SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001, 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, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Mayor pro tem Lee Pavão was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Finance Director Jim Baker, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Public Works Building Superintendent Bill Terry, Police Chief Greg Jarvies, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Senior Long Range Planner Chris Berndt, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that when undeveloped property—or that which has significant development potential—comes before the Town Council in the context of a rezoning proposal, there is the possibility for discussions about the Council’s goal of having 15% of dwelling units be affordable in a housing development. He said that the staff had brought a list to the Council last fall of properties that were undeveloped but had potential and were zoned to allow intensities higher than the current residential one.
Mr. Waldon explained that the Town Council had called this hearing on 32 properties that had been identified in this way. He said that the staff had provided a description of each and also of the areas surrounding parcels that were clustered together. He said that there also was an analysis of what the development possibilities for these parcels might be. Mr. Waldon noted that the staff’s recommendation was to rezone 16 of the parcels to R-1. He said that owners of properties recommended for rezoning—or properties adjacent to them—could legally file a petition to protest the proposed rezoning. Mr. Waldon pointed out that 29 of the 32 properties had been covered by valid protest petitions, so seven affirmative votes would be required by the Town Council to rezone those properties. Only parcels 12, 13 & 16 did not fall into the extra vote category, he said.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Waldon to show all of the properties on a map so that Council members could refer to it. Mr. Waldon suggested showing the parcels section by section.
Mayor Waldorf, noting that more than 30 people had signed up to speak, asked citizens to respect the three minute time limit so that all would have a chance to comment.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy reported that the Board had voted 7-0 against rezoning any of the 32 properties. She added that the Board had voted in favor of dropping properties that are currently zoned commercial, or are less than five acres, from consideration. Ms. Eddy explained that the Planning Board had considered the likelihood that rezoning would produce affordable housing. She said that they felt that property owners would only find it financially feasible to ask for rezoning if they asked for a much higher rezoning. Ms. Eddy added that several properties have problems, such as the Resource Conservation District (RCD), steep slopes, and no access. This is one reason why they have not been developed, she said.
Ms. Eddy explained that the Planning Board had discussed the loss in the tax base if the rezoning were carried out. She argued that rezoning would take away the reason for having zoning in the first place—which is to give neighbors some predictability about what will become of undeveloped land near their property. Ms. Eddy pointed out that a precedent for down-zoning would set one for up-zoning as well.
Ms. Eddy stated that the land use plan had been developed for all of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, not just for the goal of affordable housing. She said that the Planning Board had found it difficult to accept the notion that landowners who had held onto their land have more responsibility for affordable housing than those who developed their land early. She said that Board members had asked her to emphasize how strongly they support affordable housing and to suggest that the large tracts of publicly owned land be used as sites for affordable housing rather than the few privately owned pieces.
Chapel Hill resident Ting-Kuo Shieh explained that he had abruptly returned from Taiwan when he was informed that his property would be down-zoned. Mr. Shieh explained that his 44 acres on Weaver Dairy Road were zoned R-3. He expressed confusion about why this land would be rezoned to R-1, and asked if there were any affordable homes at all on Weaver Dairy Road. If none exist now, he said, it is unlikely that any will in the future. Mr. Shieh asked the Town Council not to interfere with progress and to let things follow their natural course.
John Brinkhous (parcels #17, 18, and 19) stated that his family had lived in the Forest Hills/Westwood section of Chapel Hill for 54 years. He said that lot #19 was his parents’ home and #18 was the lot behind it. Mr. Brinkhous objected to the rezoning to R-1 because the area is a single, cohesive neighborhood which all has the same zoning designation. Rezoning part of that neighborhood, said Mr. Brinkhous, would risk that future development would adversely affect one of the most beautiful areas of Town.
John Morris (parcel #29) protested the inclusion of his property on the list for rezoning consideration. He reminded the Council of the exhaustive scrutiny his land had undergone during development of the Northwest Area Plan and again under the Comprehensive Plan revision. Mr. Morris pointed out that there was consensus that his and the surrounding properties should remain as mixed use and earmarked for fairly extensive, non-residential development. He expressed surprise that his property had been listed for down-zoning, and asked the Town Council to remove it from the list.
Jim Talton (co-owner of parcel #29) reiterated Mr. Morris’s comments and also asked that the area be removed from the list for rezoning.
Roger Perry (parcel #31) noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed use with a commercial emphasis on his piece of property. He said that changing the zoning to lower-density residential would be spot zoning, a serious breach of proper methodology, and an arbitrary and capricious use of the Town’s police powers. Mr. Perry added that neither the Planning Board nor the Town Manager nor the Planning Director supported rezoning parcel #31. Mr. Perry asserted that the proposal in general penalizes undeveloped properties and imposes a burden on them to resolve a Town-wide problem created by previous Town Councils. He suggested up-zoning properties with the stipulation that a contribution toward affordable housing (by either building it or making a payment-in-lieu) would be provided in exchange.
