SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M.

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

Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager William Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Acting Clerk Toni Pendergraph.

Mayor Waldorf asked Attorney Ralph Karpinos to report on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding State and local government’s ability to make policies on foreign policy issues.

Attorney Karpinos reported that the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that the Massachusetts policy on foreign policy regarding Burma was invalid.  He proposed that the Council allow him some time to study this decision and bring back a report to Council at either next week’s meeting or at the July 5, 2000 meeting. This was agreeable to the Council.

Item 1 – Public Hearing to Receive Manager’s Report on Preliminary Plat

Application for the Parkside II Cluster Subdivision

Planning Director Roger Waldon reported on the application seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat to authorize subdivision of 32 acres of land into 67 single-family residential lots, north of Homestead Road between the Parkside I Subdivision and the University Branch Southern Railroad.  He indicated the area on an overhead site plan map.

Mr. Waldon noted several features of the site, pointing out a swath of the Resource Conservation District (RCD) that went through the center of the site.  Mr. Waldon pointed out that the proposal was for a cluster subdivision, which, if approved, would allow the applicant to reduce the minimum lot size for each individual lot, provided that the sum of these reductions would be added to the required recreation area.  He said what was shown in green was the proposed recreation area which would be dedicated to the Town.

Mr. Waldon noted another feature of the site was the connection of Weaver Dairy Road through the site, connecting to the south to Homestead Road.  He said other features included proximity to the Community Park and the Batting Cage.  Mr. Waldon noted that the Council had ruled that a portion of all subdivisions coming before it for review would have to be restricted in size, and this was the first application to come before the Council since the new provision was included in the Development Ordinance.  Mr. Waldon indicated on the site plan where those reduced-size buildings would be located, and which would carry on the plat record the restrictions as to size and expansion during the first year of occupancy.

Mr. Waldon stated that the staff’s preliminary recommendation was for approval of the cluster subdivision proposal, with several recommended conditions for approval.  He said the most noteworthy one was what to do with Weaver Dairy Road Extension, and the applicant’s proposal was to dedicate the entire right-of-way, but only to build a portion of the road.

Mr. Waldon indicated that the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was that two lanes of the four-lane Weaver Dairy Road Extension be constructed through the entire length of the property, but there were other recommendations from the advisory boards, including the recommendation from the Transportation Board, which advised that a four-lane full cross section be constructed through the entire length of the proposed extension.

Mr. Waldon noted that the Town’s Master Greenways Plan called for a greenway segment running through the center of the property, which would ultimately be connected to the other Town greenways systems.  He pointed out another greenway at the southern portion of the site that would connect to the Community Park, the Batting Cage and the Skateboard Park.  Mr. Waldon said it was the recommendation of the staff that the Council should consider adopting Resolution A.

Jack Smyre, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the applicant, detailed the process that the application had taken and referred to an overhead site plan.  He said there were three features important to the project: Parkside, which had three greenway trails—Booker Creek Trail, the Rail Trail, and a connector trail that flowed from the Greene Tract to the Booker Creek Trail.

Mr. Smyre displayed the original plan designs for a cluster subdivision and how it had evolved.  He said the lot reductions in the plan were minimal, but to accommodate the mixed-housing ordinance, some of the lots were even smaller than previously planned.  Mr. Smyre said the sum total of lot reductions was just three-quarters of an acre, which were in the widths of the lots, in order to maximize the open space.  He noted the applicant had provided 10 acres of open space on the subdivision, amounting to 30% of the site not counting 4 acres of right-of-way corridor, making 44% open space for public ownership.

Mr. Smyre said one of the main discussions by the advisory boards had been should mixed housing be constructed throughout the site or clustered in one area.  He described the product known as a Z lot, which would look like a zero lot line, moving the front of the house to the side and creating a more private courtyard.  Mr. Smyre said there were 17 units in the cluster area, in a flatter area.  He said some of the units would be built on one floor, to make use of all the 1,100 square feet, and the 1,350 square feet houses would be two-story.  Mr. Smyre reported the Community Design Commission and elements of the Planning Board had accepted these as a design that would work, especially since the project was hit at the last minute with the new ordinance for smaller houses.  He pointed out where the connecting roads would be in the subdivision, and that the applicant would be willing to build a two-lane connecting street northward in the corridor, to connect with the neighborhood north of the subdivision, but would not be willing to build a road cross section at the present time.

Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy said the Board had voted unanimously 7-0 for approval of the subdivision with a cluster development, and the board believed that the project met the regulation and complied with the Development Ordinance.  She said the Board felt that the ten acres left open was a real asset.  Ms. Eddy pointed out the two areas where the Board differed with the staff recommendation: (1) the Weaver Dairy Road Extension was the responsibility of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) or of the University, and not the responsibility of the applicant to develop the full road, which would be used by the whole community; and (2) the phasing of the small housing compliance, which had not been addressed by the Ordinance.  She said the Planning Board had mixed views about having the houses either scattered or all built in the same area.

Council Member Brown asked if she had misunderstood the recommendation differences between the staff recommendations and the Bicycle and Pedestrian’s Advisory Board, adding she did not see any recommendations for a bike lane from that Board.  Mr. Horton said that both the staff and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendation were for a four-lane road, but the staff was recommending that only half be built now.  He said the smaller bike lane was becoming more common and used less pavement.  Mr. Waldon pointed out that there were median-width differences between the two recommendations.  He said the staff recommended the full median, because it would be consistent with how the road was being constructed to the north of it and it would be needed for a viable space for trees.

Council Member Ward pointed out that according to the NCDOT regulations there were restrictions on the trees that could be planted in the median, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board was trying to give adequate space for cars to cross over and to reduce the curb and gutter to its narrowest two-feet possibility, and there may not be a need for curb and gutter in some parts of the median.  Mr. Horton said the report was received after the staff had made its own recommendations, and it intended to take this advice into consideration when completing its final report.

Council Member Evans asked if it would be possible to request that trees be planted in the areas that would serve as the median, to get a start ahead of the development.  Mr. Horton said the construction would not be good for the trees, but the possibility could be investigated.

Council Member Evans asked if the Town had title to the Resource Conservation District (RCD) on the adjoining property in order to have public right-of-way to the greenway connection.  Mr. Waldon said he would have to check that and it would depend on whether the Town had a deeding to the property.

Council Member Evans asked if the applicant would be building the trail on this parcel of land.  Mr. Waldon said it was not part of the applicant’s proposal and was not part of the staff recommendation.

Council Member Evans asked how much of the land being preserved as open space was land under the power lines.  Mr. Waldon said it was about two acres, but he would check the actual amount.

Council Member Evans asked Mr. Smyre if the style of the garages would look like one unit with a garage or if the front would be all garage.  Mr. Smyre responded that the garage did not occupy the entire front of the house, but in a 1,100 square foot house, the entranceway would be on the side of the house and the garage would occupy a large amount of the front of the house.  He said all of the open-space corridor in Parkside has been, or will be, deeded to the Town, and the power-easement property was approximately one and one-half to one and three-quarter acres of the ten acres.

Council Member Brown said the Council had determined Weaver Dairy Road to be two lanes with turning lanes.  Mr. Horton said the Council had asked the NCDOT for a variety of options and they were soon to make a report to the Council with those options.

Council Member Brown asked, if the option chosen by the Council was for two lanes and turning lanes, how would that fit into the four lanes being recommended by the staff for the Weaver Dairy Road Extension.  Mr. Horton responded that the difference that separated the roads would be the key factor and the existing part of the roadway already constructed to this point would be the second key factor.  He said most of it was four lanes and the Extension would match it, but if the Council wished to keep the Extension two lanes without a median, that would be done.

Council Member Brown asked how much of the open space was in the RCD, and if there were any active recreation areas planned.  Mr. Waldon said he could bring to the Council the precise numbers.  He said for a subdivision land preservation was required, but no active areas were required.  He said some types of active recreational areas could be put into the RCD.

Council Member Strom stated that he thought the idea of cluster housing should result in some high quality open space for the community, and the ten acres of open space in the applicant’s plan were not on any buildable areas, but rather under power lines, wetlands, steep slopes, and sewer lines and sedimentation ponds, and he was not satisfied with the type of open space provided.  He asked the applicant if he would be willing to make improvements to the greenway connection across the property, if the Council was willing to approve the cluster housing as presented.  Mr. Smyre responded that cluster type building was designed for the buildable areas of properties and what the applicant had done was to double the requirement for open spaces and they were adjacent to the Community Park with two entranceways.  He said they had provided greenway corridors outside the bounds of the RCD, with dimensions of 300 feet, not the 150 feet of RCD alone.  Mr. Smyre said there was space in the open space allowance that was buildable, but the applicant had revised earlier plans to build there and as a result had lost double digits in buildable land in order to provide public facilities.

Council Member Strom said the specific question was would the applicant be willing to make improvements to the greenway corridor, if the Council approved the cluster building as proposed.  Mr. Smyre said that was not something the applicant had proposed, and they thought the provision of 40+% of the site for public ownership was deeding enough.

