dedication of permanent easements for
ingress/egress as necessary for maintenance operations and equipment.
3. Ownership and Responsibilities of Common Areas: That an owners' association be created for the maintenance and regulation of the private (residential, office, park, landscape, and commercial) areas. All property owners (owning property within the area of the Master Land Use Plan approval), excluding governmental bodies, must be represented in the owners' association. This owners' association may have maintenance responsibilities for development elements which affect the entire development, including the stormwater management facility.
In addition, separate neighborhood association(s) and/or owners' association(s) for the Village Core Storefront District and Village Green Entranceway Transition District shall be created for the maintenance and regulations of the residential, office, and commercial areas. The documents creating these entities shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager, and shall be recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development.
The responsibilities of these entities shall include the ownership and maintenance of the private alleys, private green spaces, private parks or recreation space, existing cemeteries and grave sites, and the perimeter buffers. These entities shall also be responsible for any "add-on fees" charged by Duke Power for special street lighting.
4. Building
Threshold For Permanent Detention Basin Installation:
a.
That after the impervious surface or building threshold (500 units or 24% of
impervious surface, whichever occurs first) has been reached for the entire
property covered by the Master Land Use Plan, no additional building permits
shall be issued for any part of the Southern Village until adequate stormwater
management/water quality protection measures have been completed in compliance
with all then applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. For the purposes
of calculating this threshold, each dwelling unit and each 1,000 square feet
of nonresidential floor area shall constitute a "unit". A note to
this effect shall be placed on all final plats and plans.
b.
For every dwelling unit, the developer shall set aside $500 in an escrow account
for the pond construction. For the purposes of the fund calculations, each
increment of 1,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area would count as a
"unit".
c.
Once 500 "units" have been constructed, the pond will be constructed
to accommodate buildout of the entire site.
d.
The developer shall submit a monitoring plan and data for totalling the "unit"
number and impervious surface area as each building permit is submitted to the
Town Manager. The monitoring plan shall be reviewed for approval by the Town
Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase.
4. Impervious Surface:
As part of every application for Final Plan Approval and Zoning Compliance Permit, the developer shall provide an up-to-date cumulative total for impervious surfaces in the applicable drainage sub-basin.
5. Design-Related Stipulations: The following revisions/additions shall be incorporated into the applicant's Traditional Neighborhood Development Design Guidelines. A revised copy of the Guidelines shall be submitted to the Town's Planning Department, and shall supersede the original set of guidelines. The revised guidelines must be received and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the first phase of development. Subsequent revisions may be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager.
a. All sidewalks with public rights-of-way shall be at least 5 feet in width. Alternatively, the Town Manager may approve a narrower width in situations where there are topographical or other constraints.
b. Landscape protection measures shall be to Town standards. The Town Manager may review and approve other methods on a case by case basis.
c. Include specific street construction standards and materials; maximum slopes and vertical curve data; curb type; drainage methods; and typical cross-sections.
d. That all one-way streets should include islands at the intersections to help direct traffic flow.
e. Address landscaping of street side slopes and traffic islands.
f. Address lighting of streets and alleys.
g. All alley/street intersections must be at least 100 feet apart. The Town Manager may approve narrower separations on a case by case basis.
h. No alleys shall intersect a street at a point where the street slopes over 15%.
i. Widths of the right-of-way for public alleys shall be:
- with no curb and gutter - 30 feet
- with curb and gutter - 24 feet.
j. That all driveway locations, for residential and non-residential uses, be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager.
k. Parking areas shall be located behind the buildings in the storefront district and the entranceway district where possible.
l. Provide more specifics on the provisions for refuse storage and recycling containers, pads, access and other refuse management issues including trash compactors.
m. That all signage shall be reviewed for approval by the Town's Appearance Commission.
n. That the building setbacks for the perimeter of the 312-acre site be in accordance with Subsection 18.8.9.4 of the Development Ordinance. All other setbacks shall be as described in the Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
o. That the floor area limits for different uses within the Village Core Storefront District shall be in accordance with the submitted TND Guidelines, except that the grocery store/pharmacy may be increased to 15,000 square feet of floor area.
6. Land-Use Related Stipulations:
a. Land uses within these two districts (Village Core Storefront and Village Green Entranceway Transition) shall be limited to those described in the uses shown on the approved Master Plan (included in the Traditional Neighborhood Development Design Guidelines) and Subsection 12.3 (schedule of uses) of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. In cases where the Master Plan and Traditional Neighborhood Development Design Guidelines list a use not included in Subsection 12.3 of the Development Ordinance, the use shall not be permitted. Uses shall be in accordance with those defined in Article 2 of the Development Ordinance.