Dan Olsen (parcel #20) explained that this lot was directly below the ACC Center of Memorial Hospital. He said that the University was planning to build a 242,000 square-foot building in the area, and pointed out that this together with down-zoning would lower the value of his property.
Jeff Fendt (parcel #10) noted that all the area around his parcel is zoned R-2. He said that it was unfair to arbitrarily rezone parcel #10 to R-1 for affordable housing, which, in effect, penalizes those who did not choose to build at an earlier date. Mr. Fendt pointed out that parcel #10 includes a pond and various wildlife.
Mildred Scott (parcel #10) protested the proposal to down-zone this property, which she said she had inherited from her parents in 1990 and had planned to keep for her daughter and grandchildren. Ms. Scott stated that the proposal would destroy the continuity and the beauty of her community.
Jean Stancell (parcel #26) said that the property surrounding her and her husband on three sides was all zoned R-2. She added that she could not see how the proposal would accomplish affordable housing. Ms. Stancell noted that there was no guarantee that the parcels would be developed in the near future, and pointed out that the property already is low residential. She remarked that it was unfair to target these 32 parcels, and asked the Council to honor the Planning Board’s recommendation not to rezone the area. Ms. Stancell noted that the Manager’s preliminary recommendations had acknowledged that there are circumstances that somewhat limit the potential for creating affordable housing in her area.
Frank Tew (parcels #17, 18 and 19) said that rezoning would result in the potential for spot rezoning, which would create high density. He commended the Council for its affordable housing initiatives and environmental concerns, but noted that the University was planning to build its southern campus right across the street from these lots. Mr. Tew argued that the area would not be able to tolerate this type of development since Morgan Creek runs right through parcels 17 and 18, with 19 abutting.
Danny Lloyd (parcels 25 and 27) spoke in favor of affordable housing, but argued that burdening 30 landowners with the brunt of the initiative is unfair. He explained that this land had been in his family for generations and that they had been paying taxes on evaluations based on R-2 zoning. Down-zoning would require owners to pay $50,000-$70,000 for a special use permit, he said, and there would be no promise of being returned to their original zoning. Mr. Lloyd stated that this would be inherently unfair and an arbitrary and capricious use of the Town’s powers. He warned that developers would circumvent the process, and urged the Town Council to listen to the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Ann Maddry (parcel #4) said that she had lived on her parcel for 60 years and had thought of it as a “security blanket” for her retirement. She asserted that down-zoning her property would be an arbitrary and capricious use of the Council’s power and that it would greatly devalue her property. Ms. Maddry disagreed with the Manager’s description of her and her neighbors’ properties as one tract in order to justify “non-spot zoning.” She requested that the property remain medium residential as designated in the land use plan.
Sylvia Stanat (parcel #3) explained that her parents had owned the property since the early 70s when they retired. She and her husband live on it now, she said, adding that if they have to sell their property they hope to do so without having to go through rezoning requests and proposals. She described the rezoning as a capricious and arbitrary use of the Council’s power.
Carolyn Sturgess (parcel #21) explained that she and her sister had inherited the property from their mother who died two years ago. She noted that there are two houses in that parcel, not one. She explained that she lives in one of the houses and the other is rented. Ms. Sturgess complained that her lot had been presented along with lot #22, and stated that this was inappropriate because lot #22 has an entrance from South Columbia Street while lot #21 is part of a nice residential area. She said that she already participates in the affordable housing initiative since homeless people live in an abandoned structure on lot #22. Ms. Sturgess requested that the Town not down-zone her property.
Pearlene Peace (parcel #32) opposed the rezoning of her area that she said included a church, the YMCA, and a medical building. She said that water empties into her lot from the north and south and prohibits her from using those areas. Ms. Peace said that Duke Power crosses the back of her land. She pointed out that down-zoning would lower the value of her property while keeping taxes at the same “astronomical” rate, and that this was not fair.
J. Leon Peace, Sr. strongly objected to the proposal to down-zone his property, which he said had been owned by the Peace family for more than 200 years. He argued that down-zoning would take away his property rights and would cause him additional expenses to up-zone it again to its current level. Mr. Peace argued that this would be grossly unfair to him, and urged the Council to reject the rezoning proposal.
Dan Coleman spoke in support of the Manager’s recommendation and commended the Town Council for looking seriously at the issue of affordable housing. He said that it is not the case in Chapel Hill in 2001 that value is inherent in a piece of property. Rather, Mr. Coleman explained, amenities such as the University, I-40 and RTP gave value to the area. He pointed out that an entire sector of workers cannot afford to live near where they work in Chapel Hill. Noting that the Town Council has few tools for resolving this problem, Mr. Coleman pointed out that the Council has ended up with something that sounds arbitrary and capricious but which is the best use of available means to reach an important goal of the comprehensive plan. He said that this was an important moral position for the community to take with regard to its fellow citizens.
