SUMMARY OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997

Mayor Waldorf called the hearings 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.

Persons wishing to testify in the matter were sworn by the Town Clerk and Deputy Town Clerk.

Mayor Waldorf noted that public comments would be limited to a total of six minutes per speaker, followed by Council comments. She noted that there would be no time limitations on presentations by advisory boards or Town staff.

Council Member Andresen expressed concern that a citizen had reported to her that they had been unable to access some of the materials for this evening’s public hearing. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said that the public hearings timetable referred to by ordinance was adopted each August by the Council. Noting the importance of the public having adequate time to outline their concerns as part of due process, Council Member Andresen requested that one hundred and fifty copies of the May 19^th/20^th materials package be made available to the public at Town Hall and the public library. Mr. Horton said that copies of these materials would be available at both locations by Wednesday morning, May 21^st.

Expressing concern about the lack of availability of materials to the public, Council Member Capowski expressed his support for additional public hearings on the proposed Meadowmont development.

Noting that the Council’s general practice was to have no more than three applications before them at a public hearing, Council Member Brown requested that consideration be given to spreading the applications out over several nights of hearings. Stating that copies of the relevant materials would be available at Town Hall and the Public Library, Mayor Waldorf said that the Council could hold as many hearings as necessary regarding the proposed Meadowmont development.

Planning Director Roger Waldon requested that the following documents be entered into the record of the hearing: the staff’s cover memorandum, a series of staff reports, related correspondence, and summaries of the Advisory Board reviews. Mr. Waldon stated that the Council’s approved Master Land Use Plan set the stage for consideration of the special use permits for Meadowmont. Mr. Waldon also presented an overview of the five special use permits, as follows: Infrastructure, the Village Center, the Apartment Site, the Combined School and Park Site, and the Private Swim Club.

Planning Board Chair John Hawkins recapped the Board’s two meetings regarding the proposed Meadowmont development. Noting that the majority of the Board recommended Council adoption of Resolution A. Referencing the Infrastructure special use permit, Mr. Hawkins said the Board recommended that the transit corridor be reserved through easements rather than a deed to the Town and Pinehurst Drive be connected as in option #4 with restricted connection between Meadowmont Lane and Pinehurst Drive, with traffic calming measures.

Mr. Hawkins said that the Board members who had voted against recommending adoption of Resolution A to the Council had concerns about inadequacies related to recreation space and the proposed school site. He also stated that the Board had voted in favor of option #4 by a vote 0f 4-3, with those in opposition feeling that emergency access only should be provided through to Pinehurst Drive. Mr. Hawkins briefly reviewed the Board’s recommendations and concerns, noting that the Board felt that it was appropriate for a development as large as Meadowmont to have a suitable school site. He added that a number of dissenting Board members felt that the applicant should have met with the Orange County Commissioners regarding the proposed school site earlier in the development review process.

Appearance Commission Chair Dianne Bachman said that the Commission and the Design Review Board had unanimously approved all five special use permit applications. She briefly reviewed the Appearance Commission/Design Review Board’s recommendations for each of the five permits.

Transportation Board Chair Ruby Sinreich said that the Board had not made any formal recommendations regarding the Swim Club or the School since there were no transportation matters involved at present. Referencing the Infrastructure special use permit, Ms. Sinreich said that the Board recommended: (1) that a security camera be installed in the proposed pedestrian tunnel under NC 54, (2) that option 4 be adopted relative to the connection of Pinehurst Drive and (3) bike and pedestrian facilities be provided along both sides of NC 54.

Relative to the Village Center Special Use Permit, Ms. Sinreich said that the Board supported: (1) the removal of parking along the fixed guideway, since not much would be needed, (2) a school bus pull-off on the south side of NC 54, (3) more narrow streets to promote calmer traffic and create a more neighborhood-oriented feeling and (4) the cross-section of Barbee Chapel Road being two, rather than three, lanes with bus pull-offs and a bicycle lane.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether the Board had discussed the matter of public versus private streets. Ms. Sinreich said the Board had not discussed this matter.

