SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the hearing to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council Members in attendance were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Lee Pavão, and Edith Wiggins. Council Members arriving later: Julie McClintock, 7:08 p.m.; Council Member Foy, 7:10 p.m.; and Mayor pro tem Capowski, 7:11 p.m. In attendance were: Staff members Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Interim Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1—Public Forum on the Draft 2000-2006 NC Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs

David Bonk, Transportation Planner, reviewed the draft for the 2000-2006 State and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIP). He said that the new MTIP is the same as the State’s program, and that additions and changes would come from comments at the Hearing. Mr. Bonk said that the two programs must be in accordance with each other in order to be approved by the federal government. He said that the staff recommended that the Council request the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to make changes to the draft MTIP to: (1) include funding for the construction of a sidewalk along Culbreth Road; (2) include funding for improvements at the Erwin Road/US 15-501 Boulevard intersection; (3) include funding for the Old Durham-Chapel Hill bikelanes; and (4) expand the scope of the I-40 Improvement Study. Mr. Bonk expanded on these requests, to include funding for the South Columbia Street project. He noted that in addition to funds from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Direct Allocation Funds Program, about $2.5 million in federal funds were available, requiring a 20% local match. Mr. Bonk said that Chapel Hill had utilized these funds since the early 1990s for several projects. He summarized the Chapel Hill STP Direct Allocation Projects: (1) bicycle, pedestrian facilities and median on NC 86; (2) bike and pedestrian facilities on Homestead Road; (3) bike and pedestrian facilities on Weaver Dairy Road; (4) pedestrian facility on US 15-501 South; (5) purchase 14 Transit buses; and (6) NC 54 West Park/Ride. Mr. Bonk noted that attached to the memorandum were recommendations from the Transportation Board, the Greenways Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. He also noted that the Planning Board reviewed the draft but made no recommendation on the specifics.

Council Member Bateman asked Mr. Bonk to refresh her memory on what areas of I-40 were included in the recommendations. Mr. Bonk said that the MTIP plan includes widening I-40 from NC 147, the Durham Freeway, to I-85 in Hillsborough. He noted that the State has divided the project into two parts; one part is from NC 147 to US 15-501. Mr. Bonk noted that the plan needed further evaluation and a more comprehensive study was needed for the full extent of planning for I-40. He also said that the problems were broader than just adding two more lanes at a cost of $40 million.

Mayor Waldorf said that representatives from the local jurisdictions, including Durham City, Durham County, Orange County and Chapel Hill were trying to figure out how the money ought to be spent, instead of just adding two more lanes to I-40. She said that she hoped the Council would support the staff recommendations.

Council Member McClintock said that her constituents say that the Council does not know how bad the commute to the Triangle and Raleigh really is. She said that she would support the addition of High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV).

Mayor Waldorf said that all options need to be addressed and that Durham and Chapel Hill need to work together.

Council Member Evans said she did not understand the Greenways Commission’s recommendation to include bikelanes in the City of Durham. Mr. Bonk said that it was on NC 54 which was becoming as important a consideration for Durham as it was for Chapel Hill.

Council Member Brown said that she gathered that there was an ongoing improvement study regarding I-40. Mr. Bonk said that the State had initiated a study to look at HOVs in a narrow sense and as a long-term proposition.

Council Member Brown asked about the politics and the relationship of TAC to the Department of Transportation (DOT), how this would all fit in, and the realities of the political possibilities of having something else done other than what Mr. Bonk had described. Mr. Bonk said that federal regulations in the previous bill required a Major Investment Study (MIS). He said that now the State had eliminated the specific language of MIS, but the direction given to the states were that some of the elements needed to be included when beginning major projects. Mr. Bonk noted that it required agreement between the State, TAC and the transit providers in the area as to the scope and alternatives of the study. He said that the State had gone forward on the HOV study, but TAC wanted a much broader study.

Council Member Brown asked if the resolution would become more like the present MIS study of US 15-501. Mr. Bonk said that it would not be as broad and expansive as the US 15-501 study.

Council Member Brown asked if the Weaver Dairy Road project now includes the sidewalks and bikelanes requested by the Council, and if not, would it come under the Direct Allocation share of the projects. Mr. Bonk said that the Town certainly could ask the DOT to include bikelanes in the project. He said that this would save Chapel Hill both the Direct Allocation money as well as the local share. Mr. Bonk noted that sidewalks are usually paid for outside of the project itself.

