SUMMARY OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Waldorf called the public hearing to order. Council Members in attendance were Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Capowski, Pat Evans, Richard Franck, Lee Pavao and Edith Wiggins. Council Member Mark Chilton was absent excused. 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.

Noting that the master land use plan for Meadowmont had been approved on October 16 and 23, 1995, Planning Director Roger Waldon reviewed other key dates pertaining to the special use permit requests for Meadowmont. Mr. Waldon noted that the materials in front of the Council this evening included responses to issue raised by citizens and advisory board members at recent hearings and responses to a total of one hundred and ten written questions submitted by Council Members.

Valerie Broadwell, representing the Little Creek Neighborhood Association, said she was aware that the decision facing the Council concerning the Pinehurst Connector was a difficult one. Ms. Broadwell expressed concern that keeping the connector closed would force much more traffic through the Little Creek area. Ms. Broadwell requested that the Council consider what could be done to mitigate any harm to current area residents arising from Meadowmont-related traffic.

Harold Langenderfer stated that the proposed connector was intended to connect residential districts, rather than connecting a residential district to a commercial district. Mr. Langenderfer also said that the clear beneficiaries from the proposed Meadowmont development would be the Town, the developers and future commercial property owners in the area, while the losers would be the residents of Pinehurst, Burning Tree and Cleland Drives. He requested that the Council approve more accesses into the proposed Meadowmont development, greater restrictions on construction traffic and closer attention to traffic calming measures.

Nancy Gabriel said that she hoped to retire to the planned Meadowmont development someday. Noting that citizens often times came before the Council to request sidewalks, traffic calming, bicycle lanes and mixed use development, Ms. Gabriel stated that all of these components were included in the proposed Meadowmont development plan. Stating that Meadowmont was consistent with the Town’s Master Land Use Plan and complied with the Town’s Development Ordinance, Ms. Gabriel urged the Council to approve the special use permits as requested.

She pointed out that these public hearings tend to bring out the opposition which she believed, in this case, was in the minority. Ms. Gabriel stated that Meadowmont was consistent with the Master Land Use Plan and complied with the Development Ordinance and should therefore be approved.

Alice Ingram, a member of the focus group of citizens examining the proposed Meadowmont development, expressed her desire to see the results of the studies being done on U.S. 15-501 and NC 54 traffic. She also expressed her desire for the developer to build a good pedestrian crossing, rather than a tunnel beneath Meadowmont Lane.

Nick Didow, Vice-Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board, said that the Board and the applicant had agreed and would add six and a half acres to the proposed school site, making it a total of twenty-two acres. He stated that this would allow for three fields on the site, with the possibility of another field on a portion of the adjacent Town-owned park site.

Ken Redfoot briefly reviewed the school plans presented at the last hearing and then discussed the proposed new school site of twenty-two acres. He added that three of the four proposed playing fields would lie partially in the Resource Conservation District.

Council Member Evans inquired about the proposed flow of traffic throughout the school site area. Mr. Redfoot briefly reviewed proposed traffic flow on the site.

Council Member Capowski requested an estimate of the number of students who would live close enough to walk or ride a bike to school. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Superintendent Neil Pedersen responded that although it was difficult to estimate this figure, an estimated 35-40% of middle school students reached school in private cars on a daily basis. Mayor Waldorf added that at present only a minority of students walk or rode a bicycle to school.

Council Member Brown inquired whether or not there were any restrictions concerning the percentage of buildable area in the Resource Conservation District. Mr. Waldon said there were no restrictions for recreational facilities with no areas of impervious surface. Council Member Brown also inquired about the effect that filling a pond on the site would have on stormwater management. George Krichbaum, representing the applicant, responded that the area of the pond was not large enough to contribute to stormwater drainage and was therefore not used in stormwater calculations. He added that the Army Corps of Engineers had deemed the pond not sensitive as it was man-made and was fed from a spring.

Council Member Brown inquired whether or not the playing fields would be deeded to the Town in the future. Mayor Waldorf replied that this was one of the decisions the Town would make at future meetings. Roger Perry, the applicant, agreed that this was a matter which the Council and the School District needed to discuss and decide. He also said that the Council could decide to drop one field, leave it on the park site, or move it to the area of the present pond.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether or not an analysis had been undertaken regarding parking or other construction proposed for the Resource Conservation District. Council Member Andresen also requested additional information about proposed lighting, parking and bleachers in the Resource Conservation District.