Notwithstanding the above limitations on land use in the Village Core Storefront District, the central block (bounded by Market Street, Aberdeen, and Kildaire) may be used for parking.
b. That the south central square in the Village Storefront District may be used for a fire station, but for no other drive-through use.
c. That for the Village Core District, the percentage of retail floor area may be increased by up to 20%, and the floor area of the alternate components(s) accordingly be reduced, so that there is no net increase in floor area.
d. That the development identified with this Special Use Permit Modification application shall be required to comply with the Land Use Intensity requirements of the underlying zoning district, but individual site-by-site applications for development within the boundary of the Special Use Permit Modification shall not be required to demonstrate compliance with the Land Use Intensity requirements.
e. That, in the Village Core Storefront District, the Development Ordinance parking regulations for non-residential uses be modified to reduce the minimum required parking space number by 50%, so that the following requirements would apply:
- 1 parking space per 700 square feet of office space,
- 1 parking space per 500 square feet of non-restaurant commercial space,
- 1 parking space per 8 restaurant seats,
- 1 parking space per 8 theater seats.
For residential parking, the Development Ordinance minimum requirements shall apply.
For both residential and non-residential uses, on-street parking may be counted towards fulfilling the minimum parking number requirements.
f. That the maximum number of dwelling units for the entire Southern Village development shall not exceed 1,388.
g. That the maximum commercial space for this district shall be 62,500 square feet of floor area; the maximum office space shall be 145,000 square feet of floor area; and the maximum residential space shall be 162,500 square feet of floor area.
7. Review Process: For subphases and blocks and building within the Storefront District and the Entranceway Transition District, all development shall be approved by the Planning Board as Site Plan Reviews. All signage shall be approved by the Appearance Commission.
In the approval of future Site Plan application(s) for the district, the Planning Board shall have authority to retain or delete the section of the alley between Brookgreen Drive and Aberdeen Street.
8. Stormwater Management Plan: That a general stormwater management plan for the entire 312-acre site be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of the first Zoning Compliance Permit. A detailed stormwater management plan, based on the Town's Hydros program, shall be submitted with the final plan application for approval by the Town Manager.
9. Steep Slopes: That each submittal for Site Plan approval or Zoning Compliance Permit include a map showing lots and street segments on slopes of 10% or more and indicating how the development and construction will comply with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance:
- for slopes of 10-15%, site preparation techniques shall be used which minimize grading and site disturbance;
- for slopes of 15-25%, demonstrate specialized site design techniques and approaches for building and site preparation; and
- for slopes f 25% or greater, provide a detailed site analysis of soil conditions, hydrology, bedrock conditions, and other engineering/environmental aspects of the site.
Each final plan application shall demonstrate compliance with the steep slopes regulations in the Development Ordinance. The Town Manager shall decide if the proposed building and site engineering techniques are appropriate.
10. Encroachment Agreements: That any required State or local encroachment agreements (for landscaping and other required improvements) be approved prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulation Related to Recreation Area
11. Recreation Space Requirements for Residential Component: That recreation space of sufficient area and type be provided for the residential components within this phase of development in accordance with Article 13 of the Development Ordinance. The plans for the recreation area shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager. The developer shall remain responsible for the recreation area unless the Town or owners' association accepts the property.
Stipulation Related to Service Stations
12. Service Stations: That for any service station within this development, the following stipulations shall apply:
a. That all applicable Town regulations, including those pertaining to water supply watershed protection, be complied with.
b. That all applicable Town regulations, including those pertaining to water supply watershed protection, storm drainage, and hazardous materials be complied with. Below is a partial list:
- an emergency contingency plan must be prepared, in accordance with the requirements of Federal regulations, as part of the development application. The report must be updated annually;
- any storage container for hazardous materials (such as gasoline) shall be equipped with leak detection devices and shall be double-walled or have other secondary containment features;
- storage areas shall be protected by a dike of appropriate size; and
- all floor drains that might collect hazardous materials must be connected to a tank or catch basin of appropriate size, and shall not be open to the site's natural drainage system.
c. That the plans and operation of the gas station comply with Subsection 18.7.15 of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance and include the following standards for service stations:
- the lot must be at least 20,000 square feet in area;
- the lot must front and have direct access to an arterial or collector street;
- provisions must be made for ventilation and dispersion and removal of fumes, and for the removal of hazardous chemicals and fluids; and
- the service station driveways must be at least 300 feet from any intersecting street, and at least 750 feet from any other service station driveway.
d. Additional protective measures for stormwater quality:
- that surface runoff from the gas station be routed to an oil-sand separator for liquid waste collection to filter the grease, oils, and other pollutants from the stormwater above the stormwater inlets;
- provisions for a waste disposal plan, addressing disposal methods and record-keeping for solid waste, waste trapped in the oil-sand separator, grease traps (and/or other filtering devices), and liquid waste in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. The plan and records are to be provided to the Town annually;
- for the fuel tanks: provision of double-walled piping with automatic leak detectors, and double-walled tanks with interstitial monitoring and automatic alarm systems; registration with the State and annual tank fees paid to the State; and
- provision of monitoring well(s) with a regular monitoring program.