Mayor pro tem Capowski said that he had attended the meeting in Durham the evening before, and could not conceive an improvement with the addition of the new mall and office buildings along I-40 in Durham. He asked which is better—a congested four-lane highway or a congested six-lane highway. Mr. Bonk said that HOVs work better on congested highways, because there is more of an incentive to use them. He said that the study would look at the trade-offs.

Mayor Waldorf said that the question was whether or not the Council wanted to support an examination of this roadway improvement that includes something other than adding more lanes of highway.

Council Member Bateman asked if the cost included landscaping the median on NC 86. Mr. Horton said that the State had minimal funds. He said that if Chapel Hill wanted more there was provision for some improvement in additional landscaping through DOT funding, or the Council could allocate its own funding. Mr. Horton said the staff felt that there would be a need for additional funding and would bring a report back to the Council.

Council Member Brown said that she supported expanding the scope of the study and having Chapel Hill represented in the development of the scope of work, selection of consultants and oversight of the project for I-40.

Council Member McClintock asked how long it would take for the study to be ready. Mr. Bonk said that there were real problems to be addressed, so the study should be ready as quickly as possible, probably six to nine months.

Council Member McClintock said that she was concerned over the length of time for the studies to be ready and at how many studies were being done. She said that if HOV lanes came about as a result of the study, then the study would be worth it.

Council Member Evans said that she felt the need for the study.

Loren Hintz, an employee of Chapel Hill High School and a member of the Transportation Board, said that he was speaking as an individual community member. He said he believed the basic problem was the expanding traffic. Mr. Hintz said he hoped the Council would support building fewer lanes and oppose new routes. He added that he felt that Homestead Road was a poor expenditure of money and the Council should consider the Estes Drive Extension. Mr. Hintz said that pedestrian crossings should be a major consideration and that local monies should be used to make bikeways safer.

Council Member Brown noted she would like a report on the sidewalks and bikeways on Columbia Street north of Southern Village that was part of the Southern Village planning process.

Mayor Waldorf said that the hearing would be recessed until Monday night, January 25, 1999 for Council consideration and action.

Item 2—South Columbia Street Townhomes

J.B. Culpepper, Development Coordinator, introduced the continuation of a hearing on the application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment submitted by Mr. Roland Gammon for White Oak Properties, Inc. to rezone 3.7 acres at the northwest corner of South Columbia Street and Highway 54 Bypass from Residential-2 (R-2) to Office/Institutional-2 Conditional (OI-2-C). She stated that the exceptions to the Development Ordinance were: (a) to correct a manifest error in the chapter; or (b) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally; or (c) to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff recommended that, due to insufficient arguments to meet any of these criteria, the Council adopt Resolution A, denying an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment for South Columbia Street Townhomes. She said that the validity of the Protest Petition had been confirmed.

Mayor Waldorf asked the Attorney if the people who had signed up for both A and B of the Public Hearing on the Zoning Atlas Amendment Application and the Special Use Permit Application could speak to both issues at the same time, when they were addressing the Council. Mr. Karpinos said so long as they had been sworn this would be acceptable. Mr. Horton suggested that the staff present the recommendations for the Special Use Permit Application before the speakers addressed the Council.

Ms. Culpepper introduced the continuation of a hearing on a Special Use Permit Application for South Columbia Street Townhomes. She said that the applicant was seeking approval to allow a multi-family development consisting of two rows of buildings with 15 dwelling units on approximately 3.7 acres on the northwest corner of South Columbia Street and Highway 54 Bypass. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff recommended that the Council adopt Resolution A, denying the application for a Special Use Permit because it would not: (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; (3) be designed or operated to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or be a use or development that is a public necessity; and (4) conform with the general plans for physical development as embodied in the Development Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan. She said that the development also does not meet the requirements of the R-2 zoning district. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff also recommended that the Council vote, at tonight’s meeting, on the definition of “contiguous property,” as it relates to this application.

Mr. Roland Gammon, of White Oaks Properties, Inc., said that the applicant reviewed all comments of the Council from the previous hearing and had brought back a significantly modified plan to develop the property economically. He said they had listened carefully to concerns with the number of bedrooms and the concept of the townhouses. Mr. Gammon said that there have been significant conversions: (1) the number of development units was presently 15, the previous number was 27; (2) the number of bedrooms presently was 30, previously 75; (3) previously there were 24 three-bedroom units plus 3 one-bedroom units, presently there were 15 two-bedroom townhouses; (4) there was a 29% reduction in the height of the units; (5) traffic predictions at peak hours had been reduced by 50%; (6) parking garages were conveniently positioned; (7) impervious surfaces had been decreased by 24%; (8) there was a decreased floor area ratio; (9) they had fully complied with all the recreational regulations; and (10) there had been strong recommendations from all the study groups.

