SUMMARY OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR THE MEADOWMONT DEVELOPMENT, THURSDAY JUNE 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 Pavão 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.

 

Parties wishing to testify in the matter were sworn.

 

Mr. Waldon presented an overview of the proposed time frame for proceedings relative to the Meadowmont development applications.  He also noted that the minimum number of parking spaces in the Village Center area would be between 600 and 700 spaces, rather than 868 spaces, as referenced in the staff’s May 19th report to the Council.  He noted that staff was recommending that the hearing be adjourned to June 23rd at the end of this evening’s hearings.  He also noted that the staff’s follow-up report to questions and comments presented this evening would be before the Council on July 2nd.

 

Council Member Andresen requested clarification about when the Council might act on the applications.  Mr. Horton said the Council could choose to act on the items on July 2nd or 3rd. Council Member Andresen expressed concern about the size of the Council’s June 23rd agenda. Noting that most elements of the budget had been worked out, Mayor Waldorf said she believed it was worth proceeding with the June 23rd agenda as proposed.  Council Member  Andresen expressed concern about the public’s ability to follow the Meadowmont issue given the sheer volume of items on the Council’s agenda.

 

Infrastructure Special Use Permit Request

 

Kevin Foy requested that the Council make improvements in the proposed Village Center, including reducing the number of parking spaces,  in order to make it a less automobile-centered area.  He expressed concern that an “automobile friendly” area would result in increased traffic, speeding, noise and air pollution in adjacent existing neighborhoods.  Mr. Foy also expressed concern about the proposed amount of clear-cutting to be done in this area.  He requested that none of the proposed ball fields be located in the environmentally sensitive Resource Conservation District.  Mr. Foy said that the intent of his request was to make the project as good as possible because the Town’s residents would be living with the Meadowmont development for the rest of their lives.

 

Philip Goodman said he had a number of concerns about non-compliance with the Town’s Development Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and Master Land Use Plan.  He stated that there were no references in the Master Land Use Plan which directed the Council to allow views of buildings along the NC 54 East corridor entrance into the Town.  Mr. Goodman also expressed concern that the percentage of office use versus retail use was being manipulated by using the development as a whole, instead of allowing each special use permit to stand on it’s own merits.

 

Apartment Site Special Use Permit Request

 

Philip Goodman said that the apartment site, standing alone, did not meet recreation requirements and therefore should not be approved by the Council.   Mr. Goodman also said that the Town’s entranceway goals stated that there should be vistas over meadows with trees and woods as backdrops, rather than buildings.  Mr. Goodman added that the developer’s plans showed a playground situated forty to fifty feet off NC 54.   Mr. Goodman said he did not believe that this was in keeping with the intent of the Town’s entranceway goals.  Planning Director  Roger Waldon said that the Town’s Master Land Use Plan clearly contemplated buildings being visible along the NC 54 entranceway corridor.

 

Mr. Goodman also expressed concern that the developer was not in compliance because they had not submitted all necessary plans and drawings to the Town.  Stating that the applicant had submitted all drawings and detail required for special use permits, Mr. Waldon said that the documents referenced by Mr. Goodman were required for approval of zoning compliance permits.

 

Referencing  the Town’s Master Land Use Plan, Mr. Goodman said that these items were required at the time of special use permit consideration.  Mr. Waldon provided details of what constituted “final” plans.  He stated that if the Council approved the special use permit application requests, the developer  would be required to submit final plans, at the level of detail of construction drawings.  He stated that the zoning compliance procedures would be initiated once these drawings were submitted to the Town.

 

Infrastructure Special Use Permit Requests

 

Valerie Broadwell, an EPA employee specializing in compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1991,  said it was standard procedure to get baseline figures for air quality standards so that one knew the level and rate of change in any measurements being studied.   Stating that traffic projections for Meadowmont indicated upwards of 30,000 additional vehicle trips per day on area roadways,  Ms. Broadwell expressed concern that there had been no baseline count for existing roads including Pinehurst, Burning Tree, Cleland and Oakwood Drives.   Ms. Broadwell urged the Council to put a traffic calming plan in place prior to development of  the Meadowmont proposal.  