Council Member Bateman said she hoped the applicant would reconsider that response.  She asked if the applicant’s interpretation of what was open space was correct in a cluster development.  Mr. Waldon responded that the basic requirement for a recreation area in a subdivision was that the land be high, dry, flat, and suitable for recreation. He said there was a provision in the ordinance stating that in areas where there were steep slopes, the Council could choose to accept recreation area land for protection of steep slopes or for the purposes of developing the greenways section.

Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council might pursue looking at the rational nexus between requiring the greenway improvement.

Council Member Foy, referring to page 41 of the memorandum, asked if the Institute of Government’s definition of the difference between a legislative and quasi-judicial action meant that the plat required a four-fifths vote of the Council.  Mr. Karpinos responded that was not correct, a four-fifths vote did not apply when it was the governing board taking the action, that only a simple majority was required.

Council Member Foy asked, referring to page 16 of the memorandum, what was meant by the word “phasing.” and how it would actually be implemented.  Mr. Waldon responded that the staff recommended that the Council include language that required that if the applicant decided to phase the project, in each phase the small house requirement must be addressed.  Mr. Horton added phasing would require the building of the infrastructure.

Council Member Foy stated that lots 11-20 seemed significantly smaller lots, and he wondered if it would be possible for homeowners to expand those houses.  Mr. Horton said it would depend on how they were originally designed.  Mr. Waldon said the staff would have to think about that question, and bring back a report to the Council.

Council Member Ward asked what the hours were for the batting cage and the skate park, since they were closely adjacent to some of the planned houses.  Mr. Horton said they would be operating at night, particularly in the warm weather, when residents might have their windows open.  He added there would be noise from both of those locales as well as other activities such as basketball and baseball.  Mr. Horton stated it might be a case of “buyer bewares” before purchase of the home.

Council Member Ward suggested that the buyers should be made aware of the possibility of noise before they purchased the homes.  He asked Mr. Smyre if the garages were considered part of the square footage of the dwellings.  Mr. Smyre said it was not part of the square footage, and the garage could be considered for expansion into another room at some point in the future.

Council Member Ward asked what the difference was of the ownership of the pedestrian easement to Homestead Park, whether by the homeowners or by the Town, and the pros and cons of the recommendation by the staff that it be owned by the homeowners.  Mr. Waldon said the main issue would be maintenance and it was a trade-off.  He stated that the Town wanted the homeowners to have access to the Park and for the access to be maintained by the homeowners’ association for the benefit of those making use of the Park.  Mr. Waldon distinguished this from the greenway going through the project, which was on the Town’s Greenway Master Plan, and something that the Town wanted to have the responsibility for maintenance.

Council Member Ward asked whether curb and gutter were included in the 27-foot wide streets.  Mr. Waldon responded that curb and gutter took up about five feet, including both sides of the street, leaving 22 feet of asphalt, which was Chapel Hill’s standard residential street. He stated that it worked well, allowing for parking on both sides of the street, and for trash collection.

Council Member Evans asked about the goals of dual access, and if that concern had been addressed for this subdivision, considering the area south of the property had not yet been developed.  Mr. Waldon observed that there were connections to the north, east, and south, and they would be acceptable means of access to the subdivision, especially with the extension of the Weaver Dairy Road Extension.

Mayor Waldorf commented on pages 16 and 17 of the memorandum.  She referred to the traffic study and its impact on various intersections, and stated that the language should not be misunderstood by the NCDOT, that the Town did not want a traffic signal at the intersection of NC 86 and Stateside Drive that the Town had been requesting.  Mr. Waldon said it was not the intent of the staff that this signal was not needed, but that the impact of the 67 lots would not, by itself, trigger the need for a signal light.

Mayor Waldorf commented that Council Member Evans had a very good point about the dual access, and she joined Council Members Bateman, Evans, and Strom in their question to the applicant concerning the building of the greenway.  She said she hoped that question could be addressed.

Council Member Foy added his support to the question of the greenway construction.

Council Member Strom said he supported the Manager’s recommendation for Weaver Dairy Road and would be willing for a delay in justifying the need for a full two-lane segment to be built.

Mayor Waldorf suggested referring these issues to the staff.

Council Member Brown asked for clarification of the ultimate configuring of Weaver Dairy Road.  Mr. Horton said the staff was making no recommendation at this time.

Council Member Strom said he would not be willing to proceed unless the Town was proceeding on the basis that it had the right-of-way, but that the applicant would be constructing two lanes at this point.