Joe Capowski (parcels #17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22) pointed out that obtaining the maximum of the Town’s goal would yield 133 units of affordable housing (.7% of all the houses in Chapel Hill). He pointed out that achieving only half of that would be about a $2 million gain. Why not just float a $2 million bond and buy 67 units somewhere for $30,000 each, Mr. Capowski asked. He suggested that the Council refrain from artificially rezoning parcels 17-22, which would make them “stick out like a sore thumb.”
Kimberly Brewer, who helped develop the Comprehensive Plan, spoke in favor of the rezoning proposal. She argued that many of the proposed tracts would be developed in the future anyway for maximum profit. Ms. Brewer stated that the remaining development in Chapel Hill should address affordable housing, adding that the proposal supports the balanced goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms Brewer commented that affordable housing could harmonize with existing neighborhoods if scale is taken into consideration.
J. Leon Peace, Jr. (who owns property adjacent to parcel #32) stated that there was no reasonable basis for this rezoning. He argued that doing so would constitute spot zoning in an area that is predominately non-residential in use. Noting that that this was the only OI-2 property among the 32 tracts, Mr. Peace urged the Council to support the Manager’s and the Planning Board’s recommendations not to down-zone this property.
Greg Smigla (parcels #8 and 9) representing residents of Springcrest, Silver Creek, and Birch Meadow, said that the size of these parcels already will be reduced by the Sage Road Extension, the widening of Weaver Dairy Road, and a possible minor subdivision on parcel #9. Mr. Smigla noted the Council’s criterion of three acres or more and pointed out that parcel #8 would not be three acres if Sage Road goes through. He stressed that these parcels provide the only buffer from Sage Road, and asked the Council to follow the Planning Board’s recommendation not to rezone them.
Noelle Broyles (parcels #8 and 9) “agreed and concurred wholeheartedly” with the previous speaker. She asked the Council to follow the Manager’s recommendation not to rezone the property.
Judy Maddry (parcel #2) asked the Town Council not to down-zone property which has been in her family for 100 years. She explained that she wants her daughter to continue living there without having to get a major subdivision approval, which she said would be burdensome. Ms. Maddry noted that her family already had lost a portion of their property to the widening and beautification of Airport Road. She stated that she could not see how down-zoning her property would meet the objectives of affordable housing.
Tim Bralower explained that he was in favor of affordable housing but would rather vote for a bond to make it a reality than to rely on developers to do so. He requested that the Council look for alternative ways to create affordable housing, such as funding it from the tax base and using city-owned land.
Dr. Cecelia McKay (parcel #31) said that affordable housing would not be the best use of this land, which is on Highway 54 and is in a heavily commercial corridor. She noted that people from Glen Lennox cannot even cross the street to take their children to school because of the heavy traffic. Dr. McKay stated that expecting someone to live on that road would be subjecting them to a poor neighborhood condition. She predicted that only upscale UNC students would live there.
Joan Bartel agreed with previous speakers that there are better alternatives for affordable housing. She noted that offering low financing aid is a good strategy, as is offering a sliding scale tax assessment for low-income homeowners and providing a living wage in Chapel Hill.
P. H. Craig (parcel #23) described his 100 year-old house which he has renovated more than once. He explained that he was a big supporter of low cost housing and had been critical of the Town for not doing enough in that regard. But, Mr. Craig said, the Council was “galloping in the wrong direction” this time. He said that the logic of this approach had missed him completely. Mr. Craig said that he agreed with Mr. Lloyd and Ms. Stancell, whose properties his adjoins. He asked why the tract beneath parcel #23 had not been included, and took issue with Mr. Coleman’s assertion that the Town and University are what gives property its value. Mr. Craig said that property owners who have invested their time and energy in their land had caused land values to be what they are.
Doug Lay (parcel #30) urged the Council to accept the Manager’s recommendation not to rezone this parcel. He noted that it is such a valuable piece of land that Blur Cross/Blue Shield paid $198,000 an acre for it, and commented that he could not imagine any housing on such expensive land being affordable. Mr. Lay stressed that the Town needs more businesses to generate income and pay taxes. He encouraged the Council not to rezone this property but to reserve it for something highly productive.
Tim Slosek (parcel #2), speaking for himself and the Windsor Park Homeowners Association, explained that rezoning this parcel would be inconsistent with the rest of the area which is zoned R-2. He predicted that it would devalue properties in his development and increase traffic in the area.
Cyndy Risku explained that she had come to the meeting only to listen. After hearing citizens’ comments, she said, she realized that the proposal would penalize those who have lived in the area for quite some time, some for generations, and would allow developers to get a “real good deal on some prime property in Chapel Hill.” Ms. Risku pointed out that developers could afford to rezone these properties again while some of the present owners could not.
Lantz Holland (parcel #20) explained that he had just completed a year long process to divide his property so that he could buy the house that is on it. He said that he had hoped, now that the land was divided, to eventually build a family compound there, with his parents and brother living on the other pieces.
