SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Jim Ward.
Council Member Edith Wiggins 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, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Principal Planner Rob Wilson, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Planner Kay Pearlstein and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Mayor Foy noted that citizens had expressed concern about Habitat for Humanity's recent petition for a grant to buy land. That item would come back to the Council with a staff recommendation on Monday, November 25, 2002, he said. Mayor Foy explained that even though November 25 would not be a public hearing, there would be time for citizens to comment on the staff's recommendation.
Item 1 - Marriott Residence Inn Hotel - Application for
Special Use Permit for a Planned Development-Mixed Use
Town Manager Cal Horton explained that details of some of the modifications that the applicant had made had not been reviewed by each of the advisory boards. It is unlikely that those details would change the boards' recommendations, he said, because they reduce rather than enlarge the project. But, Mr. Horton explained, a board member could rightly state that some details had not been available when they reviewed this item.
Planning Director Roger Waldon noted that a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone the property from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-3-Conditional (R-3-C) had been approved in 1998. A Special Use Permit (SUP) for a Group Care Facility had expired, he said, because construction had never begun.
Mr. Waldon displayed a map showing the 13-acre parcel at the corner of Fordham Boulevard and Irwin Road. He explained that the proposal called for a series of buildings and the realignment of an intersection. Mr. Waldon pointed out that the current application for a SUP/Planned Development-Mixed Use included:
Mr. Waldon said that a key component of this site was the buffer that would be left between the proposed development and the adjacent residential uses. He reviewed the four findings that the Council must make to approve an application and stated that the application did not appear to meet the fourth finding (conformance to the Comprehensive Plan). Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the site to be low-density residential use (1-4 units per acre). He said that the staff had recommended against approval because of the proposal's inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Gene Singleton, representing Summit Hospitality Group, Ltd., the applicant, offered three reasons why the Council should approve the Residence Inn:
1. A unique university town such as Chapel Hill would benefit by an extended stay facility;
2. The proposal is consistent with the current land uses along US 15-501 and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan;
3. Summit Hospitality Group is the correct corporate citizen to develop, own and operate the facility.
Mr. Singleton explained that every room in the Residence Inn would be a suite with a fully equipped kitchen, large work area, living and bedroom. He explained that more than half of the residents nationwide stay for more than a week, with some staying more than a year. Whether people are relocating or visiting someone at the hospital, he said, the Residence Inn would be their home away from home.
Mr. Singleton noted the unmet demand for an extended stay facility in Chapel Hill. Many people stay at the Homewood Suites in Durham, he said, even though more than half of Homewood's guests are visiting Chapel Hill. For this reason, he said, the project would not add more traffic. Mr. Singleton described the Marriott Residence Inn Hotel as a nice, upscale project for the neighborhood and the Town. He pointed out that the associated road improvements would create a better traffic situation in the area. The project would not create extra demand on the school system, he said, and would create better tax revenues for the Town.
Mr. Singleton explained that his ultimate goal was to build a 79,700 square foot facility, but understood that the procedure was to apply for 54,000 square feet, and then, if the Council approves that, request a modification of the SUP to 79,700 square feet.
Mayor Foy interrupted Mr. Singleton to ask if he was outlining a different proposal than the one that was before the Council. Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton to explain the process. Mr. Horton replied that the applicant had applied for 54,000 square feet but was attempting to explain that he had no intention of building a 54,000 square foot facility but wanted to build a 79,000 square foot facility instead. Mayor Foy asked Mr. Singleton why he was not addressing the application for 54,000 square feet that was before the Council. Mr. Singleton replied that he had understood that this was how he should proceed within the ordinances that the Town currently has.
Mayor Foy noted that what the applicant was presenting was not prepared to be before the Council. Mr. Horton agreed, adding that the applicant should apply for a 79,000 square foot facility if that is what he wishes to build. Mayor Foy stated that since what the Council had received on Friday before this meeting had been changed it did not seem ready for a Council hearing.
The applicant's consultant, Scott Radway, noted that the concept plan for this site had first been discussed three years ago. He began to outline the various interactions since then between the applicant and the Town, but Mayor Foy interrupted to repeat that the application was not ready for the Council. To proceed with the hearing tonight, said Mayor Foy, would be "a waste of the Council's time." Mr. Horton agreed that it would be inappropriate to proceed with a hearing on an application that had not yet been filed.
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos noted that an application had been filed for 54,000 square feet. Raising that to 79,000 square feet would require a modification of standards, he said. Mr. Karpinos explained that such a modification could not be considered in the context of an SUP but only during an SUP modification. He pointed out that this was what the applicant was proposing to do. Mr. Singleton agreed that this was what he was attempting to do, but several Council members expressed resistance to continuing a hearing on 54,000 square feet in that case.