Parks and Recreation Commission Chairperson Dianne Lemasters said that the Commission had unanimously recommended approval of all five requests for special use permits. She also stated that the Commission supported having a full-width bicycle path on NC 54 along the length of the proposed Meadowmont frontage. Ms. Lemasters noted that the Commission also favored having more active recreational facilities provided for the proposed apartment site. Stating that the school and park site appeared to meet recreational needs, Ms. Lemasters said that the clearing, draining and raising of proposed athletic fields would make them usable most of the time.

Jim Ritchey, Triangle Transit Authority’s Executive Director, noted that the initial alignment for Meadowmont Lane had not been satisfactory as a rail transit corridor. Mr. Ritchey noted that an alternative alignment had been identified to accommodate a rail transit corridor. Council Member Andresen inquired about the estimated cost and timing of the light rail transit system in the Triangle. Mr. Ritchey said once all details were in place, it would take about five years to complete the Durham to Raleigh portion of the system and an additional ten years to complete the second phase, including service from the Town to Durham and other points. Mr. Ritchey said a gross project estimate was between $150 million and $200 million.

Emphasizing the importance of reducing the use of single-occupant vehicles (SOV), Triangle Transit Authority Board member Rachel Willis said that the Meadowmont planned to reduce the use of SOVs by: (1) locating facilities closer together, (2) integrating mass transit, bicycle paths and sidewalks, (3) accommodating bus routes and stops, (4) encouraging use of mass transit and (5) providing sheltered bicycle storage, shaded sidewalks and water fountains. Ms. Willis said she supported the connection of Pinehurst Drive into the proposed Meadowmont development because she felt that it would integrate citizens into the community through the use of heavily traveled sidewalks.

Mark Royster, Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board, said that the School Board had conducted a preliminary review of the sixteen acre school site and adjoining park site which the applicant was proposing to dedicate for these purposes.

Ken Redfoot, engineering project consultant for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, presented a number of slides showing the proposed locations of buildings, fields, parking schools and other facilities associated with the proposed school. Mr. Redfoot stated that a number of things were needed to make a school viable, including the provision of adequate parking, a reasonable site cost, suitable athletic fields and the provision of water fountains and other facilities. Mr. Redfoot also said that there needed to be a use and maintenance agreement for athletic fields which would include post flooding clean-up, maintenance of pedestrian access, and turf management.

Council Member Andresen asked if the site would be viable if the fields could not be built. She also inquired about the possibility of complying with the Orange County Commission’s request that an alternate drier site of twenty-two acres be provided for the school site. Council Member Andresen also asked at what point dikes and springs became a problem. Mr. Royster said if the fields were found to be unsuitable, then the school site would not be viable. With regard to dikes and springs concerns, Mr. Royster said that the County Engineer had reviewed the site and deemed it feasible. Mr. Royster said that the County Commissioners, rather than the School Board, had suggested the possibility of a twenty-two acre school site. Council Member Capowski said if the school site were found to be not suitable, finding an alternate site within Meadowmont would be a very complex proposition. Mr. Royster stated that since the alternate site was not part of the School Board’s recommendation, the Board could not speak to this matter.

Mayor Pro-tem Brown had a question about the approval by the Army Corps of Engineers, and it was explained that it was the Corps’ charge to make sure that the100 year flood requirements are adhered to. This is done by making sure that the volume of certain areas remains the same. If sections of this area are raised with fill dirt, then the same amount of dirt needs to be removed from other sections in the area. But, Mr. Redfoot added, this is not part of the Council’s current special use permit issues. This is part of the School Board’s concern for the suitability of the site.

Mayor Pro-tem Brown then questioned Mr. Redfoot as to whether the detention ponds mentioned were in conjunction with just the school site, or the development as a whole. Mr. Redfoot replied that the detention ponds, or the fact that no detention pond was required because of the amount of impervious surface, pertained just to the school site.