Mayor Waldorf explained that the Council had arrived at this inquiry because of instances where the Council had been able to get affordable housing concessions from people with development proposals that were requesting rezonings to a higher density. She said that this had lead the Council to think about changing the status of undeveloped properties so that developers would have to ask for up-zoning. This would give the Council the opportunity to request something that would be good for the community, Mayor Waldorf explained. But, she said, she now agreed with the Planning Board’s conclusions.
Council Member Strom pointed out that the Town had gotten 50 affordable units over the last couple of years. Since 1995, he said, $25 million in federal and local funds had been spent in Orange County, with the net sum of constructed affordable units being less than 400. This makes those 50 a significant number, he said, adding that affordable housing was difficult to achieve but something that the Council had taken very seriously.
Council Member Evans noted that not all Council members had supported this action. She said she had felt all along that it would not achieve the affordable housing goal. She stated that she did not see a connection between zoning to R-1 and affordable housing. Noting that the Comprehensive Plan encourages incentives for building affordable housing, she remarked that down-zoning and upsetting many people was not an incentive. Council Member Evans suggested that it would be better to encourage those who intend to develop their land to voluntarily provide affordable housing, as had been done in Southern Village.
Council Member Evans asked what the justification was for lots 23-27, which are located in Durham County, since children living there would not be in the Chapel Hill school system. She also asked why five parcels, which were less than five acres, were recommended for rezoning. Council Member Evans remarked that having the legislative authority to down-zone does not mean it is the right thing to do. She concluded that the Council should not proceed with any re-zonings.
Council Member Foy inquired about properties zoned MU-OI-1, Community Commercial, or OI-2. He asked if it was possible by right to build residential units on those properties. Mr. Waldon replied that residential uses are permitted in every zoning district. How many and what kinds, he explained, depend on the particular zoning district, the size of the land, and other issues. Mr. Waldon pointed out that it would depend on the size of the parcel, noting that they carry a maximum number of units per acre. He added that where a multi-family unit is permitted by right the ordinance allows up to seven units. Beyond that, he said, it would require a special use permit.
Council Member Foy asked if office, retail, and housing units could be developed within the mixed use category. Mr. Waldon replied that the parcel would have to be at least 20 acres in size and that 60% of the floor area would have to be for office uses. The other 40% could be either residential or commercial, he said. Mayor Waldorf noted that the Town was in the process of rewriting the mixed use ordinance.
Council Member Wiggins argued that the Town should look at how much affordable housing it can get from its own properties before looking at land belonging to other people. She said that they were experiencing a clash between their concern for the greater good and their regard for property owners’ rights. Council Member Wiggins stressed that the Town should buy more land if it needs it. She argued that this proposal puts the burden on those who have not developed their land rather than on those who developed theirs earlier.
Noting that the properties listed were very valuable, Council Member Wiggins recommended allowing them to be developed so that the Town could get the most out of the taxes. She asked the Manager how R-1 zoning would affect taxes, and Mr. Horton suggested asking Orange County’s tax supervisor. He added that he would expect it to vary based on the particulars for a piece of property.
Mayor Waldorf said that she did not want the Council to pursue this idea because it was not a fruitful way to get affordable housing.
Council Member Brown asked how much time the Manager expected to spend on this if the Council asked for it to come back in May. Noting that it requires at least seven favorable votes and that least three Council members had expressed reservations, she wondered if it would be a good use of staff time to pursue the issue. Mr. Horton explained that this was one of the busiest times of year due to work on the budget. He noted that it was not a simple matter to evaluate 32 properties, and said that the staff would enjoy not having to do the additional work if the Council did not wish to proceed.
Mayor Waldorf asked Council members if they wanted to let the issue lie or if there was a specific narrower request that they would like the staff to follow up on. Council Member Wiggins suggested accepting the Manager’s recommendations on the parcels that should not be down-zoned.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED TO RECEIVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, REFER THEM TO THE MANAGER, AND TO CONTINUE CONSIDERING AT LEAST SOME OF THEM. COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SECONDED THE MOTION.
Council Member Brown noted that this would mean a lot of work for the staff even though the Council had received protest petitions on all but three parcels. She asked Council Member Foy if he could narrow his motion.
Council Member Foy mentioned Council Member Wiggins’s suggestion to delete parcels that the Manager had recommended against. He repeated, though, that he thought there would be value in considering what would happen with some of the mixed use commercial properties. Council Member Foy stated that he would rather not change his motion but would consider what the Council wanted to do.
Council Member Brown objected to putting citizens through more of this process if the Council was not actually going through with rezoning.
Council Member Strom agreed with Council Member Foy’s point about analyzing the potential for residential development in the five commercial properties (#28-32). He proposed a friendly amendment to include an analysis of residential possibilities for those five.
Council Member Foy asked about parcels #1-27, and Council Member Strom suggested accepting the Manager’s recommendation on those. Council Member Foy summarized that the amendment would mean no further analysis on anything that the Manager was recommending against rezoning. Council Member Strom said that this was correct.
Council Member Wiggins noted that there might not be enough Council votes to do anything and that there might be enough votes to put the matter to rest.