Council Member Ward said he wanted the language in the Development Ordinance regarding small housing to specify that they should be scattered appropriately throughout the subdivision, rather than all together.  Mr. Horton said the Ordinance could only be applied as it existed at the present time, not as it might be worded at some future time.  Mr. Karpinos said there was more negotiating room with a Special Use Permit, than with a subdivision permit.

Council Member Strom said he would support Council Member Ward’s suggestion.

Mr. Smyre said the applicant supported Resolution B, as adopted unanimously by the Planning Board and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Commission with a few recommendations on Weaver Dairy Road, with which the applicant was in full agreement.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 5, 2000, AND REFER THIS TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY   (9-0).

Item 2 – Public Hearing on Zoning of Annexation Area 2

(UNC Property and Other Land in Durham County)

Long Range Planner Chris Berndt reviewed the background for the proposed zoning for a piece of property located in Durham, which the Council would be zoning for the first time with Chapel Hill zoning.  She said the annexation was planned for June 20, 2000.  Ms. Berndt said the action had been scheduled for July 5, 2000, with tonight’s hearing provided for public comment.

Displaying a map, Ms. Berndt pointed out one of the key features of the map was the 1986 Durham/Chapel Hill Consent Order between Durham and Chapel Hill and that the newly zoned area was on the Chapel Hill side of the line.  She said the proposed zoning was Office/Institutional-2, meant to provide for a medium intensity office and institutional development.  Ms. Berndt stated that the zoning would be consistent with the Town’s new 2000 Land Use Plan and was consistent with other zoning for University property adjacent to it.  She stated that the property owner and properties within 1,000 feet had been notified in preparation for this evening’s public hearing.

Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy said the Planning Board supported the Manager’s recommendations.

Evelyn Glatt, neighbor and Durham resident, stated that she had sent a letter to the Council expressing two concerns.  She stated her belief that the notification process had not worked for the neighbors, and some people were not notified.  Ms. Glatt sad her concern was what the density might be on Barbee Chapel Road, and that the infrastructure would not support development.

Mayor Waldorf explained the history, which was that this area had been determined to be an area of annexation for Chapel Hill.  She said the University did not prefer to be annexed, but this was a Town-initiated effort to have land-use control.  Mayor Waldorf said she did not think the University had any plans to build on the property.

Brian Burke, President of the Downing Creek Community Association, a subdivision across the road from the property in question, said he had three questions: (1) concern about traffic cutting down Mason Farm Road from Highway 54 and exiting onto Barbee Chapel Road; (2) concern that the traffic in the park and ride lot at the Friday Center would cut through a loop onto Barbee Chapel Road; and (3) what would be the traffic implications if the University developed this property.

Mr. Horton said he was not aware of any proposal to build the roads that were a concern, nor aware of any building proposed on the University land in question.  He said a follow-up report would come back to the Council.  Mr. Waldon added that the issue of zoning was before the Council, and there were no development plans coming before the Council at this point.  Mr. Horton said the key reason for bringing this annexation was to give the Council control over land planning according to the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan.

Council Member Wiggins asked if roads would be included in review by the Council.  Mr. Horton said it would depend on whether or not the roads were in association with development, but the University could develop roads as part of their association with the State.

Council Member Bateman said even if this was called rural, what could the University do if they wished to develop the land, if not annexed.  Mr. Horton said he could not speak to what Durham’s process would be.

Council Member Brown asked what could be possible under the proposed zoning.  Mr. Waldon summarized Office/Institutional zoning, which allowed University-type uses, office-like uses, schools, churches, and day care centers.  He said most of what might be proposed would require that Special Use Permits come before the Council.

Council Member Brown commented on a memorandum from a citizen and asked the staff to respond when the proposal came back to the Council, in particular to the mention of the wildlife habitats.

Aaron Nelson, representing the University, responded to some of the questions asked.  He said the University had no immediate plans for development of the property, agreed with the O/I zoning, and with the Comprehensive Plan.  He pointed out that most of the land was undevelopable, there were no plans for putting a road through the newly renovated gold course, and this was not specifically designed for any University project.  Mr. Nelson reiterated that the University did not ask to be annexed, and would have been happy to remain under Durham jurisdiction.  Mr. Nelson commented on permitted uses in the Durham zoning, other than rural.

MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE HEARING UNTIL JULY 5, 2000. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Brown asked if the Durham records were not complete, how would the Town be sure that the citizens had been notified.  Mr. Horton said the Durham records were the authoritative source the Town had to go on.

The public hearings were recessed at 8:35 p.m.