 

Madeline Jefferson expressed concern about the negative impact of higher traffic volumes on property values in  neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed Meadowmont development.  She noted that stipulation #4 of the Master Land Use Plan required the provision of updated and detailed traffic analysis at the time of special use permit applications.   Ms. Jefferson expressed concern that the proposed commercial district for Meadowmont was too large and would attract too much traffic to surrounding neighborhoods.  She also expressed concern that the special use permit public hearing for the affordable housing site had been held at a very inconvenient time.

 

Noting that the special use permit in question was for the provision of additional affordable housing, Mr. Waldon said that the hearing followed standard Council procedures for public hearings.

 

Philip Goodman said that the applicant’s plans and the Goals for the NC 54 East Entranceway corridor were inconsistent.  He expressed concern that the developer’s plans called for preserving only 27 of 55 acres of meadows along the entranceway corridor.  Mr. Waldon said that the Town staff had reviewed the applicant’s plans and had found the application to be consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the meadows as stated in the Master Land Use Plan.   Referencing Mr. Goodman’s earlier remarks, Mr. Waldon noted that although the Master Land Use Plan did not say that buildings could be visible from the highway, it also did not say that buildings would not be visible.  Mr. Goodman said he was opposed to the staff’s conclusion that the meadows would be preserved and enhanced and that a playground attached to the apartment site was being included to meet requirements for the provision of recreation amenities.

 

Mayor Waldorf noted that Council Member Andresen, Brown and herself were supportive of area resident’s suggestions regarding the need for traffic calming studies and benchmarking of traffic in the area.  Mr. Horton said that staff realized that these were issues of concern to the Council and was taking steps to address these matters.

 

Roger Perry, of East/West Partners presented a computer graphic simulation of the proposed Meadowmont portion of the NC 54 corridor in the future.  Council Member Chilton noted that attachment #15 to this evening’s agenda item, regarding amendments to the Master Land Use Plan addressed some of the concerns raised earlier regarding vistas.

 

Council Member Andresen mentioned a conversation she had had with David Brown about traffic.  Council Member Andresen said she discovered that only the two intersections directly in front of Meadowmont on NC 54 had been studied, and she felt it was important to look at others that would clearly be heavily impacted such as I-40 and 54, as well as 15-501 and 54.  Mr. Brown had reported to her that these intersections were regulated by NCDOT, not the Town.  Council Member Andresen asked that NCDOT be contacted to get this information. Council Member Andresen also had some questions about the departure from the Ordinance like the 50% impervious surface requirement being achieved by looking at the project as a whole, when it was her understanding that each special use permit had to be able to stand alone to be approved.  There followed a long discussion with Council Member Capowski, Council Member Andresen, Roger Waldon, and Cal Horton.

 

It was not clear to Council Members Andresen and Capowski how the individual special use permits could be approved if they hinged on stipulations that included part of other areas in the development. It was explained that no special use permit could be approved if all of the stipulations were not agreed to and carried out once the construction was started, even if none of the other areas were developed. In other words, if the only part Meadowmont that was built was the Apartments, then the retention pond and the recreation space would still need to be built, even though these two things might not be located within the Apartment site. The linkage had been created through compliance to the Master Land Use Plan and would become part of the development of each particular site, as well as the development as a whole. Mr. Waldon then showed a decision sequence presentation that made it all more clear to the Council Members. Council Member Andresen commented that it would have been helpful to have this presentation up front. She added, however, that there needed to be some consideration to the fact that allowing more retail meant generating more car trips.

 

John Kent of the New Hope Audubon came to ask the Council to not put any part of the soccer fields in the RCD. The parks need to be preserved for their wildlife habitat aspects. Mr. Kent mentioned salamander pools that were needed for breeding, but said there were many other species whose homes would be disturbed and possibly destroyed. He held up a large study, done by Steve Hall, for the Council to look at.

 

Diane LeMasters came to report on the Parks and Rec. meeting of the previous night. After thoughtful consideration and talks with the developer, Ms. LeMasters said that Parks and Rec. had voted 5 to 2 in favor of the recreation plans for Meadowmont. The 2 dissenting votes were concerned about the playing fields being in the flowage easement. Other concerns, which the Committee felt were surmountable was the need for more recreation space accessible to the apartments, lighting the fields and the basketball court. Otherwise there was a general sense of satisfaction with the 5 playing fields, 2 swimming pools, pocket parks and greenspaces throughout. There was also a recommendation for water fountains and bathrooms accessible to all the recreation. As far as the ecology of the area, Ms. LeMasters supported the idea of preservation, but felt that this plan was sensitive to this issue. The pond was not to be disturbed and the hope was that it would even become a laboratory for the school. The fields, Ms. LeMasters pointed out, were not impervious surfaces. The water would drain through. She also asked for a definition of wetlands.