Council Member Ward pointed out that the Manager’s recommendation had listed many “to be rezoned” while also stating that the Town might do just as well without rezoning because the difference between R-2 and R-1 is relatively small on these pieces of property and they are marginally valuable in terms of being an opportunity for affordable housing. Mr. Horton replied that this was an accurate paraphrase of his position. Council Member Ward described himself as “very cautious about this,” adding that he was not sure it was the right tool for addressing affordable housing.
Council Member Bateman pointed out that she had supported the original initiative, but said she had been surprised that so few parcels had been identified and that they were so small. Commenting that she was not quite ready to drop the initiative, she acknowledged that there was no value in going forward if there were three Council members who would not vote for it in May.
Council Member Foy pointed out that the Manager had not recommended rezoning some of the properties because doing so would be pointless. But others, Council Member Foy said, probably would require a rezoning request at some point. Mr. Horton replied that this was possible but could not be predicted.
Council Member Foy recommended that the Council focus on parcels where they are likely to receive rezoning requests. This would give the Council leverage to get something to benefit the community, he said, and suggested focusing on the nine parcels that are currently R-3 or R-4.
Council Member Wiggins said that she was not ready to downsize any of the parcels without much more certainty about their rezoning potential. She explained that she knows many African-American people who have had their properties taken by the government, including members of her own family. Council Member Wiggins added that she identified with the people who had pleaded with the Town tonight not to rezone their properties.
Council Member Brown remarked that there were too many unanswered questions to go forward with anything tonight.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO SET THE ISSUE ASIDE WHILE THE COUNCIL THOUGHT MORE ABOUT THE ISSUE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Council Member Brown also suggested working on some of the suggested alternatives before going forward and putting the staff and citizens through any more work and uncertainty.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN SECONDED THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
Council Member Wiggins asked if that motion was the same as a motion to table. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos expressed reluctance to delay this item to an uncertain date. He said that typically at the end of a public hearing on a zoning matter the issue is referred to the staff for a report and the property owners know when that report will come back. Mr. Karpinos recommended against just putting the issue aside to some time to be determined in the future.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN WITHDREW HER SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
Council Member Brown said that she did not want the staff and property owners to continue worrying.
Council Member Evans remarked that if the Council does not want people to worry then they should not place them in limbo and should agree not to move ahead. She wondered if the Town Council had any legal basis for down-zoning any property that might come in for rezoning. Council Member Evans said that she was “bothered” by this approach and would rather look at incentives or at zones that have higher density but include an affordable housing component.
Council Member Bateman pointed out that three Council members had already said they would not vote in support of this initiative. She asked how the Council could go about putting the issue to rest.
Mayor Waldorf stated that it could be done through a motion and a vote. She asked Council Member Foy if he would like to restate his motion. Council Member Foy replied that Council Member Bateman should make a motion.
Mr. Karpinos explained that since this was a Council initiative the Council could withdraw its initiative by majority vote.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO TABLE THE MATTER AND FORWARD THE AGENDA ITEM, CITIZENS’ COMMENTS, AND MINUTES OF THE DISCUSSION TO THE CONSULTANT WHO IS REWRITING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
Council Member Strom said this would show the consultant how much effort the Council had made toward achieving diverse housing options.
Mayor Waldorf ascertained from Council Member Foy that his previous motion had been withdrawn. She then asked Mr. Karpinos if the item needed to be tabled to a specific date. Mr. Karpinos replied that it should be if the Council wishes to keep the item alive.
Council Member Brown asked how Council Member Strom’s motion differed from her own. Mr. Karpinos replied that it did not differ.
Council Member Ward asked for a definition of “tabling.” Mayor Waldorf explained that it means putting the issue out of the Council’s consideration, unless there is a date attached to it. She noted that Council Member Strom’s motion really was a motion to defer.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SAID THAT HE WAS WILLING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PROPOSAL BUT WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE LANGUAGE HE HAD PROPOSED ABOUT SENDING THE ITEM TO THE CONSULTANT. COUNCIL MEMBER WARD SECONDED THAT MOTION.
Council Member Brown expressed concern to Mr. Karpinos that this motion would both keep the issue alive and not keep it alive. Mr. Karpinos replied that the motion to withdraw would end the Council’s rezoning proposal.
Council Member Bateman noted that although the Council was withdrawing this initiative they were not withdrawing their goal to achieve more affordable housing. Mayor Waldorf agreed, adding that all Council members were in favor of affordable housing but that this was not a good approach.
Council Member Wiggins agreed to support the motion with the understanding that the consultant also be apprised of the other strategies the Council had considered. She asked that the consultant comment on all of the issues and strategies surrounding affordable housing.
2a. Proposed Annexation Area 1: The Notting Hill Area
Planner Chris Berndt explained that the Council had adopted a service report prior to a public information meeting held on February 26, 2001. She noted one correction to the service report: the area contiguous to the city limits is 80.6%, rather than 19.4% as stated in the report. She said that all property owners had been notified about tonight’s meeting.