Mayor Waldorf expressed her appreciation for the ongoing cooperation between the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board and the developer regarding the proposed school site. She suggested that the Council ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to comment about the pond situation.

COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO REQUEST THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND COMMENT TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING THREE ALTERNATIVES REFERENCED BY MR. PERRY REGARDING A BALL FIELD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Responding to Council Member Andresen’s earlier question regarding parking lots, lighting and bleachers in the Resource Conservation District, Mr. Waldon explained that the area proposed for paved parking would not come close to the percentage of impervious surface permitted. He also said that there was no prohibition against lighting or athletic fields in the Resource Conservation District.

Council Member Andresen inquired about the extent of possible field-related flooding.

Noting that the lowest point on the proposed playing fields would be about 253 feet above sea level, Mr. Redfoot stated that during and after Hurricane Fran, the highest point reached was about 244 feet.

Louise Cole, a member of F.R.E.E., a group representing charter schools, said that her group was interested in developing a school on the site, if the site were rejected by the Orange County Commissioners. Ms. Cole stated that her organization was dedicated to eliminating current overcrowded conditions in many area public schools

Mike Fendrick, a licensed traffic engineer, presented data based on the Kimley-Horn reports and related materials, which estimated that traffic on portions of Pinehurst Drive would increase by as much as 580%. He added that without the proposed Pinehurst Drive connection, the increase might be as much as 260%. Mr. Fendrick added that many cars using Pinehurst Drive were traveling speeds well in excess of posted limits. Council Member Brown inquired about the accuracy of projections made in the studies cited by Mr. Fendrick. Mr. Fendrick said he was uncertain about the accuracy of the projections.

Susan Franklin-Fullerton requested that previous testimony regarding traffic-related concerns by a Mr. Crepeau be withdrawn from the hearing record by the Council. She stated that Mr. Crepeau had undertaken the analysis on a purely voluntary basis. Ms. Franklin-Fullerton requested that the Council not consider Mr. Crepeau’s analysis as part of its decisionmaking process. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said although the analysis could not be withdrawn once entered into the hearing record, it was appropriate to request that the Council not consider Mr. Crepeau’s analysis in its decisionmaking process.

Arnold Loewy, a resident of the Oaks, expressed his concern about the impact of the proposed connector on Pinehurst Drive and other nearby streets. Noting that the applicant, Roger Perry, had said that the Pinehurst Drive connector was not necessary for project viability, Mr. Loewy urged the Council to not approve the proposed connector.

Al Capehart, representing the North Carolina Rail Trail Association, suggested that Meadowmont include an arterial trail lying east/west to connect Little Creek and the Bolin Creek Greenway with the existing Third Fork and other Durham trails. He also recommended that the trails be asphalt and at least ten feet wide, with the arterial trails being at least twelve feet wide. He also said that the trails should be located near densely populated areas and be designed with traffic calming in mind to mitigate the possibility of accidents.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether the school site would interfere with the proposed greenway trail. Mr. Horton responded that the trail would not interfere with the school site.

Referencing early planning efforts in the Town’s history, Council Member Evans noted that historical accounts from 1903 described the Coker Arboretum on the UNC campus

as having been transformed from a “crawfish bog into a thing of abiding loveliness”.

Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council discuss the proposed school site, while school board members were in attendance this evening. Mr. Horton noted that Town staff would be reviewing new issues raised about the school site and would then address maintenance and construction concerns regarding the site.

Council Member Andresen expressed the importance of fully understanding the relationship between the proposed ball fields and impacts on water quality. She also suggested that the existing pond remain in place for educational experiences for students.

Council Member Andresen said she did not favor playing fields in the Army Corps’ flowage easement.

Council Member Wiggins inquired whether cost estimates for the proposed school site were still accurate. Noting that the figures were based on an earlier site plan, Schools Superintendent Neil Pedersen said the cost estimates might actually be lower. Council Member Wiggins requested updated cost estimates based on the new plans.

Council Member Evans said she favored inclusion of an outdoor basketball court on site.