Mr. Scott Radway, referring to a design sketch of the original Greenways, said that the property was divided to widen South Columbia Street, leaving less than the five acres required for townhomes to be in compliance with the regulations. He said that the original tree buffer was removed by NC Department of Transportation. Mr. Radway noted the applicant had reduced the impervious surfaces by putting the stormwater drainage system underground so there was no significant structure, and the recreation area was located at the center of the site, over the system. He said that the buffers exceeded by great margins those required for this property, and the proposed footage floor ratio is above the R-2 requirements. Mr. Radway said that he believed the site worked well with 25 units, although this exceeded the dwelling units in the regulations by .05. He said that the site had a high requirement for recreational space, but the livability and outdoor space ratios exceed the R-2 and OI-2 standards. Mr. Radway said that the buildings had two full levels of living space, a first and second floor. He said that the garage space does not get counted in floor ratio, but the space where the mechanical equipment was located did, because it was in an enclosed area. Mr. Radway said that the buildings’ square footage was designed on what they believe to be a reasonable and marketable product. He showed a cross-section sketch of the two-story buildings to indicate where the street elevation would be and how it would look from the street, and, which indicated where the street elevation would be if the buildings remained three-story.

Anne Seymour, a resident of the South Columbia Street neighborhood, said that she had a new petition, with 115 signatures, opposing the rezoning and the Special Use Permit requests. She urged the Council to retain the park-like theme. Ms. Seymour said that there were concerns about property values and traffic increases, and that spot zoning would create a precedent. She said that the proposed development was not compatible with the surroundings. Ms. Seymour read a letter from Marjorie Carlstein, a Smith Avenue resident who wrote that the proposal was too large and out of character for the neighborhood. Ms. Seymour noted she collected 41 signatures on the petition, all opposed to the rezoning and Special Use Permit, and urged the Council to vote against the proposal.

Kimberly Brewer said she was opposed to the proposal, but would support a cluster of 10-12 units. She urged the Council to treat other small lots in the community equally and to change the Development Ordinance to remove the clause that said clusters could not be built on less than five acres. Ms. Brewer noted the neighbors’ concerns had increased since the University announced its proposed expansion.

Dianne Bachman, of the Community Design Commission, said that the Appearance Committee reviewed the proposal in January 1998, that the Community Design Commission reviewed a later proposal in October 1998, and that on January 6, 1999, reviewed it again and recommended approval of the proposal, based on the sidewalks, green space, the building separation, and the revisions by the developer.

Elaine Barney said that she and her family had lived in Chapel Hill since 1975, and was opposed to the new revisions. Ms. Barney said that they were not in keeping with the entrance corridor gateway, and that she agreed with the cluster approach.

Nancy Oates said that the neighborhood was not Southern Village and that the proposed buildings were not appropriate. She said she was opposed to the proposal in that it would make a considerable difference in the neighborhood lifestyle.

Mr. Gammon asked that his company be treated fairly, and questioned the frequent use of the term “spot zoning.” He asked that the development be compared to other developments in the area, and said that he felt that 15-unit family-style homes were appropriate.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked whether Chapel Hill had underground detention ponds. Mr. Horton said that he did not know about Chapel Hill, but that they were not unusual and many communities had them. He noted that they require careful design and maintenance.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked whether, the proposed widening on South Columbia Street included bikelanes. Mr. Radway showed drawings of the proposed lanes and said that the southbound through lane had room for bike space, but northbound bikelanes had not yet been determined.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked that the staff respond to the question of bikelanes on South Columbia Street, because they were supposed to connect with the bikelanes from Southern Village, and he did not want to see a bikelane bottleneck.

Mayor pro tem Capowski told Mr. Radway that the Council had been crystal clear in the resolution on R-2 zone limit. He said that the property was marketable no matter what was built there and requested that Mr. Radway follow the resolution. Mr. Radway said that the applicant had taken the charges very seriously, but to make the site marketable, all the charges were in compliance except the square footage. He said that they could have built duplexes in compliance, but that would not meet the spirit of R-2.