Ms. Berndt stated that the Town’s policy is to annex areas when it can extend services within its urban services area. She explained that this area meets the qualifications under State law and also qualifies based on population.
Ms. Berndt explained that services outlined in the report could be provided with existing personnel and equipment. She said that the Town would extend transit services to the area. Ms. Berndt reported that there would be net revenue to the Town of about $164,000. She said that the staff would return April 9, 2001, with an ordinance for the Council’s consideration.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER THE ITEM TO THE MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
2b. Proposed Annexation Area 2: The Southern Village Area
Ms. Berndt noted that services were outlined in the report that was approved by the Council on January 22, 2001. These include continuation of private refuse collection, additional police officers, a new fire station, additional transit service, and all other Town services, she said. Ms. Berndt pointed out that the area shows a net additional cost for the first year but the staff expects that to become a positive figure by the second year.
J. R. McCallum spoke about a section of land (lot 7.122.B.14), which he owns jointly with his wife, and another piece (lot 7.112.B.13) owned by their nephew. Mr. McCallum displayed pictures showing that there was no direct access to his property from Chapel Hill. He noted that the annexation calls for population of 1.4 per acre and that there are two of them living on approximately 10 acres. He said that he and his wife were in their late 70s and living on a fixed income. The additional cost of taxes and maintenance on his road would cost him several thousand more dollars a year, he said. Mr. McCallum suggested that the Town Council consider annexing his property at some later date when doing so would be more feasible.
Christine McCallum, J. R. McCalum’s wife, added that her nephew had inherited his property from his parents who had been killed in an accident when he was nine. She said that he would get no benefits from the annexation but would get increased taxes. Ms. McCallum explained that she was suffering from cancer and was on chemotherapy. She noted that this annexation would create an extra financial burden on her and her husband, adding that they could not even receive OWASA services without paying a $9,000 fee. Ms. McCallum said that there would be no transit to her area and that they had no entry into Southern Village, Kentwood, or Southern Ridge. She asked the Town Council not to annex her property for ten more years.
Shirlae Lalley said that annexation would cause her property taxes to increase by about $1,900 per year. She said that she did not see any benefits to annexation since there would be no additional services provided other than demand bus services. She noted that the Town had said annexation would cost approximately $182,000 in the first year and that the greatest costs were for the five police officers, a crime prevention expert, and the new fire station. Ms. Lalley pointed out that these services would benefit southern Chapel Hill as well, including the University.
Ms. Lalley predicted that the cost/benefit analysis would ultimately fall in favor of the Town. She noted that Southern Village already has water and sewer, a school, bus service, street maintenance, police and fire protection, and use of the Town’s recreation facilities and Library. Ms. Lalley said that this is adequate and that Southern Village residents are already paying for it. What they need, she said, is improved refuse pick-up, but that service will remain as it is for two more years.
Ms. Lalley stated that front curb collection is unacceptable for Southern Village. She suggested taking some of the revenue from annexation and buying a smaller collection truck that could maneuver the streets of Southern Village. Ms. Lalley proposed that the Council postpone its decision to annex Southern Village until an adequate refuse system can be designed. She noted that the fire station would be on line then as well. Ms. Lalley also requested a traffic light at the intersection of Bennett Road, Arlen Park Drive, and Highway 15-501.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Horton to look into the issues that Ms. McCallum had raised. Council Member Brown pointed out that it is not within the Council’s power to install stop lights, which is a NC Department of Transportation responsibility, but asked the Manager to look into the issue.
Council Member Strom asked the Manager to also discuss the timing of this annexation when the item comes back to the Council. He commented that there is some logical sense in waiting as Ms. McCallum had suggested. Noting that new units which are expected to be built over the next year probably will make up the shortfall, Council Member Strom asked the Manager to justify not waiting another year.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Bateman asked to be recused from voting on this item since she has a tutoring practice and receives referrals from Chapel Hill Pediatrics. Council members agreed by consensus to recuse her.
3a. Public hearing on Zoning Atlas Amendment for Sage Road Offices
Mr. Waldon explained that this lot, which is just over six acres, was zoned R-2 and R-4. He said that the request was to rezone it to Office/Institutional-1-Conditional (0I-1-C). Mr. Waldon explained that “Conditional” meant that if the Council approved it then it would need a special use permit. He pointed out that the property is shown as office use on the Comprehensive Plan and that the Manager was recommending the rezoning.
Gay Eddy, speaking for the Planning Board, noted that professionals had been leaving Chapel Hill because there was not enough office space. She said that this piece of property had been identified as suitable for offices during development of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Eddy reported that the Board had recommended the change in the Land Use Plan, and had voted (7-0) to change the zoning.
3b. Public hearing on Special Use Permit Application for Sage Road Offices
Mr. Waldon noted that two buildings (totaling just over 60,000 square feet) were proposed for the southern edge of this property. He said that the staff was recommending approval, but with a median on Sage Road to restrict vehicular movements to right in/right out on that point of access. Mr. Waldon added that existing vegetation provides a good and adequate screening effect and proposed that the Council attach a condition to require leaving existing vegetation at a couple of key points. He pointed out that the minimum parking requirement for a building this size would be about 225 spaces, with 110% of that being 247. Mr. Waldon noted that the applicant had come in at the middle of that range, with 238 spaces. He pointed out that the staff had also included the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendation to require a shower and locker facilities.