Council Member Pavao said he believed that an interpretive park would be very beneficial to the community. Council Member Pavao said that in 1995, during a walking tour of the Meadowmont site, he and Council Member Evans had found that the proposed soccer field site was comparable to the Rainbow Soccer fields in terms of dampness. Council Member Andresen suggested that boardwalks be constructed to protect portions of the parkland area. Council Member Pavao responded that the plans for the Cleland Road area park had proposed boardwalks.

Council Member Brown inquired about the possibility of having playing fields apart from the school site. Mr. Horton said that the fields were intended for general community use.

Council Member Brown expressed concern about the limited amount of attention being paid to creating a variety of recreational facilities in this part of the Town.

Mr. Waldon said that the proposed Meadowmont development included plans for a Town park, ball fields, a greenway and a series of small “pocket parks” spread throughout the project. He added that the intent of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan was for recreational space to be provided along the NC 54 corridor into the Town. Council Member Brown requested additional information regarding the proposed “pocket” parks. Mr. Waldon said he would report back on this matter later in the meeting.

Council Member Pavao said that he had no trouble with building the fields in the flowage easement, and reiterated his support of the park as an interpretive park space.

Council Member Andresen said it was important to keep in mind that bogs and wetlands acted to filter out pollution from the water that would be headed into Chatham County. She said that neighboring residents of Chatham County would likely appreciate the Council’s awareness of this matter.

Expressing her general support of the proposed new plan, Mayor Waldorf said she favored having more Town control over the joint use of the playing fields. Noting that year-round schools might limit access to some facilities, Council Member Evans expressed her concurrence with Mayor Waldorf’s observation.

Council Member Capowski asked if it would be possible to get a map that clearly showed what Raleigh Road/NC 54 would look like with the proposed improvements. Mr. Waldon said that NC 54 would be six or eight lanes wide at its widest point. He also said that staff could provide relevant exhibits to the Council. Council Member Capowski inquired whether or not there was an example of another proposed development which would have potential traffic impacts similar to the proposed Meadowmont project. Mr. Waldon said the closest example was the NC 86 North corridor with its multiple projects interspersed with existing neighborhoods. He stated that concerns raised in this area included construction traffic and impacts on existing neighborhoods. Mr. Waldon added that with or without the proposed Meadowmont development, it was anticipated that failing levels of service for traffic were projected along portions of NC 54 by the year 2000.

Council Member Andresen inquired what staff was doing to address these anticipated failures in levels of service. Mr. Waldon stated that the proposed roadway improvements associated with the Meadowmont development would delay the date of failure in level of service. Council Member Capowski inquired whether the traffic situation could eventually be similar to Highway 70, contiguous to Crabtree Valley Mall in Raleigh. Mr. Waldon said he could report back to the Council on the similarities, if any.

Council Member Brown urged the Council to take steps to protect existing neighborhoods. Noting that these concerns were arising with greater frequency, Mr. Horton said that specific concerns needed to be identified and accompanying coping mechanisms put in place.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether or not any firm figures were available regarding the projected traffic increase and related impacts on existing neighborhoods and intersections. Council Member Andresen inquired about the possible future need for overpasses along the NC 54 corridor.

Council Member Brown said it was very desirable to put a plan in place before projected traffic had serious and negative impacts. Council Member Wiggins inquired whether the applicant or the Town would be responsible for putting such a plan in place. Mr. Horton said that the courts had made it clear that there had to be rough proportionality between required public improvements and impacts generated by development.

Council Member Evans inquired whether or not the median on NC 54 in front of Meadowmont would be impacted by the proposed development. Mr. Waldon said that the median would be impacted by proposed left-turn lanes. He also stated that an existing bluff would need to be cut into to make a sustainable slope and that trees near the Friday

Center would need to be removed.

Council Member Evans said that part of the increase in traffic was being instigated by growth in Chatham County. She stated that experienced traffic professionals recommended first connecting roads and implementing traffic calming, followed by more restrictive steps, if necessary. She also inquired about the likely future of George King Road. Council Member Evans also said she hoped that the proposed plan would allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate items such as routing roadways around existing larger trees. Council Member Evans inquired whether the proposed design guidelines were considered to be guidelines or standards. Mr. Waldon said that guidelines were advisory in nature, while standards required compliance with specific rules in the Town’s Development Ordinance. Mayor Waldorf said it was her understanding that guidelines met or exceeded existing standards. Mr. Waldon said the general understanding was that the developer’s design guidelines could be used, except in cases where the Town’s guidelines or standards were higher.