Council Member Strom commented that he felt as though the process was being exploited. He described Mr. Radway's approach as "trying to get the best of both worlds" by getting what he could under the present ordinance and then taking advantage of what he could under the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance. Mr. Radway agreed that "games were being played." He said that the applicant had wanted to submit a proposal for 79,000 square feet but the Town staff had advised them that raising the square footage and calling it mixed use was so significant a change that they would have to go back to all the advisory boards and start the review process over again. Mr. Radway pointed out that the applicant had waited two years to bring this before the Council. By applying for 54,000 square feet they could at least have a hearing and start the dialogue with the Council, he said.
Mr. Radway added that the applicant had assumed that the Council would have adopted a new ordinance by the time this application came before it. He noted that they could not submit a plan that conforms to the new ordinance because it has not been adopted yet. He described this as a quandary and said that the applicant would like to discuss at least the key fundamental pieces of the project.
Mr. Singleton stated that, with a minor modification to the parking lot location, they believe they will meet all the criteria under the proposed ordinance. He added that he had not understood until the prior Monday that they could not move forward concurrently with the SUP modification but must first ask for 54,000 square feet and then for a modification to that. Mr. Horton stated that the staff had recommended that the applicant not go ahead with 79,000 square feet because if does not conform to the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance and would be 25,000 square feet over area.
Council Member Bateman said that she was not willing to discuss something she had not read, which is 79,000 square feet when 54,000 square feet was before her. "I do not think you want me to proceed on this because I cannot understand it," she told the applicant.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that this public hearing was being obscured for everyone that must be involved in the project. He referred to the applicant's alternate development proposal (Dunstan Garth) and asked Mr. Horton if it was possible to discern the true intent of the applicant when it seems to have several projects within one application. Mr. Singleton explained that Marriott Hotels had asked Summit Hospitality Group to get a sense of what the community wanted and what the Council might approve. He said that Summit Hospitality Group merely wants to build a Residence Inn in that location.
Council Member Strom stated he would move to send the application back to the staff for clarification.
Mr. Karpinos recommended recessing the public hearing for a date certain in that case. Mr. Horton recommended January 22, 2003.
Council Member Verkerk said she would second the motion.
Council Member Ward asked if the applicant was prepared tonight for approval or denial of the 54,000 square feet application. Mr. Singleton replied that this was why they were there. "But that's not what you want to build," commented Council Member Strom. Mr. Singleton replied that if Summit Hospitality was fortunate enough to get that approved then they would apply for the modification. He then asked Mr. Horton if that was the correct procedure, and Mr. Horton replied that it is one way of proceeding but not one that the staff would recommend.
Council Member Harrison noted that the final Land Use Management Ordinance probably would differ from what was in the third draft. He suggested that the applicant return to seek a rezoning if that is what they need to reach their targets. Council Member Harrison noted that Homewood Suites had been developed as a result of rezoning.
Mayor pro tem Evans explained that she had heard the applicant before during the Planning Board discussion. She described the approach as "kind of a jury-rigged process" and asked the staff if there was a process that the applicant could use to submit a realistic application without having to go back to the beginning. Mr. Horton replied that the applicant could have stayed with the rezoning request, which would have allowed them to proceed with the 79,000 square feet proposal that they had outlined.
Mr. Radway asked Council Member Harrison to clarify what he said about which ordinance the application should come under. Council Member Harrison replied that he thought the current application would come under the current ordinance, but asked Mr. Horton to comment on that. Mr. Horton stated that it would depend on when the Council acts on the new ordinance and when it acts on any particular application that is before it. If the Council acts on the new ordinance on January 6 and makes it effective on that date, then this application would have to comply with the provisions of the new ordinance when it comes back on January 22, Mr. Horton said.
Mayor Foy explained to those who had signed up to speak that the public hearing was being recessed to January 22nd.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO REFER THE ITEM BACK TO THE STAFF AND TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 22, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 2 - Morgan Estates Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper outlined the application for 12 residential lots on 11 acres in an R-1 zoning district, located on the north side of Culbreth Road west of the Southbridge Subdivision. She explained that two points of access were being proposed. The applicant was in the process of requiring right-of-way, she said, and was proposing a stub-out to an undeveloped property between Southbridge and the site. Ms. Culpepper noted that there would be about one acre of recreation area and a pedestrian easement that might one day help residents access a future Morgan Creek Greenway. She said that the applicant was proposing to improve a segment of Culbreth Road with about 500 feet of curb and gutter and that the Town was recommending that a sidewalk be provided there as well. Ms. Culpepper pointed out that Resolution A would require that sidewalk.