Mayor Pro-tem Brown followed with a question about what kind of study would need to be done to assess the ecological effect of all this construction and addition of impervious surface. Mr. Redfoot answered that his focus, and the focus of the School Board was just on the school site and that Mayor Pro-tem Brown’s question needed to be asked of the staff who was considering the site as a whole.

Council Member Chilton asked that since part of the property was in Durham County, could this potentially be an insurmountable problem. Mark Royster responded that there was a precedence for this situation and that it had been dealt with through special legislation of a local bill.

Council Member Wiggins mentioned that she was not able to find the, in her materials packet, a written reference to the $1.6 million in savings that Mr. Royster had mentioned earlier. An additional packet was then given out with that cost analysis information.

Council Member Pavao wanted to know if this savings was based on the comparable 26 acre site. Mr. Royster explained that yes, it was based on the cost of the comparable site along with the cost of bringing the proposed site up the school grade.

Former Mayor Ken Broun said that he favored the proposed Meadowmont project for the following reasons: (1) the project’s consistency with the master land use plan, (2) it was unlikely that the Town would get a better commercially feasible use for the property, (3) the plan was a good one which worked. Mr. Broun urged the Council to make the project better, if possible, and to do it carefully but expeditiously.

Ruth Timmerman said that she and her husband had taken precautions to find out the zoning of land adjacent to their property and found that it was R-1. Noting that the developer had sought rezoning of his property, Ms. Timmerman said that due to legal constraints she had been unable to express her concerns to Council Members or Town staff about the proposed rezoning to a higher density. Expressing concern that the proposed Pinehurst Drive connector would connect an existing neighborhood to a commercial district, rather than another neighborhood, Ms. Timmerman urged the Council to take all necessary steps to preserve the high quality of life of citizens residing adjacent to the proposed Meadowmont development.

Susan Franklin-Fulton, 119 Lynwood Place, said that she also opposed the proposed Pinehurst Drive connector. Noting that on October 23, 1995, a previous Council had voted to delete the Pinehurst Drive connector from the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan, Ms. Franklin-Fulton requested that the Council uphold this prior action. Ms. Franklin-Fulton said that she and many of her neighbors opposed the connection for the following reasons:

1. East/West Partners did not request the connection, but had opted for emergency-only access.

2. Safety would not be maintained as per the Town’s Development Ordinance.

3. Contiguous property values would not be maintained or enhanced as per the Town’s Development Ordinance.

4. The connector did not conform to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan or the Meadowmont Master Land Use Plan.

Ms. Franklin-Fulton requested that the Council take all necessary steps to ensure and preserve the safety of neighborhood residents, including not approving the proposed Pinehurst Drive connection. Stating that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan specified that new developments would be “built so as not to impinge on the tranquillity of existing neighborhoods”, Ms. Franklin-Fulton urged the Council to maintain the uniqueness, tranquillity, environmental consciousness, and the vistas of the Town.

Joe Carsanaro reiterated the observations of earlier speakers regarding the inability of the proposed Pinehurst Drive connector to meet standards in the Town’s Development Ordinance. Mr. Carsanaro stated that Pinehurst Drive was a neighborhood street since it had the following characteristics: (1) many neighborhood children play in the street and on sidewalks along Pinehurst Drive, (2) many driveways are located within fifty feet of intersections, (3) the street was designed as a collector street for the Oaks accommodating 3,000 vehicle trips per day and (4) over fifty percent of recreational users are from outside of the Oaks neighborhood.

Mr. Carsanaro also said that although traffic calming measures were helpful in enhancing the safety of drivers, pedestrians and other roadway users, such measures were by no means a panacea. Mr. Carsanaro stated that the proposed Pinehurst Drive connector was intended to connect two residentially zoned neighborhoods (R-1), rather than connecting an R-1 zoned neighborhood to an area zoned R-5 (Commercial). He also said that a number of public safety related personnel had indicated that the proposed connection was not necessary or required. Mr. Carsanaro stated that without the proposed connector, the burden of increased traffic would be shared somewhat more equally between Pinehurst and Burning Tree Drives. Mr. Carsanaro said the Pinehurst Safety Group requested that the Council zone the Meadowmont development as R-1 and take Pinehurst Drive and Burning Tree Drive off the Thoroughfare Plan for the proposed development. He added that if this were unrealistic, then Pinehurst Drive connection should only be for emergency access.