Council Member Evans asked if the staff could look into the right-of-way to Monroe Street with the idea of putting in a bike/pedestrian trail along Monroe Street that could eventually be hooked up to Dawes Street, adding to the community.

Council Member Evans said that there was a conflict in the staff’s report. She noted that on page 7, under Evidence in Support, paragraph 3, “We believe that the proposed buildings and clearing of trees along Highway 54 Bypass cause this proposal to be generally not in keeping with the intent of the Entranceway Plan” is in conflict with page 12, under Evaluation, second paragraph, third line, “The site is sparsely wooded with hardwoods.” Council Member Evans suggested that replanting might make the entryway more attractive and increase the value of the area. She pointed out that the neighbors should look at the Franklin Hills or Oxford Condominiums as examples of what this development might be like—upscale and not inexpensive, but not appropriate for students, which had been a concern of the neighbors.

Council Member McClintock asked the Planning staff what the effective zoning rate was in the area. She said that the applicant mentioned R-4, but she thought it was more like R-2. Council Member McClintock said she appreciated the excellent staff work and their attention to the Comprehensive Plan Gateway idea, adding she did not think the applicant had fulfilled the Council’s request to look at something with the intensity of R-2, or do a cluster.

Mayor Waldorf asked if the property were to be developed into duplexes, how many units would that be. Ms. Culpepper said that R-2 zoning allows 2-family units on lots that are one-half acre in size, therefore this would be about 12 units.

Council Member Evans asked if there were any restrictions on the size of the units. Ms. Culpepper said that there was not a floor area restriction, but only three bedrooms per side were allowed.

Mayor Waldorf said that it was time for the Council to determine what “contiguous property” would be for this area.

MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO DEFINE “CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY” AS 500 FEET.

Council Member Evans said that would be adjacent property.

Mr. Radway asked if this included rights-of-way and asked the Council to exclude properties on the other side of the Bypass in the 500 feet. Mr. Horton said that the Town measures from the outer bounds of the property and that it did not matter what is adjacent. He also said that property owners within 1,000 feet had already been notified.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 7-2, WITH MAYOR WALDORF, COUNCIL MEMBERS BROWN, CAPOWSKI, FOY, MCCLINTOCK, PAVÃO, AND WIGGINS VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN AND EVANS VOTING NAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 8, 1999. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 3—Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat Approval Application for Hundred Oaks Cluster Subdivision Phase 2

Ms. Culpepper introduced the proposal for an application seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide 7 acres of gross land area into a cluster subdivision, calling for 6 single-family residential lots fronting on an extension of Hayworth Drive from the Hundred Oaks Subdivision Phase 1. She noted that this would be Hundred Oaks Subdivision Phase 2, adding that Phase 1 was approved in 1994. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff recommended no vehicular connection to Bennett Road, no paved sidewalk to Bennett Road or concrete sidewalk along Bennett Road, and since the developer made payment-in-lieu for a bus stop and pulloff on U.S. Highway 15-501 during Phase I, no recommendation for a bus stop was necessary. She said that the staff had received a letter from OWASA, this day, stating that water line connections from Mount Carmel Church Road and U.S. Highway 15-501 would not be necessary, as had been referred to under stipulations required in the staff report. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat Application with the conditions listed in Resolution A.

Mr. John Hansen, the applicant, highlighted some of the points of the staff recommendations. He said that Phase 2 started out as a development on both sides of Bennett Road. Mr. Hansen said that the Chapel Hill Fire Department bought the land on the south side of Bennett Road from him and the sewer and water lines would run from Hundred Oaks down Bennett Road to the proposed Fire Station, and hook up with the lines at Southern Village. He said that OWASA dropped the line requirements when it was understood that this hook up would occur. Mr. Hansen said that the number of lots left to development was actually five, the sixth lot was actually lot #36 from Phase 1, which he had moved in response to the requests of the homeowners in Phase 1 who wanted a clear view of the meadow. He said that it was moved to Phase 2 in an exchange of land. Mr. Hansen said that the pedestrian access would be a continuation of the trail system already in place in Phase 1. He said that although the recreation area in Phase 2 was off by one-tenth of a percent, there would be ample recreation area in Hundred Oaks. Mr. Hansen said that the Phase 2 lot owners would be part of Hundred Oaks Homeowners Association.

Council Member Evans asked Mr. Hansen to show her on the plan the location of the trial. She said that the trail would be important for the children walking to see friends in Southern Village.