John R. McAdams Company representative Bob Zumwald, representing the applicant, Dawson Ventures, Inc., explained that the applicant had taken steps to negotiate with and accommodated its neighbors. He asked Council members to support Resolution A, but noted that building a sidewalk there would be almost impossible without extensive retaining walls and guardrails. Mr. Zumwald asked that the applicant be allowed to make a payment-in-lieu so that a sidewalk could be built somewhere else.
Scott Radway, representing the Planning Board, explained that another 12-lot subdivision that was being proposed near this development would be coming before the Council. He said that the Planning Board had recommended that the other subdivision share in the cost of the Culbreth Road improvements. Mr. Radway explained that the Board thought it was reasonable for this applicant to make those improvements but that there ought to be some mechanism to share costs.
Council Member Verkerk asked how the payment-in-lieu would work. Mr. Horton pointed out that the staff had not recommended that approach. He explained, though, that the Town could reserve the payment-in-lieu for later construction of a sidewalk in that or some other location. Mr. Horton added that the Town probably would have to build the sidewalk with its own funds if it is not built as part of this project.
Council Member Strom ascertained from Ms. Culpepper that this application would have fallen under the Small House Rules if it had been a 13-lot subdivision. He verified that there would not be a significant change in this development if it were approved under the third draft of the new ordinance and that the threshold under the new ordinance would still be 13.
Mayor pro tem Evans expressed hope that the applicant would secure a permanent right-of-way because it would help alleviate traffic concerns in Southbridge. She said that a payment-in-lieu was a good idea since there is another street in the area, parallel to Culbreth, which would be a safer route for a sidewalk.
Mayor Foy inquired about the nature of the staff's conversations with the applicant regarding affordable housing. Ms. Culpepper replied that the applicant had been made aware of the Restricted House Size regulations and the provision that allows a developer to provide affordable homes instead of restricted size homes. The applicant had chosen the restricted size homes, she said.
In response to a comment by Council Member Kleinschmidt about the difference in lot size between this development and Southbridge, Ms. Culpepper explained that the zoning had changed from R-2 to R-1, allowing the lot size to jump from 10,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet.
Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that some lots had been made large in order to keep the subdivision under 13 lots. Mr. Zumwald replied that most of the land on the larger lots consisted of steep slopes. He said that it would not be possible to meet the minimum width if they had tried to fit another lot in there.
Council Member Harrison commented that it was good to hear an applicant say that a 20% slope was too steep to build on, since some lobbyists would disagree with that. He said that payments-in-lieu for sidewalks was not unusual even though it seemed to be the first Chapel Hill had encountered.
Mayor Foy noted that the Town had accepted payments-in-lieu for other things and asked Ms. Culpepper if it ever had for sidewalks. Ms. Culpepper replied that she would bring back specifics on that when the item returns to the Council.
Council Member Verkerk asked Mr. Horton for his opinion on the developer's argument for not building the sidewalk. Mr. Horton noted that the developer had not said it was impossible but that it would be expensive. Although he respected that view, Mr. Horton said, he did not want to have to build that sidewalk with Town funds.
Council Member Ward noted that the sidewalks that never get built are the difficult ones. Since this road has ever increasing mobility needs, he said, he would support the Manager's recommendation. Council Member Ward added that he would like all public access roads that run through developments to be permanently signed appropriately. He asked that this be a stipulation of this approval. Council Member Ward further requested that the stipulation be institutionalized, if the Council supports that, so that he will not have to request it each time.
Council Member Strom asked whether recessing to a date in January after the Land Use Management Ordinance had been approved would mean that the application would be subject to the new rules, including possible changes to thresholds for the Small House Ordinance. Mr. Karpinos explained that it would depend on the effective date that the Council sets when it adopts the new ordinance.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Zumwald if the applicant would be willing to dedicate some lots to affordable housing in return for more density. Mr. Zumwald replied that he could not say how his client and the neighbors would respond to that. Mayor Foy pointed out that the Town Council had consistently asked all developers to include some affordable component in their plans. Mr. Zumwald agreed to take the suggestion back to his client. Mayor Foy clarified that he was proposing subdividing some of the lots differently, prior to approval. This would allow for greater density and for a portion of those lots to go into the Land Trust, he said.
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 13, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 3 - Avalon Park Subdivision: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Ms. Culpepper outlined the proposal for 10 residential lots on more than five acres of R-2 zoning on the north side of High School Road near the Homestead Road intersection. There would be a single point of access on High School Road, she said, and a one-way loop road with a recreation area in the center of the loop. Ms. Culpepper explained that the proposed recreation area did not satisfy the minimum requirement. She said that the applicant had offered a payment-in-lieu for the remaining recreation area. The proposed subdivision would be just outside the Town limits, she said, and the applicant was preparing a petition for annexation by the Town. Ms. Culpepper stated that the staff recommended approval with Resolution A.