 

Mayor Pro-tem Brown asked if the fields that were being recommended were where, on her walking tour the day before, she had seen water lilies growing. Roger Perry, the developer, told her that, yes, this was the site being discussed.

 

Council Member Capowski wondered whether there was enough recreation to satisfy the projected 3,000 residents. Ms. LeMasters answered that she was not sure and reiterated the Parks and Rec.’s desire for more recreation adjacent to the apartments. Mayor Waldorf, Council Member Andresen, and Council Member Capowski all requested some more specific ideas for recreation equipment in the pocket parks, as well as making sure there was enough access to swimming and other facilities. Mr. Perry pointed out that a Wellness Center and a Retirement Home were slated for the future, both of which will supply a lot more recreation facilities. Mayor Waldorf  asked the Council if they would agree to consider having the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendations drafted as stipulations to the applications. It was passed by acclimation. Ms. LeMasters added that they were in a conversation with the School Board to ensure proper access, for the Town, to the fields. Council Member Evans wanted to make sure that if the fields were lit, that steps were taken to make sure that neighboring houses were not negatively impacted.

 

Justin Little from Apartments by Crosland showed slides of existing projects to clear up what he felt was a misconception about the amount of space and recreation provided.  Mr. Little displayed paths, swimming pools and shaded play structures, which he said would be very much like what would be built in Meadowmont. The other recreation benefit that hadn’t been mentioned, he said, was a ¾ mile sidewalk loop on which joggers or walkers would only have to cross driveways.

 

Council Member Evans reminded the Council that the study Mr. Foy had referred to earlier was the same one that the attorney from the Pinehurst Safety Group had asked that the Council ignore. Council Member Evans then asked the developer what steps would be taken to make sure there would be not biker/auto conflicts on the bike path. A member of the development team informed her that there would be a special street print, impressed asphalt, and a stop sign for the bikers as well as street lights and signage. Council Member Evans said that she had also noticed some more retail on the plans on Barbee Chapel Road and wondered whether this was part of the retail being submitted now, or would that be a separate special use permit at a later date. She was told that it would be considered separately.

 

Council Member Capowski, using the Home Depot building and parking lot for comparison, questioned the developer about the 1,084 spaces, saying that the Home Depot lot was only 700 spaces and would the developer consider reducing the number of parking spaces to 700.   The developer responded that the 1,084 spaces were marginal at best, so he would not be willing to reduce. The developer then pointed out that the retail space covered 290,000 square feet, which meant that there was 4.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, which was below the average. He also pointed out the retail and parking space was very broken up, so that the biggest lot one saw was much smaller than the Home Depot lot, nicely landscaped, and not visible from 54. The pedestrians had many paths sidewalks and bike paths to get around easily, he added. Council Member Andresen asked him if he would consider a parking deck and was told that the expense of a parking deck would mean higher rents for the tenants.

 

Council Member Franck questioned the developer as to whether the 1,084 parking spaces included the diagonal on-street parking and found out that it did include those spaces.  Mr. Waldon informed him, however, that these spaces would not be counted in the Ordinance minimum count.  The developer added that this on-street parking was also a traffic calming device.

 

Council Member Capowski had a grave concern about the fact that Meadowmont was supposed to be a pedestrian oriented development, yet it seemed there was parking everywhere.  Council Member Capowski wanted to know if there was anywhere in the United States that he could see this concept in place.  The developer replied that he didn’t know of anywhere off-hand, but that the intention here was a pedestrian friendly urban area, which is, of course, going to include cars. He then showed quite a few artists renditions of the Village Square from a few different perspectives. The idea here was to go back to the days of Villages, before there were malls.

 

Council Member Andresen commented that in looking back a few years, when Meadowmont was first presented to the Council, she remembered a lot of talk about the idea of a village with lots of greenspace and gathering places. A strip between two streets is not what she had in mind. The developer responded that there was a greenspace surrounding the Village Square and that there were many sidewalks and paths to connect and make this space very accessible. There is also a promenade area about 25 x 90 feet to be covered with some asphalt, landscaping, and benches. There was also a drive that could be blocked off for special events, such as Octoberfests or art fairs. The procedure for this would have to be up to the management, as it is a private drive. A comparison was made with Cameron Village which has been know to close itself off for events.

