SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2003, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Ed Harrison, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Mayor pro tem Pat Evans and Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt were 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, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Mr. Horton announced that the final version of the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) was available at the Town Hall, the Chapel Hill Public Library, and the Town’s website. He said that citizens could also obtain a free CD version or purchase a printed copy at Town Hall.
Council Member Jim Ward determined that a copy of the LUMO would be available at the Town's two community centers as well.
Agenda Item 1—Creekside Subdivision
Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper explained that this project involves 11 lots on about 11 acres that are zoned R-1 and located in the Watershed Protection District. She noted that the parcel, which is located in an existing neighborhood, backs up to Morgan Creek. There would be a single point of access, Ms. Culpepper said, and a proposed conservation area next to Morgan Creek. She explained that the applicant had proposed meeting the recreational requirement by deeding one acre of land next to Morgan Creek to the Botanical Garden Foundation. Ms. Culpepper said that a key issue during staff review had been compliance with the anticipated LUMO, particularly with regard to the Resource Conservation District (RCD). She added that the staff had identified both perennial and intermittent streams on the property.
Ms. Culpepper noted that issues of street width and whether or not to have sidewalks had come up during the review and that staff opinion had been varied. The staff's preliminary recommendation was for adoption of Resolution A, she said, pointing out that Resolution A requires a 20-foot roadway and no sidewalks. With regard to the anticipated Small House Ordinance, Ms. Culpepper explained that the applicant had proposed providing two accessory apartments or making a payment-in-lieu of $52,500.
Warren Mitchell, of Mitchell Westendorf, P.A., displayed a map of the area and reviewed how the neighborhood had been developed in the 1950s. The applicant was abiding by the current covenants of that neighborhood, he said, adding that these covenants were more restrictive than the R-1 regulations. Mr. Mitchell explained that the 50-foot and 25-foot minimum setbacks had largely dictated how the project had been laid out. He pointed out that most of the steep slopes were within the updated RCD. Mr. Mitchell explained that the applicant had reduced the number of lots from 12 to 11, had made revisions to the RCD, and was allowing about 25% more than the required recreation area.
Mr. Mitchell stated that two streams had been determined to be not perennial and that the Morgan Creek boundary was 100 feet. He noted that Town staff had determined a tributary on the site to be intermittent throughout the property behind lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. Mr. Mitchell said the staff had not determined that the continuation of the steam was intermittent. Mr. Mitchell explained that the RCD boundary had been revised and would apply to the new LUMO for the RCD.
With regard to the $52,500 payment-in-lieu to affordable housing, Mr. Mitchell noted that this arrangement had been allowed for other subdivisions that were about the same size as Creekside. He concluded that the project with its revisions meets all of the requirements in the ordinance.
Planning Board Chair Scott Radway reported that the Planning Board had voted (9-0) in favor of approval of Resolution A, with the condition that stipulations 2, 11, 12, and 14 be revised. The Board had asked that the approval authorize no more than 11 lots on the 11.42 acres, he said, providing that a staff survey does not find additional RCD area on the site that would prevent that many lots. Mr. Radway explained that the Board had also recommended calculating the payment-in-lieu for affordable housing in the following manner: 15% x 11 lots x $52, 500/lot = $86,625. He requested that special attention be given to identifying and protecting significant stands of trees and that landscape buffer yards be located on land owned and controlled by a homeowners' association.
Mr. Radway noted that the Board had recommended removal of stipulations regarding recreation area requirements, a Town pedestrian easement, and pedestrian trail signage. He pointed out that they had suggested adding stipulations regarding pedestrian access to conservation land and had agreed with stipulations 4, 5 and 24 in the Manager's Preliminary Recommendation.
Mr. Radway stated that some sections of the streams might be intermittent. He said that the Planning Board had recommended that the Council have the Town Engineering Department do another RCD assessment to determine whether the ordinance standard for intermittent streams is truly what the Council wants. Mr. Radway noted that this application would be a good test of that, adding it might be fortuitous that it came along at this time.