Warren Mitchell, representing the developer, Hani Fakhowy, noted that all of the advisory boards had voted unanimously for approval. He described the 1/2-acre recreation area in the center as pastureland, which can remain flat if that is what the neighbors want. He indicated land near the Resource Conservation District that could be additional recreation space. But the advisory boards had felt that the area should remain part of two nearby lots, he said, so the applicant was offering a payment-in-lieu instead.
Mr. Mitchell requested that Resolution A be changed to allow two pedestrian areas (approximately 4,600 square feet), which would count toward the recreation area requirement when deeded to the homeowners association. That would leave only 2,102 square feet of the 6,702 square feet of recreation area to make up, he said. Mr. Mitchell also asked that the traffic control island be landscaped, as the Planning Board had recommended, rather than concrete.
Scott Radway, representing the Planning Board, said that the Board had supported the Manager's recommendation.
Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Mitchell to clarify how he would rewrite the stipulation. He asked if the suggestion was to let the easements contribute to recreation space and remove the payment-in-lieu. Mr. Mitchell said that stipulation #9 in Resolution A would remain but #8 would change, leaving 2,102 square feet of unbuilt recreation area, with a dollar amount of $2,827.
Council Member Bateman pointed out that this was not what the Parks and Recreation Commission was recommending. Council Member Harrison replied that he understood that but merely wanted clarification from Mr. Mitchell.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Mitchell what his thoughts were on meeting the Town's goals for a mixed price range within subdivisions. Would he consider the Small House Ordinance, or some of the other available option, to meet community goals for housing? Mr. Mitchell replied that the developer feels this is a moderately priced neighborhood, and that ten small lots were all he could squeeze out of it. Mr. Mitchell added that the applicant might want to give more thought to this before the next meeting.
Council Member Bateman asked if the applicant had considered putting two houses into the Land Trust to insure affordability. Mr. Mitchell repeated that Mr. Fakhowy might need to give this more thought before responding.
Mayor Foy recommended that the applicant meet with Orange Community Housing to discuss the possibilities.
Council Member Ward inquired about limits on easements and whether they really will serve as pedestrian access points. Mr. Mitchell replied that the access points could be relocated to one side or the other of the gas easement without changing the actual lots. Council Member Ward inquired about the gas company's reaction to that. Mr. Mitchell replied that the gas company does not want gravel or timbers placed there but does not object to it being used as access. Council Member Ward expressed some wariness about this, and Mr. Mitchell noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had felt strongly about making this deeded rather than an easement.
Mayor pro tem Evans requested that information come back to the Council on how the easement could be used if it is deeded over to the Town. She also asked how it would function with the adjacent land and how it would serve the public good versus a payment-in-lieu.
Mr. Horton pointed out that considering this after the Land Use Management Ordinance is in effect would likely require the applicant to make significant changes in the application. Regarding page #4, for example, the Resource Conservation District boundary of 150 feet would create a challenge for this applicant, he said. Ms. Culpepper displayed on the map how expanding the planned Resource Conservation District boundary of 75 feet to 150 feet would eliminate at least two lots.
Council Member Harrison pointed out that the Council had never discussed whether a spring should be treated as a perennial or an intermittent stream. Ms. Culpepper agreed that the staff had not evaluated the spring under any but current regulations. Council Member Harrison noted that perhaps the area should not be included in the 150-foot Resource Conservation District if it is not flowing toward the spring. Ms. Culpepper added that it was not clear where the spring was in relation to a nearby pond. She and Council Member Harrison agreed that specifics regarding springs should be included in the new ordinance before the December 9 meeting. Mr. Mitchell pointed out that the spring had been dry all summer.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JANUARY 13, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4 - Hilltop and Greenway Condominiums at Meadowmont:
Application for a Special Use Permit Modification
Mr. Horton explained that this modification was to correct an error in square footage. None of the measures that the Council uses to evaluate a proposal would change, he said.
Mr. Waldon stated that the applicant had discovered that the square footage on the Council-approved fact sheet had been incorrect, and the process to correct that is to amend the SUP. Mr. Waldon added that this appears to be a math error and that the staff was recommending approval.
Scott Radway, representing the Planning Board, said that the Board had recommended approval.
Mayor Foy noted that the Council had previously discussed this issue.
Mr. Horton stated that the staff could bring this back on December 9th.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 9, 2002. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.