Noting the lateness of the hour and that a number of other citizens were signed up to address the Council, Mayor Waldorf inquired about the Council’s wishes relative to the hearing on the matter. There was concurrence by the Council to continue the hearing to tomorrow evening, following this evening’s hearing.

Noting that Mr. Richard Crepeau was unable to attend this evening’s hearing, Ms. Susan Franklin-Fulton read a statement from Mr. Crepeau regarding his analysis of the Kimley-Horn traffic study for the proposed Meadowmont development. Noting that Mr. Crepeau did not claim to be a licensed engineer, she stated that he nonetheless felt very capable of providing an independent assessment of Kimley-Horn’s traffic analysis for Meadowmont. Ms. Franklin-Fulton presented Mr. Crepeau’s letter to the Council. Ms. Franklin-Fulton said that this expert analysis supported the concerns of area residents.

Jackie Carsanaro showed a number of pictures of children and adults roller blading, riding bicycles and otherwise recreating on the streets and sidewalks along Pinehurst Drive. Ms. Carsanaro stated that there were about twenty pedestrians per hour along Pinehurst Drive on colder days and even more on warmer days. Ms. Carsanaro stated that an informal poll of area residents indicated that about eighty percent did not favor having the proposed Pinehurst Drive connector. Ms. Carsanaro asked that the Council do its part to preserve the character of the existing Oaks/Pinehurst Drive neighborhood.

Laura Merrifield, 921 Pinehurst Drive, presented the Council with a list of all children residing on Pinehurst Drive. Ms. Merrifield said that there were at least three reasons not to connect Pinehurst Drive to Meadowmont, including: (1) most homes purchased on Pinehurst Drive during the past year were purchased by families with small children, (2) Pinehurst Drive would become the quickest cut-through for impatient motorists trying to bypass traffic on U.S. 15-501 at peak hours and (3) there are no safety buffers for the Oaks as there are for Meadowmont. Ms. Merrifield stated that sidewalks connected neighborhoods, not streets. She concluded her remarks by asking the Council to vote in the interest of children by not voting for the Pinehurst Drive connector.

Polly van de Velde showed photographs of existing non-vehicular connections in the Town, including one at the public library, another at Wellington and Huntington Drive and a third proposed connection between Cobble Ridge and Southern Village. Ms. Van de Velde also stated that although traffic calming measures reduced speeds, they did not effect traffic volumes. She concluded her remarks by noting that the applicant, East-West Partners, was not requiring or even asking for the Pinehurst Drive connector to be approved by the Council.

Mark Petalli expressed concern that the proposed connection of Pinehurst Drive would cause an unsafe environment for the more than one hundred children residing along Pinehurst Drive. Mr. Petalli stated that the Town’s Fire and Police Departments had both indicated that having emergency access only from Pinehurst Drive to Meadowmont Lane would be adequate. He also stated that the only individual favoring the proposed roadway connection was Mr. Smedes York, a commercial developer with an interest in the proposed Meadowmont development. Mr. Petalli concluded his remarks by requesting that the Council not connect Pinehurst Drive to Meadowmont Lane.

Owen Kenan, who stated that he had lived at 211 Pinehurst Drive for eighteen years, reported that he had tried, but was not able to find any other place in the Town were an existing residential neighborhood street had been made a connector to a commercial area. Mr. Kenan said he felt that idealistic theories of traffic had seemed to have taken precedence over real people, children and neighborhoods. Mr. Kenan also related his belief that many of the properties, especially those closest to intersections, would lose no less than one third of their value if this connection were to be approved. Mr. Kenan expressed his support for the Council approving an “emergency only” access between Meadowmont Lane and Pinehurst Drive.