Council Member Verkerk inquired about the Planning Board's rationale for eliminating sidewalks. Mr. Radway replied that the surrounding community does not have them. Extending sidewalks on a cul-de-sac would be a departure from the general character of the neighborhood, he said. Mr. Radway also pointed out that it is difficult to build and maintain sidewalks on roads that do not have curb and gutter. Mr. Horton added that there had never been a sidewalk petition from this community and not having them would mean less impervious surface.
Mayor Foy inquired about the Planning Board's recommendation to remove the stipulation regarding the connection north of lot 11 and replacing it with the connection to the Botanical Garden dedicated property on the east side. He asked why they had not recommended adding that stipulation. Mr. Radway replied that there had been a question about who owned the property in lot 12.
Mayor Foy asked why the Town would not reserve the easement along lot 11 in case that issue gets resolved. Mr. Radway replied that the Town Council could do that even though the Planning Board had not recommended it.
Council Member Ward questioned the Planning Board's recommendation that the Conservation Land Agreement between the applicant and the Botanical Garden Foundation provide connectivity of greenway trails by providing long-term access across conservation land near Morgan Creek. He noted that a number of residents had granted conservation easements to their land bordering Morgan Creek with the understanding that it would not become a public greenway. Council Member Ward argued that providing access would put those residents in a position where they would have nowhere to go legally. Mr. Radway said his understanding of limited or no public access was the same as Council Member Ward's. He added, though, that he was not certain that all members of the Planning Board knew that the restriction existed.
Council Member Harrison clarified that the only easement the Planning Board had recommended was from the new street to the creek, between lots 5 and 6. Mr. Radway explained that the easement would provide access if people could legally enter those lands along Morgan Creek. Council Member Harrison commented that a trail would be created over time. Mr. Radway said the issue that Council Member Ward had raised went beyond the amount of information the Board had available to it at its last meeting.
Council Member Strom asked if the Planning Board had looked closely at the language regarding the land that was being dedicated for recreation use. He wondered if future residents would actually be able to use that property with its limited access. Mr. Radway replied that the Town's policy was that the Council could accept the land as a substitute for active recreation area provided in a subdivision, which is what was being proposed and what the Board had recommended. However, he said his personal view is that this does nothing for recreation even though it does some wonderful things for wildlife, stormwater, and the environment. He added that he had suggested over the years that the Town adopt some form of payment-in-lieu process or impact fees for recreation. Mr. Radway noted, however, that this had been done on many projects and that the community had received no land and no money for recreation.
Council Member Strom asked whether the Board was certain that people could walk on this land. Mr. Radway replied that this was not part of the information that they had.
Heidi Chapman, representing the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association, noted that there had been no agreement between the developers and the Botanical Garden Foundation. She added that the Botanical Gardens wanted the land in order to keep people off of it. Even though this applicant would use it as recreation land, she said, it is not to be traversed.
Ms. Chapman stated that neighborhood residents had continuing concerns about the density of this development. She pointed out that the Community Design Commission had also expressed concern about the number of houses to be built on the site, even before the intermittent stream issue had arisen. Ms. Chapman said that Town Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal had told her that determining intermittent streams was a subjective process. She pointed out that the Town had prevented an adjacent landowner from building a swimming pool because of the intermittent stream. Ms. Chapman asked the Town Council to review the intermittent stream issue, adding that the neighborhood would hire its own consultant to look at it if the Town were not willing to do so.
Sally Greene reminded Council members that residents had asked in June 2001 to become a Neighborhood Conservation District. In January 2002, she said, they were notified that the Creekside application had been submitted. Ms. Greene explained that the neighborhood had a public hearing to become a Conservation District in March 2002. She noted that this is also a potential Historic Conservation Area and that it probably could be on the National Register.
If the area were a Neighborhood Conservation District, Ms. Green said, there would be strong consensus against sidewalks and in favor of 20-foot maximum streets with no curbs and gutters. She said that residents would also have tried to address lot size for the two remaining infill areas and tried to ensure that they were consistent with their environments. Ms. Greene reviewed the history of the land in question and reported that there was contention over whether the deed transfer for a small portion of it was correct. This issue might be resolved by selling that portion to neighbor Paul McGill, she said, noting that this would mean the easement would not exist.