Dawn Heric, of the John R. McAdams Co., representing the applicant, explained that the proposed development utilizes existing topography by creating two independent sites, each with an independent building and joined to each other by an internal drive. She said that the parking area would be screened from Sage Road and from the old Sterling Drive rights-of-way. Ms. Heric explained that the smaller building and a portion of the larger one would house medical offices. A certain percentage of the parking requirements were based on medical use, she pointed out, which is slightly higher than general offices. Ms. Heric listed the modifications that had been made in the plan after the CDC and staff reviews:
· Changed the original rezoning request form O&I-2-C to O&I-1-C
· Changed the amount of building square footage from 69,000 sq. feet to 62,000 sq. feet.
· Reduced the number of parking spaces.
· Increased the tree protection area to more than the required amount of root zone protection.
· Reoriented buildings to be more nearly parallel with streets.
· Raised smaller building to be more visible from Sage Road.
· Increased buffer plantings and canopy trees to beyond the required amounts.
· Added plantings recommended for bioretention areas to the retention pond.
· Added covered bicycle storage facilities for each building.
· Added a street stub to the property to the south.
· Added sidewalks throughout the site, public walkways along the streets, and connections to the two adjacent properties.
Gay Eddy, speaking for the Planning Board, stated that the Board basically agreed with the Manger’s recommendation, except for a couple of points. She said that the Board was concerned that allowing only the right turn off Sage Road would encourage a driveway through the property, which would be unsafe for people walking to their cars and backing out in the parking lot. She also said that the Board thought the trees the applicant wanted to plant would be more attractive than the present buffer. Ms. Eddy expressed appreciation that the staff had recommended a payment-in-lieu for the parking light on Erwin Road and said that the Board hoped this policy would continue.
Ms. Heric stated that the applicant disagreed with two of the staff’s recommended stipulations contained in Resolution A: Stipulation #10 regarding the driveway onto Sage Road, and Stipulation #17 requiring undisturbed buffers between the parking areas and the streets.
Noting that it is very common to have emergency vehicles arrive at this clinic, Ms Heric objected to the right in/right out driveway requirement. She said that the proposed plans contain a note that the driveway would be full service only so long as the smaller building is more than 50% occupied by medical use or until a stub to the Lowe’s right-of-way that runs south of the property can be a viable connection to Sage Road. She also explained that the owner would make the driveway right in/right out at that time.
Regarding Stipulation #17, Ms. Heric explained that this would require putting in fairly expensive retaining walls for vegetation that is less than 15 years old and is mostly “scrub pines.” She argued that a planted buffer would be a much better and healthier long-term solution.
Ms. Heric noted that the staff’s report had stated that the Commnity Design Commission was opposed to grading into the buffer areas. She commented that she had interpreted that as the Commission’s support for tree preservation on Sage Road rather than its disapproval of buffers.
Dr. Jennifer Lail, representing Chapel Hill Pediatrics, explained that her medical practice had searched for two years before finding this site. She asked the Council to think about this as a long term move for Chapel Hill Pediatrics. Dr. Lail explained that doctors had worked until ten and eleven at night during the flu epidemic in January/February, adding that there had been nine ambulance transports during a three-week period this winter.
Regarding Stipulation #10, Dr. Lail noted that access to the building must be safe in every aspect. She pointed out that children could not be seen when they walk between two parked cars. She stressed that ambulances must have unrestricted access, adding that an ambulance with a child leaving the office heading south to Memorial Hospital with an IV in place should not have to drive over a median.
Council Member Foy wondered if it would be possible for a right in/right out to be constructed in such a way that one could turn right coming out and then make a U turn. He asked why that would be more dangerous than trying to get out across five lanes of traffic to turn left. Dr. Lail replied that anything that bumps an ambulance is going to affect the patient. She added that the issue of people trying to find and maneuver into the parking lot without knowing where they are going with a carload of children is another concern.
Regarding Stipulation #17, Bob Zumwalt, planner and landscape architect with John R. McAdams Co., explained that the existing pine trees are so close together they will choke each other out. Planting pines at healthier intervals with red maples, pin oaks, dogwoods, and service berries would be much healthier, he said. Mr. Zumwalt explained that the new pines would be about 12 feet high when planted, and that most of the other trees would be at least 15-18 feet tall. He emphasized that this healthier mix of plants with better spacing would be much more attractive and would survive much better than a tight, packed buffer of scrub pines.
Council Member Ward asked why the two buildings were connected with an interior road, pointing out that there would be less impervious surface without it. Ms. Heric replied that it would provide better overall circulation for the site and that it is desirable whenever possible to have more than one access point to a lot. She said that this was particularly important when there were similar office uses in both buildings because it keeps people off the streets for that interaction.