Reginald Morgan, a state certified real estate appraiser, said that collector roads such as Pinehurst Drive were intended to showcase the premiere homes and golf course in the Oaks development. Mr. Morgan said he doubted that other communities such as Hope Valley in Durham and Governor’s Club would consider turning their collector roads into connectors to commercial areas. He added that the Chesley and Silver Creek communities along Weaver Dairy Road were built behind high walls, with houses facing inwards to alleviate traffic noise concerns. Mr. Morgan stated that if only ten percent of the cars entering Meadowmont on a daily basis used Pinehurst Drive, this would amount to 2,500 cars per day. Mr. Morgan said that this would definitely have a negative impact on housing values of existing homes along Pinehurst Drive. He expressed concern that the controversy to date had had a negative effect on these property values and the ability of neighborhood residents to sell their homes.

Lee Butzin said that a traffic study in Kansas City had concluded in no uncertain terms that property values started dropping when more than 2,500 to 3,000 cars per day traversed a particular street in a neighborhood. Mr. Butzin said that a local study had found that houses on Kingston Drive, a heavily traveled local street, sold for five to ten percent less than comparable houses just one block off this road.

Courtney Dunk expressed her strong opposition, echoing the concerns of her neighbors about the safety of children in the Oaks neighborhood. Ms. Dunk said that if the connector were approved, she could see a day when children would no longer be able to walk along Pinehurst Drive to go and visit a neighborhood friend. Ms. Dunk expressed her support for the approval of emergency only access between Pinehurst Drive and Meadowmont Lane.

Alexandria Dunk, daughter of Courtney Dunk, said she would have to stop riding her bicycle on Pinehurst Drive if the amount of traffic continued to increase. Ms. Dunk asked the Council not to create a potential safety hazard in her neighborhood.

Betsy Elkins-Watkins said when she moved to Pinehurst Drive in 1986, a portion of the road was a dirt street. Ms. Elkins-Watkins said that the developers of the Oaks had assured her that Pinehurst Drive would always be a neighborhood street. Ms. Elkins-Watkins said that it would be a tragedy to establish one nice neighborhood at the expense of children in another existing neighborhood.

Web Louis said the Council needed to take into account the fact that the 625 member Chapel Hill Country Club was located on Pinehurst Drive. Placing a damaged recycling bin on the podium, Mr. Louis said the bin had been hit by a car speeding down Pinehurst Drive. He expressed concern that the car could have potentially hit and injured a bicyclist or pedestrian using Pinehurst Drive.

Bruce Merrifield stated that he could not add much to the sentiments expressed by his neighbors. Mr. Merrifield stated that cul-de-sacs increased property values and deterred traffic. He also said that connector roads made it easier to use cars and therefore increased traffic volumes. Mr. Merrifield suggested that an emphasis should be placed on creating more roadway connections to job opportunities in Durham and the Research Triangle Park.

Emil Maliza, a professor of City and Regional Planning at UNC and a member of the Meadowmont Design Review Committee, said he had been providing general and specific guidance to the Meadowmont applicants for a number of years. Mr. Metitsa said he applauded the give and take atmosphere of the Committee’s many meetings with the applicant as well as Mr. Perry’s ability to listen and have an open mind to new ideas. Mr. Maliza stated that the Committee supported all five of the special use permits requested by the applicant.

Ed Harrison said he supported the stipulation proposed by staff to connect a trail to Lancaster Drive which could be used by many children getting to school. Noting that NC 54 would likely become a six-lane roadway between Cary and Meadowmont in the future, Mr. Harrison said he supported bicycle and pedestrian lanes along NC 54 which would be especially visible at intersections. Mr. Harrison said it would be desirable to have an overall school impact assessment, rather than facing the difficult challenges being confronted by Durham City Schools.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE FOLLOWING NIGHT. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER CHILTON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. IT WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The meeting concluded at 10:34 p.m.