Stipulations Related to State and Federal Government Approvals
13. State or Federal Approvals: That any required State or Federal permits and encroachment agreements (including but not limited to those needed for improvements to Highway 15-501, for stormwater management and erosion control, for water and sewer extension, and for development in the Water Supply Protection Area) be approved and copies of the approved permits and agreements be submitted to the Town of Chapel Hill prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of development.
14. NCDOT Approvals: That plans for improvements to State-maintained roads be approved by NCDOT prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for the subject phase of development.
Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements
15. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed landscape protection plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
This plan shall include areas of vegetation to be preserved; the anticipated clearing limit lines; proposed grading; proposed utility lines; a detail of protective fencing; and construction parking and materials staging/storing areas.
The plan shall show the use of tree protection fencing between infrastructure construction and existing vegetation in:
- all required buffers
- all common areas (public or private)
- all areas designated to be used for multifamily (including townhouses) and nonresidential, or mixed use development.
- other areas, to be determined by the Town Manager.
16. Street Tree Plantings: That the developer shall provide street tree plantings in the following locations:
- along the storefront district streets
- at the entranceway on Highway 15-501
- along the entrance road from Highway 15-501 into the storefront district
- in the central public green
In addition, street tree plantings shall be provided where no existing trees are shown as remaining within twenty feet of the curb on the Landscape Protection Plans submitted with final plan applications.
These trees will be installed to Town standards as detailed in the Town's Design Manual and/or approved by the Town Manager.
17. Landscape Plan Approval: That detailed landscape plans (including buffers and street tree plantings), landscape maintenance plans, and lighting plans be reviewed by the Town Manager for approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
The following buffers shall be provided, and that if any existing vegetation is to be used to satisfy the buffer requirements that this vegetation will be protected by fencing from adjacent construction:
- Type D buffer (minimum width 75', as measured from the new right-of-way line) along Highway 15-501
Supplemental plantings may be necessary to fulfill the requirements for buffers, screening, and entranceway plantings.
18. Plantings along the Highway Frontage: That plantings be provided and existing vegetation preserved along the highway frontage in general compliance with the Town's Master Landscape Plan for Entranceway Corridors along U.S. 15-501.
Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer and Other Utilities
19. Fireflow: That a preliminary fire hydrant plan and fireflow report for the 25-acre site be submitted with the final plans for this phase.
A detailed hydrant plan and fireflow report shall be required prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for this phase. The following flows and pressures shall be provided:
- For non-residential: 2,500 - 12,000 gallons per minute, at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure;
- For multifamily: 1,500 - 2,500 gallons per minute, at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure; and
- For single-family: 750 gallons per minute, at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure.
20. Utility Service Laterals: That prior to paving streets, utility service laterals (including cable and telephone) shall be stubbed out to the front property lines of each lot.
21. OWASA Easements: That easement documents as required by OWASA and the Town Manager be recorded before final plat approval.
22. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final utility/lighting plan be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power, Time Warner Cable, Public Service Company, Southern Bell, and the Town Manager, before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The property owner shall be responsible for assuring these utilities, including cable television, are extended to serve the development. Plans may include installation of empty duct banks for future street lights and signal cable along internal streets.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
23. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and plan for managing and minimizing of construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
24. Transportation Management Plan: That prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit for any portion of the proposed office or commercial uses, the applicant prepare, for approval by the Town Manager, a Transportation Management Plan. Required components of each Transportation Management Plan may include:
a. Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator;
b. Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;
c. Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;
d. Ridesharing incentives; and
e. Public Transit incentives.
25. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), landscape plans, and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.
The Town Manager may require adjustments to the street design to enhance safety and maintenance operations.
26. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy be issued until all required public improvements are complete; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.
If the Town Manager approves a phasing plan, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a phase until all required public improvements for that phase are complete; no Building Permits for any phase shall be issued until all public improvements required in previous phases are completed to a point adjacent to the new phase; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat.
27. Sight Triangle Easements: That sight triangle easements be provided on the final plat.
28. New Streets - Traffic Signs: That the property owners shall be responsible for placement and maintenance of temporary regulatory traffic signs including street name signs before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy until such time that the street system is accepted for maintenance by the Town.