Council Member McClintock asked if Mr. Hansen had considered putting in cluster or townhouses in the area, since it was very steep. Mr. Hansen said that the best lots were in the area that was mostly flat. He also said that he did not think that the people in the area would appreciate townhomes. Mr. Hansen said that the area is a cluster subdivision, and the lots are larger because they are in a different zoning area.

Council Member McClintock said that she would like to see a topographical map to ascertain how steep the area was, when the report comes back to Council from the staff. She said that she had concerns about the roads in the steep area.

Ms. Culpepper said that Bennett Road had been straightened and the hook-ups would be crossing the road at Southern Village.

Council Member Foy asked which road was recommended by the Transportation Board. Ms. Culpepper responded that the Transportation Board had eliminated the vehicular access to Bennett Road because the area from Hayworth Road to Bennett Road was too steep.

Council Member Foy asked why the staff had not recommended sidewalks on Bennett Road, but the Transportation Board did. Ms. Culpepper said that Bennett Road had recently been paved and that the sides were ditches. She said that the staff did not think that the applicant needed to provide sidewalks along Bennett Road, since the connecting road from Hayworth Road to Bennett Road had been eliminated.

Mayor Waldorf stated that other recommendations from the Planning Board, the Transportation Board, and the Parks and Recreation Commission were all included in the Council’s materials.

Mr. Douglas Ostanick, President of Hundred Oaks Homeowners Association said that the homeowners in Phase 1 had initially supported Phase 2. Concerning page 15, Item 6 of the staff report, he asked that the trail be in harmony with the character of the rest of the trail system. Concerning page 17, Item 21 of the staff report, Mr. Ostanick said that another Homeowners Association was unnecessary, that there already was a Homeowner’s Association in place.

Council Member McClintock asked what happened to the money for the bus stop, and asked the staff to report on this matter.

Council Member Foy said that although he did not think a curb and gutter sidewalk was necessary, he felt that some form for pedestrians to traverse the community should be considered. He asked the staff to report on that possibility. Mr. Horton said that because of the terrain, sidewalks would be difficult, but that staff would see what possibilities might exist.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 8, 1999. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 4—Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Application for

Pickard Oaks—Planned Development-Housing

Mr. Horton said that the Council might recognize this property as one which had a previous application. He noted this application was new, and believed the Council might find it more promising.

Ms. Culpepper stated the applicant was seeking approval of a Special Use Permit to authorize 65 dwelling units on the south side of Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road, between Standish Drive and the Durham County line. She noted that the property was 16.6 acres within the Residential-2 zoning district, and located within the Town’s Watershed Protection District. Ms. Culpepper said the property is T-shaped, and extends south from Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road and east from Standish Drive. She said that a new road was proposed to connect Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road with Standish Drive, with a new cul-de-sac extending to the southern portion of the property. Ms. Culpepper stated that the application proposed the creation of 32 two-family lots and the incorporation of one existing single-family home, for a total of 65 residential units. She said that after evaluating the conditions required for a Special Use Permit, the staff believed the Council could make a finding of approval. Ms. Culpepper called the Council’s attention to two issues: (1) the Pickard house front stoop is located within the required landscape bufferyard. The staff recommended modification of the Development Ordinance to allow a 25-foot landscape bufferyard in the location of the existing structure; and (2) the development shall comply with the low-density option of the Town’s Watershed Protection District regulations by not exceeding 24 percent impervious surface at all times. She stated that the staff’s preliminary
recommendation was that the Council adopt Resolution A, approving the application with conditions. Ms. Culpepper said that Resolution A incorporated the recommendations of all the different advisory boards. She said that in the matter of procedure, the staff advised the Council to define “contiguous property” as it pertained to the consideration of this Special Use Permit.

Mr. Eric B. Chupp, of Capkov Ventures, Inc., the applicant, said that his was a small construction company, building mainly in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and sited the various small developments they had completed. He said that, after purchasing the property from Dick Wright, the original plan had been overhauled to produce moderately priced homes. Mr. Chupp said that additional property purchased along Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road was essential to the project. He said that the type of homes was changed to duplex townhomes, clustered, and large open space was preserved, increasing the affordability of the homes. Mr. Chupp said that he had pulled some units up to a higher level and some out of low-lying damp areas. He said that the units would not back up to anything but space. Mr. Chupp noted that two areas of significant stands of trees would be preserved with the road winding between them. He also noted that two other significant trees would be preserved and another tree stand would become a park. Mr. Chupp said that the recreation area would include the existing barn, which would serve as a storage area for equipment for the planned gardens and as a gathering spot. He said that a picnic area was also planned for the area near the barn. Mr. Chupp said that the project fits well with the surrounding communities, and access to I-40, would not cause congestion in Chapel Hill. He said that feedback from the neighboring community had been good, and said that the applicant looked to the Council for support.