Council Member Evans inquired about the location of the proposed tunnel under NC 54. Mr. Horton said that the proposed tunnel would be at an existing cattle crossing.

Philip Goodman said he had a number of significant concerns about lack of compliance with the Town’s Development Ordinance, including impervious surface guidelines. Mr. Waldon responded that when the Meadowmont project was viewed in its totality, the project was in compliance with Development Ordinance requirements regarding impervious surfaces, water quality and other items. Stating that Section 25.6 of the Development Ordinance provided that under no circumstances was the Manager permitted to make changes or exceptions to the Development Ordinance, Mr. Goodman said that

overlooking particular areas of non-compliance by incorporating them into the whole went against the ordinance’s meaning and intent. Showing a map of the proposed development, Mr. Goodman inquired how part of the development were “not part of the special use permit”. Mr. Horton said that the Town staff had used a legally consistent set of criteria for applying these standards. He added that the Town Attorney had reviewed and approved the legal application of these standards.

Mr. Goodman said he was also concerned about the timing for the submittal of plans. He stated that many of the plans were slated for submittal with zoning compliance permits, long after the Council’s consideration of special use permits. Mr. Horton responded that

Mr. Goodman was misinterpreting the Town’s standard operating procedures for considering applications of this type. Mr. Goodman asked how these statements, which seemed to be written so clearly, could be interpreted in any other way.

Council Member Andresen suggested that staff respond in writing to Mr. Goodman’s concerns. Mayor Waldorf said that the staff’s responses were in the materials before the Council this evening.

Responding to one of Mr. Goodman’s concerns, Mayor Waldorf said she felt that it was unreasonable to expect construction drawings when the Council might shift things around and request substantial changes.

Mr. Goodman also said he felt that notice of meetings was inadequate. He also questioned the validity of recommendations by various advisory boards when the boards did not have the same plans as the ones before the Council this evening. Mr. Goodman expressed concern that many of the board’s recommendations were contrary to the Town’s Design Guidelines for entranceways.

Council Member Brown said that she had found many of the staff’s responses to her

questions to be inadequate. She stated that the resolution passed by the Council to involve the North Carolina Department of Transportation Congestion Management Group to look into traffic impacts had not been dealt with in a clear manner. Mr. Horton said that Town staff was doing their best to pass relevant information along to North Carolina Department of Transportation staff. Council Member Brown requested that staff continue these efforts with greater vigor.

Council Member Brown requested additional information regarding changes in the Department of Transportation’s initial recommendations. Mr. Waldon responded that staff had a number of concerns, including: (1) the possibility of NC 54 becoming a freeway, with exit ramps into Meadowmont and the Friday Center, (2) the possibility that the Department of Transportation would recommend that Meadowmont Lane be a four-lane roadway through the entire development, rather than a two-lane road in certain sections, as suggested by staff, (3) the need for a median break along NC 54 to accommodate emergency access by public safety vehicles and (4) the potential widening of NC 54.

Council Member Andresen asked if there had been any discussion of another access road where NC 54 would be eight lanes wide. Mr. Horton said there had been no such discussion. Council Member Andresen inquired why an additional intersection was being

placed so close to an existing intersection. Mr. Waldon stated that no intersections were being proposed beyond those already approved in the Master Land Use Plan. He noted that proposed intersection locations were based on concern for emergency access and traffic dispersal.

Mayor Waldorf inquired about the possibility of Mr. Perry providing additional affordable housing opportunities in the Meadowmont development. Mr. Perry responded that he had been in contact with Orange Community Housing Corporation Executive Director Donna Dyer to devise a plan by which profits from some units could be used to support housing affordability throughout the community.

Mr. Goodman stated that this was another non-compliance issue, since there was a goal of new developments having fifteen percent “affordable housing” units.

Council Member Andresen expressed her desire to make sure that the design guidelines were incorporated into the special use permit process. Council Member Andresen said she felt it was preferable to have a tunnel under NC 54 for pedestrians, rather than asking them to walk across an eight-lane highway. Mr. Perry assured Council Member Andresen that he would be pleased to build the tunnel under NC 54 and under Meadowmont Lane, if the Council desired. He noted that the tunnel under Meadowmont Lane was meeting with opposition from persons who said that the tunnel was so long that it would impinge on other areas of the development.