29. New Street Names and Numbers: That the name of the development and its streets and house/building numbers, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
30. Erosion Control: That a general soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for the 312-acre site be reviewed by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer with the review of the final plans for the first phase of development.
A phase-specific detailed erosion control plan shall be submitted with each final plan application for review and approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer.
31. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
32. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
33. Non-Severability: That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for the Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Core Storefront District and the Village Entranceway Transition District of the Southern Village.
This the 22nd day of October, 1996.
Council Member Evans moved, seconded by Council Member Franck, to adopt Resolution 3b.
Mayor Waldorf
Any amendments? It’s site plan review, village core store front district, the Market St. office buildings 1 and 2, central core block.
Council Member Andresen
The one thing about site plan review is that citizens don’t get as much opportunity to comment and they don’t get to come to elect officials and I think it would be nice to give then that opportunity therefor I would not like to support the site plan review. And I make a motion along that line.
Mayor Waldorf
Well the motion to approve this has been made and seconded.
Mayor Pro-tem Brown
I’d like to offer the same amendment regarding solid waste on page 22, Item #11. The motioner and seconder concurred to this as a friendly amendment.
Mayor Waldorf
Any other amendments? All in favor please say "Aye". All opposed “no.” The motion passed by a vote of 6-3, with Council Members Andresen, Brown and Chilton voting no.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SOUTHERN VILLAGE - VILLAGE CORE STOREFRONT DISTRICT - MARKET STREET OFFICE BUILDINGS 1 AND 2 AND CENTRAL CORE BLOCK
(96-10-22/R-3b)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the development proposed by Bryan Properties, Inc. on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 126, Block A, part of Lot 4, if developed according to the plans dated February 19, 1996, and the conditions listed below, would comply with the provisions of the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance and the Southern Village - Village Core Storefront District - Special Use Permit Modification:
These findings are conditioned on the following:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin by October 16, 1998 and be completed by October 16, 1999.
2. That a driveway from the office buildings onto Market Street shall be prohibited, and that access to Buildings 1 and 2 shall be limited to the public alley between Aberdeen Street and Kildaire Street, adjacent to the Apartment District.
3. That the four proposed driveways for the parking area in the central core block be one-way driveways and signed as such.
4. Required Improvements:
a. That the streets, alleys, and parking areas be designed and constructed to Town standards, and inspected by the Town during and after construction.
b. That sidewalk be provided along all street frontages (Market Street, Aberdeen Street, Kildaire Road).
The sidewalk improvements shall include the duct banks/conduit design previously approved by the Town as part of the streetscape for the Village Core.
c. That the public alleys shall be constructed of pavement designed to accommodate the turning and backing movements of refuse collection vehicles.
d. That prior to annexation, the proposed streets, alleys, stormwater facilities, fire protection, public safety, and refuse collection will be the responsibility of the developer or an entity to be approved by the Town.
e. That 65 on-site parking spaces be provided for Market Street Office Buildings 1 and 2, and that additional spaces may be allocated for these office buildings in the proposed parking area across Main Street in the central core block.
f. That the planter design and construction plans, including the specifications for the topsoil mix, be submitted for review and approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
5. Impervious Surface Calculations: That as part of every application for final plan approval Zoning Compliance Permit, the developer shall provide an up-to-date cumulative total for impervious surfaces in the applicable stormwater drainage sub-basin(s).
6. Owners' Association Documents: Owners' association documentation shall be approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Orange County Register of Deeds office concurrently with the final plat.
Stipulations Related to Landscape Elements
7. Landscape Plan:
a. That the final plans include provisions for screening and shading of parking lots in accordance with Development Ordinance requirements.
b. That a street tree plan be provided for street frontages for the office building block and for the proposed parking area across Main Street from the office buildings. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with the Southern Village Streetscape Plan.
c. That, where possible, the utility lines be located so that the proposed planters and other landscaping are not compromised by future repair operations and so that the planting options are not constrained by utility easements.
d. That a detailed landscape plan and landscape maintenance schedule be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Water, Sewer and Other Utilities
8. Fire and Safety:
a. That fire hydrants be provided, with the number and location to be approved by the Town Manager during final plan review prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
b. A detailed hydrant plan, and fireflow report prepared by a registered professional engineer, showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Design Manual, shall be required prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
c. All plans and reports pertaining to fire protection shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager, and by the agency responsible for fire protection (North Chatham Fire Department) prior to annexation of this site by the Town Chapel Hill.
9. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval:
a. Final utility plans shall indicate the location of underground conduit for signal and streetlighting systems, as well as the location of the streetlights and the fixture type. In addition, the applicant shall consider the use of pedestrian-level lighting.
b. The final utility/lighting plan shall be approved by Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Duke Power, Time Warner Cable, Public Service Company, BellSouth, and the Town Manager, before issuance of a Zoning Compliance permit. The property owner shall be responsible for assuring these utilities, including cable television, are extended to serve the development.
Miscellaneous Stipulations
10. Refuse Collection:
a. Upon annexation, the Town may assume refuse collection responsibilities subject to the following condition:
that a note be added to the final plans and final plat which reads "Upon annexation, scheduled Town refuse collection service may be temporarily suspended if access to the refuse containers is blocked."
b. That the plans clearly indicate which dumpsters are for refuse disposal, and which are for cardboard recycling.
c. That the dumpster pad area be revised to accommodate recyclables collection.
11. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a detailed solid waste management plan, including a recycling plan and plan for managing and minimizing of construction debris, be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
12. Transportation Management Plan: That a Transportation Management Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Transportation Management Plan shall include the following:
a. Provision for designation of a Transportation Coordinator:
b. Provisions for an annual Transportation Survey and Annual Report to the Town Manager;
c. Quantifiable traffic reduction goals and objectives;
d. Ridesharing incentives; and
e. Public Transit incentives.
13. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, and stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations be approved by the Town Manager before issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to plans approved by this application and the conditions of the Special Use Permit Modification for the Village Core District and Entranceway Transition District; and demonstrate compliance with all applicable regulations and the design standards of the Development Ordinance and the Design Manual.
14. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy be issued until all required public improvements are completed.
15. Stormwater Management Plan: That a detailed stormwater management plan, based on the Town's Hydros program, shall be reviewed for approval by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
16. Erosion Control: A detailed soil erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be reviewed for approval by the Orange County Erosion Control Officer prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit
17. Silt Control: That the applicant take appropriate measures to prevent and remove the deposit of wet or dry silt on adjacent paved roadways.
18. Construction Sign Required: That the applicant post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative, with a telephone number, the contractor’s representative, with a phone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
19. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
20. Non-Severability; That if any of the above conditions is held to be invalid, approval in its entirety shall be void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby approves the application for Site Plan Review for the Southern Village - Village Core Storefront District - Market Street Office Buildings 1 and 2, and a Parking Area in the central Village Core block, with the plans and conditions listed above.
This the 22nd day of October, 1996.
Council Member Chilton
Madam Mayor, I move that the council go with closed session as authorized by North Carolina general statute section 143-318.11a6 to continue the process of evaluating the performance of the Town Manager and Town Attorney.
Council Member Andresen
Do we have a choice about whether we do that or not?
Mayor Waldorf
We do have a choice.
Council Member Andresen
I think it’s too late. I’d like to go home.
Mayor Waldorf
I think we do have a choice. This is not something that we have to deal with tonight. We’re going to have to deal with it sometime. The motion’s been made and seconded.
Council Member Franck
If there could be one moment of discussion. If the intent is to actually discuss the performance of the Manager and the Attorney then I’d be glad to support this motion. If the intent is to discuss salary adjustments for the Manager and the Attorney then I believe those would be more appropriately discussed in the open session.
Mayor Waldorf
The intent is to discuss salary as related to performance. It’s my view that you can’t separate discussion of the two. So the motion is¼.
Council Member Chilton
Could we get a little legal advice very briefly on this matter?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
Very briefly, the discussion of salary can be done in closed session and any decisions have to voted upon in public session and recorded as to what the votes are. But the actual decision has to be made in an open session.
Council Member Franck
I would just like to point out that I disagree with the Attorney’s interpretation of the open meeting statute in that regard.
Council Member Chilton
Would it be legal for us to discuss this in open session?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
Certainly. It would certainly be legal to discuss this in open session. It would also be legal to discuss this in closed session.
Council Member Chilton
It’s a legitimate question because there’s some Town employees that we’re not supposed to talk about their job performance under State law, is that right?
Ralph Karpinos, Attorney
Well, that’s a separate issue.
Council Member Chilton
I just wanted to find out. That is a separate issue, yes.
Mayor Waldorf
Now the question before us, I believe is whether we’re going to do this tonight or whether we’re going to choose another night because we’re too tired. So there is a motion that has been made to go into closed session. All in favor please say "Aye". All opposed “no.”
The motion to hold the closed session passed by a vote of 6-3 with Council Members Andresen, Brown and Franck voting no. Mayor Waldorf noted that no report would follow the closed session.
The meeting concluded at 10:52 p.m.