Mr. Scott Kovens, of Capkov Ventures, Inc., said that he was proud to be able to offer a moderately priced development, that he was pleased with the response from the Colony Woods Homeowners Association, and pleased that Mr. Pickard was anxious to join the community, a vote of confidence.

Mayor Waldorf said that the recommendations from the other boards were in the Council packets.

Council Member Evans asked if it was possible to create a pedestrian access at the end of the cul-de-sac, a greenway connection for people to walk and bike through. Mr. Chupp said that they had no control over the adjacent property but would be willing to create an easement on their property for that purpose.

Council Member McClintock asked if the staff could look at the stormwater run off and see if it could be 25 instead of 10 years. She also asked if the roads were to be private. Mr. Chupp said that they would be public roads.

Council Member McClintock said she thought the applicant appeared to have done a good job. She asked what the average price of the homes would be. Mr. Chupp responded between $150,000 and $180,000. He noted that they were also not in the Colony Lake drainage area.

Council Member Bateman asked what shape the barn was in and how it would be secured. Mr. Chupp said that it already had a lock-up system which would be upgraded for security, and was in good shape. Ms. Culpepper said that the staff had provided a stipulation for a structural engineering exam to assure the stability of the barn.

Council Member Foy asked whether the applicant had made any effort to provide affordable housing in the project. Mr. Chupp said that the project in itself brought moderate priced housing into the community. He said that to go below the price was not feasible given the costs entailed and that the product was reasonable and marketable. Mr. Chupp said that the project would be the lowest priced in Town for this type of housing. He noted that Scarlett Drive was different because it was meant for low-income housing and subsidized.

Council Member Foy asked if the staff had considered whether the application conforms to the part of the Comprehensive Plan that requested developers provide 15% of the project to affordable housing. Mr. Horton said that he did not believe the question had been asked and that a developer cannot be required to do this, as it is purely voluntary.

Council Member Foy said that the question should be raised so that developers know that this is part of the goal, and that the developer should know that the Council is at liberty to refuse issuing a Special Use Permit if the developer does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horton said that the staff can furnish this information and make it part of practice.

Mayor pro tem Capowski said that he had difficulty visualizing the steep slope near Charlston Lane, and wondered about picturing the actual buildings. He asked if they would be visually boring. Ms. Culpepper said that the planned development was proposing the creation of lots, not footprints of the building structures.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if the Council could require making the building more visually interesting. He also asked what the vegetation status was now and, if it would just be clear-cut so the buildings were visible, if they would be boring for lack of trees. Ms. Culpepper said that there was no specific guidance for placement of structures, but that could be incorporated in the resolution for variation. She said that the applicant did focus on larger signature trees and preserving the trees along the roadway and recreation areas. Ms. Culpepper noted that the proposal does not include clear cutting.

Mayor pro tem Capowski asked if there would be enough mature trees saved, or if it would be a naked area with the intent to replant some trees to look good in 20-30 years. He also asked what the visual characteristics would be. Ms. Culpepper said that the roadway and lots would be significantly cleared, but that the vegetation would be retained behind the lots in the buffer area and the area not built on where the water and sewage lines would run. She said that the staff can highlight the landscape protection area in a follow-up memo.

Mr. Chupp said that his company values trees as an asset to developments and that they would preserve all the trees possible. He said that they would accomplish diversity by the diversity of the units so it will not look like a “cookie cutter” community.

Council Member McClintock asked that the staff make sure there will not be stormwater runoff into the existing neighborhoods.

Mr. Kovens said that they went to great effort to leave the larger rooted areas.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO DEFINE “CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY” AS 500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO RECESS THE HEARING TO FEBRUARY 8, 1999. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION UNDER N.C. GENERAL STATUTE SECTION 143-318.11 (a) (3), TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The public hearing was adjourned at 9:49 p.m.

The minutes of January 20, 1999 were adopted on the 22^nd day of February, 1999.

__________________________________________

Joyce A. Smith, CMC

Town Clerk