 

Roger Waldon, responding to an earlier question about adherence to the design guidelines, responded that the design guidelines are referenced as a recommended resolution of approval, so following them is clearly stated.

 

Mayor Pro-tem Brown noted that the artist’s renderings looked different than the site plans and that the original expectations were for gathering places and this should be kept in mind.

 

Council Member Franck brought up the issue of the location and accessibility of the recycling center.  Council Member Franck said that he was concerned that residents wouldn’t be able to get into the center when trucks were delivering groceries to the grocery store across the street. Council Member Franck received assurance from the applicant that there would be twenty-five feet of road there accessible by a circular route. Mayor Waldorf agreed with Council Member Franck about the location of the recycling center, but said that the explanation in the written answers had to do with heavy duty pavement there, as well as the screening possibilities.  The other question that Council Member Franck  had, dealt with the fixed guideway transit street and the location of building L.  Council Member Franck said that he wanted to see a conceptual design of this building in conjunction with the fixed transit guideway because he questioned the viability of the two working together. A member of the applicant’s staff  explained that the TTA sent a letter to the staff that showed some diagrams but at this point they were only prototypes because the TTA was trying to look at least 10 years into the future so there were still some design pieces in process. A diagram did show the station within a 50 foot corridor, however, so it looked like it would work with building L. 

 

Council Member Franck’s final request dealt with the drive-thru bank in the largest parking lot.  Council Member Franck said he felt that there was no need for a drive-thru bank in a truly pedestrian-friendly development.  Council Member Franck also said that he would like to see the bank shifted to street front with walk in business only. The development team responded by saying that the bank had actually been put there to soften the impact of the parking lot, and that, in this type of community, prohibitions would definitely be put on fast food drive-thrus, but convenient drive-thru options for businesses such as dry cleaners and banks were actually considered neighborhood oriented. Council Member Franck disagreed, and was informed that all but bank drive-thrus had been restricted. He would work in that restriction as well, but was pleased that the staff had gone at least that far.

 

Mayor Pro-tem Brown again brought up the issue of the 50% impervious surface stipulation being achieved by using the development as a whole. Roger Waldon assured Mayor Pro-tem Brown that the stipulation will be complied with through phase by phase accurate calculations to make sure of compliance as the development is taking place. Mayor Pro-tem Brown also asked about the different permits required by the State or Federal government. Roger Waldon knew of no permits required by the Federal government, and State permits were only to do with the NCDOT because some of the roads would be state roads. Mayor pro tem Brown affirmed her desire to see that the tranquillity of existing neighborhoods would not be adversely affected, as stated in the Development Ordinance. She really wanted to make sure the Council did everything possible to protect these neighborhoods.  Mr. Horton pointed out that the Development Ordinance could require that certain steps be taken, but that the Comprehensive Plan could not.

 

Mayor Waldorf requested that Town staff come back with a long-range plan for traffic management and was told that this would be done, but not by the July 2nd meeting.

 

Council Member Capowski thanked Roger Waldon for the very large and clear diagrams of the NC 54 improvements, but wondered if it was really necessary that the highway should go to 8 or, sometimes, 9 lanes in places.  Mr. Waldon said that the NCDOT has been very clear that the intersections on NC 54, without the improvements proposed, would fail traffic-wise by the year 2002.   He stated that with the proposed improvements and Meadowmont development, the intersections would last a few years longer.

 

Council Member Andresen asked the staff to respond to the stipulation 6a, page 23 which referred to the consequences of disturbing any wetlands.  Council Member Andresen then questioned the possible outcome of having the Homeowners Association be responsible for the retention ponds. Her concern was that, because of the precedence of ponds under private ownership to fail, the Town would be inundated with the responsibility for these retention ponds. Council Member Andresen also asked whether the Town standards would apply to the private roads throughout Meadowmont.