Ms. Greene pointed out that the neighborhood covenants had been renewed every ten years and had been revised in 2002 to increase the lot size from 6/10 to 8/10 of an acre. She noted that neighbors are stakeholders in shaping their landscape, according to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Greene asked Council members to be the good environmental stewards that the neighborhood knows they can be.
Dave Morgan explained that there were 56 lots within 1,000 feet of the proposed development, with an average lot size of 1.2 acres. He pointed out that the average Creekside lot was about 8/10 of an acre and displayed a chart showing the disparity between those and the surrounding lot sizes. Mr. Morgan suggested reducing the Creekside development to nine lots and making it more closely match lot sizes in the existing neighborhood.
John French emphasized the importance of intermittent streams to water quality. He said that he had developed his property in 1989 and had not disturbed land within 100 feet of what he had believed was an intermittent stream. Mr. French pointed out that these streams had been considered perennial, but probably had degraded over time. The classification of a stream is as much an art as a science, he said. Mr. French then showed slides of various sections of the stream and urged Council members to continue reclassifying it and to recognize the RCD for the full length of the tributary.
Council Member Harrison asked if the 1988 RCD requirements had referred only to Morgan Creek, which was a perennial stream. Mr. French replied that the requirements had referred to the tributary that runs up 600 feet behind his and the Stutts properties. He said that he had understood at the time that it was a perennial stream.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. French to point out on the plat map where the person in one of his slides had been standing in a deep ravine. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. French replied that the area was just above where the intermittent stream stops, between lots 10 and 11.
Laura Moore remarked that neighborhood residents were generally in support of the project, but they still had questions about density because the site is so fragile and has so many environmental constraints on it. She displayed a map that she had made which combined information from other maps. Ms. Moore stated that residents did not feel confident that the application would meet the stormwater management and tree protection requirements of the new LUMO.
Arnold Tein described the area as so ethereal that it stimulated song and verse by James Taylor, who lived only a stone's throw from this Morgan Creek property. Taylor's song, entitled Copperline, describes this parcel, said Mr. Tein, noting that Creekside Properties had once been known as Copperline Development. Mr. Tein asked Council members to preserve the intermittent streams. He described the proposed recreation area as a joke, and said it is like telling a three-year-old to jump off a cliff. Mr. Tein asked Council members to treat this property with the special respect that it deserves.
Council Member Bateman asked the staff to bring back a recommendation on the amount of the payment-in-lieu for the recreation area. She wondered if an area as steep as that would really meet the requirements of what the Town means by recreation space.
Council Member Verkerk asked for more information on the disputed piece of land. Mr. Mitchell explained that the plat had been recorded in Orange County as a potential access but that anyone who goes to the site can see that it is not suitable for access because of the topography. He said that he did not think the deed had been revised.
Mayor Foy clarified that the title was still in dispute. He noted that Ms. Greene had said that one of the adjacent property owners might purchase the land and asked if that means that the lot would not be available.
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos advised the Council to consider the application without that piece of land, since the applicant does not know whether he owns it or not.
Council Member Ward verified that there would be further staff analysis of the intermittent streams on this property. He requested that they also look at protecting groves of trees, not just specimen trees. Council Member Ward encouraged the applicant to continue the dialogue with the Botanical Garden Foundation to determine the best way to protect the property. He agreed with others that such a steep slope was not appropriate for recreation.
Mayor Foy expressed support for getting full analyses of how the tree ordinance would apply to this application and what constitutes an intermittent stream.
Council Member Strom wondered if the new ordinance would include provisions to preserve stands of trees in lots where owners might want to get a better view of Morgan Creek. He asked for information on what the Town could request as far as overall density. Council Member Strom agreed that it was essential to analyze the stream and to get a better understanding of the intermittent stream issue before approving the new LUMO.
Council Member Harrison pointed out that language he had written and submitted for "vegetative indicators for intermittent steams" was not in the LUMO. He stated that the more indicators there are the easier it is to identify something, and highly recommended that the staff rediscover his memo and add that language on identifying intermittent and perennial streams. Council Member Harrison remarked that he had been trained to identify streams, and it would take all of the language he had submitted to look at this project correctly.