Council Member Ward asked what assurance the applicant could give that the connectivity would still be important five years from now. Ms. Heric replied that this could not be guaranteed, but repeated the reasons why it would be a better site design.
Council Member Ward asked the staff to elaborate on the median. Traffic engineer Kumar Neppalli explained that the Town had made an exception to allow access on Sage Road. According to the Town’s Design Manual, he said, the Town is strongly discouraged from allowing access from a higher level street (Sage Road) when there is access from a lower level street (Sterling Road). Mr. Neppalli explained that there is a lower level entrance on Sterling Road within 500 feet of the proposed entrance on Sage Road. He pointed out that the Town’s Design Manual requires the minimum space between two driveways to be 750 feet. Because this would be a medical clinic, he said, they had compromised by allowing right in/right out and had proposed the median.
Council Member Ward asked if it would be possible to create a gap in the median, so that the ambulance could cut through. Mr. Neppalli replied that the reason for the median was to restrict left turn access. He said that an open median would be the same as no median at all. Mr. Horton added that the concern is over someone crossing two travel lanes. He pointed out that the staff had heard and understood arguments on all sides and had come to a “fairly conservative” decision.
Council Member Foy asked how the connection to Lowe’s would ultimately lay out and what would it achieve. Mr. Waldon replied that there was an undeveloped piece of property between the applicant’s property and the Lowe’s parking lot. He explained that the Town hopes that it would eventually connect through to the Lowe’s service drives.
Council Member Foy inquired about pedestrian access to a transit stop. Mr. Horton agreed to check on that, adding that bus service would have to be provided if it does not exist.
Council Member Evans expressed agreement with the Planning Board’s recommendations. She said that Dr. Lail’s comments had persuaded her that the drive should go both ways. She added that she supported the idea of landscaping rather than keeping the pine buffer.
Council Member Ward also supported the landscape plan as long as erosion controls are in place and the soil is kept on the site. He asked that the recommendation include having good pedestrian access to the bus stop on Old Sterling Road, and suggested taking the language from Resolution D and adding it to Resolution A.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT PROPERTY ADJACENT BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (7-0) WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN RECUSED FROM VOTING.
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SAGE ROAD OFFICES (2001-03-19/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit for Sage Road Offices, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact c), contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit application to be that property described as follows:
All properties adjacent to the site.
This the 19th day of March, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL APRIL 9, 2001, AND REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Ward explained that as a curator at the NC Botanical Garden he had been asked by the applicant to provide some landscaping advice regarding their proposed landscaping changes. He said that the Town Attorney had told him that since he had received no compensation for it this would not constitute a conflict of interest. Council Member Ward noted that this was a moot point anyway because he had not provided the applicant with the information. He added that he would be glad to do so at a later date.
Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had approved the Special Use Permit for Meadowmont Apartments. Mr. Waldon explained that the Special Use Permit holder had requested that the meadow area not be restored, but kept as it is. He said that the staff supports the applicant’s idea and thinks it is better than the original proposal. Mr. Waldon pointed out that there is a bicycle path nearby so the staff was not concerned about losing the proposed path.
David Raven, representing Crosland Properties, said that he had jumped at the opportunity to come before the Town Council and ask to be allowed to preserve trees. Mr. Raven explained that the present vegetation was a good sound and visual buffer from Highway 54. Noting that there had been one break-in at Crosland Apartments, he explained that removing more trees to put in a path might exacerbate that problem.
Gay Eddy, representing the Planning Board, said that the Board had found it refreshing that a developer had come in and asked not to cut down trees. She said that Board members had looked at the area and had voted unanimously to leave it as it is.
Mayor Waldorf asked if some additional planting should be done in the area to improve the buffer. Council Member Ward explained that such under-planting was what the applicant intended to do. He added that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board was interested in maintaining the path through the woods.
Council Member Evans expressed concern about possible safety issues associated with the path and suggested omitting it even though she is generally in favor of pedestrian connections.
Council Member Ward expressed reluctance to link discussions about pedestrian access to security issues. He commented that people often opposed greenways in their back yards because they fear getting robbed. Council Member Evans replied that she had been referring to the problem of visibility from Highway 54.
Council Member Evans suggested that adjacent property be considered contiguous. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that the ordinance says it can be adjacent only if the property is less than ten acres. If the property is between 10-100 acres, he explained, it must be a minimum of 500 feet.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT 500 FEET BE CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR CROSLAND APARTMENTS AT MEADOWMONT (2001-03-19/R-2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council, having considered the evidence submitted in the Public Hearing thus far pertaining to the application for Special Use Permit Modification for Crosland Apartments at Meadowmont, hereby determines, for purposes of Development Ordinance Section 18.3, Finding of Fact, contiguous property to the site of the development proposed by this Special Use Permit Modification application to be that property described as follows:
All properties within 500 feet of the site.
This the 19th day of March, 2001.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL APRIL 9, 2001, AND REFER ALL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m.