 

Roger Waldon first responded to the wetlands issue by saying that there would be no disturbance of wetlands. As for the retention ponds, there are very clear stipulations to avoid what Council Member Andresen is talking about. Not only will a surety instrument be posted, but the articles of incorporation for the Owner’s Association include provisions that allow for assessment of maintenance. So the Town will be getting an annual report of maintenance and the Owner’s Association will be charged with keeping money in a bank account to cover expenses related to upkeep of the ponds.  This money would be turned over to the Town along with the pond should there be a failure. It was also explained that the Owner’s Association would be comprised of both homeowners and business owners which would create a master owner’s Association. There might also be sub-groups to deal specifically with different areas of the development.

 

Mayor Pro-tem Brown, referring back to the issue of wetlands disturbance, pointed out that just because the Army Corps of Engineers designated a certain area as wetlands, this does not mean that there are not other places that were also wetlands. Ms. Brown was thinking about some places she had seen on the walking tour where there had clearly been standing water, even though there had not been a recent rain. These areas should be considered important in the ecology of the area and respected for their natural storm water management abilities. Mayor Pro-tem Brown then asked the staff to compare the Master Land Use Plan currently being presented by the applicant and the one approved by the Council in 1995 and list all the differences between the two. She also questioned the staff about attachment #13, which states that there are sections that vary from the Master Land Use Plan. Roger Waldon responded by telling Mayor Pro-tem Brown that attachment #13 was merely a response from the staff to the applicant. The design had varied from the Master Land Use Plan, but had since been revised. Another variance from the Master Land Use Plan was the amount of parking and the placement of some buildings, but the variances were still consistent. Mayor Pro-tem Brown further questioned the usage of lots 65-80 which looked like they had originally been slated for recreation, but had become retail spaces. Roger Waldon informed her that what she was looking at was the Swim Club and then very nearby, there were small corner retail spaces to be built in the future.

 

Council Member Franck suggested that there needed to be more sidewalk access to bus stops and other places within the development. He had calculated that it would be much shorter to just cut across parking lots to get places than to use the sidewalks, but adding a few would alleviate the impulse to use these more dangerous shortcuts.  Council Member Franck, in looking at the site plan, wondered why there were so many driveway cuts on Barbee Chapel Road.  The applicant’s staff  explained that there were several different parcels of land here and they all needed driveway cuts.   Council Member Franck then pointed to a parcel of land northwest of the proposed apartment site that seemed very cut off and hoped to see connectors so as to make it more accessible in the future.  The applicant’s staff said that a proposed perimeter sidewalk with connectors was intended to address this issue.

 

Council Member Capowski inquired about the status of  negotiations with OWASA about reused water being utilized at Meadowmont and was told that, at this point, OWASA did not have the capacity to service Meadowmont, but the possibility of retrofitting at a later date would certainly be feasible.  Mayor Waldorf interjected with the fact that the type of landscaping being considered mitigated the need for too much irrigation.

 

Mayor Pro-tem Brown asked if it was fair to say that the construction of the Village Center would necessitate 100% clear-cutting and was told that this was a fair characterization.  Mayor pro tem Brown then read from the Town’s design guidelines, which stated, as a goal, the preservation of land contours, drainage, tree masses, specimen trees.  Mr. Waldon responded that he felt these guidelines were being followed when one took the whole development into consideration.  He added that it would be impossible to create the kind of urban space that was planned without the removal, rebuilding and replanting that was planned.  Mr. Waldon also said that the throughout followed the lay of the land, that the most environmentally sensitive area, the northern portion, was being preserved and that the meadows would be enhanced and preserved.  Mayor Pro-tem Brown asked for a yes or no to the question of whether the Village Center, standing alone, would comply with the design guidelines and was told that this was not a simple yes or no question. Mayor pro tem Brown followed up by asking about the restrictions, if any, on the individual landowners as they built their houses.  The applicant’s staff responded that there were stipulations and covenants that regulated how much could be cleared without being replanted.

 

Council Member Andresen addressed the thinning hedgerows along NC 54, which she felt would not achieve the look that was initially envisioned in the East Entranceway Study, so carefully throughout by a former Town Council.   Council Member Andresen then suggested that the Village Center be moved toward the road, which would sacrifice some of the buffer, but then move some of the greenspace into the Village Center to achieve the gathering spaces initially proposed.  Council Member Andresen also pointed to a letter from Mr. Faulkner at NCDOT which stated his inability to provide the traffic estimates at key intersections due to an already full schedule.  Council Member Andresen said this information was needed before the Council could vote.

 

The public hearing concluded at 10:48 p.m.