Council Member Andresen inquired whether or not the proposed entranceway into Meadowmont complied with the Town’s tree ordinance. Mr. Perry showed a number of computerized renderings of trees in various areas of the proposed development. He also said that fields within the proposed development would be planted with a number of different types of grass. Council Member Andresen inquired how these grassy fields would be maintained. Mr. Perry said the Council could decide to make this a responsibility of the Town or of a homeowner’s association. Mayor Waldorf said no matter who maintained the fields, it would be a public space.

Referencing the Goals for the NC 54 East Entranceway corridor, Mr. Goodman said these goals called for the allowance of vista limits to be bordered by trees, rather than buildings.

Mr. Goodman said that the Council had the right to request that no buildings be located along this scenic vista corridor.

Council Member Brown expressed concern that it appeared that only fifteen percent of trees in the area were slated for preservation. Mr. Perry said that the plan was to have a total of about thirty percent open space, including greenways, pocket parks, ball fields and

the school site. Mr. Perry added that there would also be a plant rescue program, which would inventory and store for later transplantation, many of the trees and plants in the proposed development area. Council Member Brown pointed out that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan called for cluster development which allowed for a lot of public gathering. She said that the proposed development did not appear to accommodate cluster development. Mr. Perry said he believed that any plan allowing for thirty percent or more open space, with no construction other than trails, ball fields or schools should be considered in compliance with the concept of cluster development.

Referencing the Swim Club special use permit,. Council Member Evans requested the addition of an outdoor basketball court. Mr. Perry said the court could be added if the Council wished.

Council Member Andresen said that counting the park as open space, located in a flowage easement and unbuildable due to flooding and water problems, was stretching the concept of recreational areas. Council Member Andresen said she wanted to be certain that there would be adequate recreation space for Meadowmont residents. Mr. Perry noted that Meadowmont streets would have sidewalks on both sides, bicycle lanes and a Swim Club. Mr. Perry stated that in his twenty-five years of building these types of communities, he had never allowed for as many amenities for residents as in the proposed Meadowmont development. Mr. Perry said he would be willing to improve the pocket parks with playground equipment and add picnic areas along the trails. Council Member Andresen requested that these improvements be referenced in the stipulations of approval.

Mr. Perry stated that the ten foot wide bike trail was, in itself, a significant amenity. Council Member Pavao asked whether this could be compared to the existing trail at Bolin Creek. Mr. Perry said since he was not familiar with the Bolin Creek trail, he could not respond. Mr. Horton noted that although Mr. Perry was only informally offering these additional amenities, he had formally offered the required specifications. Mr. Perry noted that fully-detailed construction drawings would be available in the near future.

Mr. Goodman said he was not clear about what was on the table due to the lack of actual drawings available at the present time. Mr. Goodman also said that when Mr. Perry said that there would be ten to twenty-five percent preservation of other space or trees, this meant that there would be seventy-five to ninety percent clear cutting. Mr. Goodman stated that this was an enormous amount of trees when one considered the amount of acreage being developed. Mr. Perry responded that Mr. Goodman was using sensational language to distort the situation. He stated that only areas of intense development would reach this level of clearing.

Council Member Andresen made the comment that even though the Tree Ordinance did not apply to residential areas, she was interested in seeing how it would be applied to commercial areas. Mr. Waldon stated that a Tree Protection Plan had been presented for the entire development, and as each construction drawing was submitted, more details would be presented and available.

Council Member Andresen requested clarification about the protection of specimen trees, as provided in the Development Ordinance. Mr. Waldon noted that the ordinance did not prohibit the removal of specimen trees. He said that the ordinance only required cataloguing and special attention to the trees’ status as a specimen tree.

Mayor Waldorf requested that the minutes be made available as soon as possible.

Mr. Horton said special attention would be paid to this detail.

Council Member Andresen inquired about handing in questions before the next public hearing on June 19^th at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Horton said that staff would appreciate getting questions prior to the hearing.

COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN, TO ADJOURN THE HEARING UNTIL JUNE 19^TH AT 7:00 P.M.

The hearing stood adjourned at 10:38 p.m.