Council Member Strom recalled that the Council had accepted Council Member Harrison's memos and had moved them into the final draft. Mr. Waldon indicated that he too thought Council Member Harrison's definition had been included and agreed to revise the LUMO. Council Member Harrison then discovered that his sentence had been included under perennial stream but not under intermittent steam. It should be under both, he said, and Mr. Horton agreed to correct that.
Council Member Wiggins asked if Council members might be able to see separate charts—one showing trees that should be protected, and the other showing stands of trees that should be preserved—for lots 9 and 11. Mayor Foy asked the applicant if they could provide the information requested by Council Member Wiggins.
Mr. Mitchell replied that a fair comparison would include the one-acre conservation area, which would bring the number of lots down to ten. Regarding trees and stands of trees, he said, the back side of half or more of every lot has steep slopes and that means that the back of every lot should be preserved.
Mayor Foy pointed out that this would fall under the steep slopes or RCD requirements. Mr. Mitchell noted that lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 did not have steep slopes, but the setbacks of those homes were such that significant portions of every lot would be preserved.
Council Member Wiggins repeated Council Member Strom's question regarding how much discretion the Council would have regarding density. Ms. Culpepper explained that the property was located in both the R-1 district (which has a minimum lot size of 17,000 sq. ft.) and the Watershed Protection District (which calls for 1/2-acre lots). There is also the Overlay Resource Conservation District, she said. Mr. Horton added that there were tools the Council could use to address the issue being raised.
Council Member Wiggins inquired about how much discretion the Council had to postpone action on the application until it could create a Neighborhood Conservation District for this neighborhood. Mr. Horton deferred to Mr. Karpinos, who asked to respond at a later date.
Council Member Verkerk requested information involving the income level of a person buying a home with an accessory apartment vs. that of one buying a home without one. She proposed that the income level of the former could be lower because they could rent out the apartment and use that income toward the purchase of their home. Council Member Verkerk asked for concrete numbers on whether this might make such a home more accessible to someone who makes, say, $50,000 annually.
Council Member Harrison corrected a previous misstatement and said there should not be any discussion of vegetation under intermittent streams. He explained that the key indicator there is water 48 hours after a rainfall.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Mitchell to consider, during his discussions with the Botanical Foundation, what kind of protection there will be for the RCD when it is owned by an individual property owner. He also asked Mr. Mitchell to consider conservation easements, so that it would still belong to the property owner but would have some restrictions on it. Council Member Ward explained this approach had been used and had increased property values. It might be a way of giving fragile areas some additional protection without changing ownership status, he said.
Mayor Foy expressed support for the Planning Board's suggestion to calculate the payment-in-lieu to affordable housing at 15% of the total number of lots. He asked the applicant to comment on that when the item comes back to the Council.
Council Member Wiggins moved, seconded by Council Member Ward, to recess the public hearing to February 10th, 2003.
Mr. Waldon stated that the Council had asked for a considerable amount of information. He did not think the staff could bring it all back by February 10th, he said, and recommended February 24th instead.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS AMENDED HER MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 24, 2003. THE AMENDED MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 2—Marriott Residence Inn Hotel: Application for
Special Use Permit for a Planned Development Mixed Use
Mr. Horton explained that there had been a brief discussion of this item at a previous meeting, which had been interrupted to give the applicant an opportunity to make a clearer presentation.
Mr. Waldon referred the Council to a procedural note on page two of the Manager's memo, which explained the various adjustments and changes that this application had undergone. He explained that the staff had reviewed this application in the context of what would likely be in the LUMO.
Mr. Waldon described the proposal for a 79,000 square foot project that includes a 73,000 square foot hotel with 108 lodging units, 6,000 square feet of offices and dwelling units, and 126 parking spaces. The staff had concluded that the application met only three of the four findings that the Council has to make to approve the SUP, he said. Mr. Waldon explained that because the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan shows this area for low-density uses the application does not meet the fourth finding and the Manager was recommending Resolution A, for denial. Mr. Waldon pointed out that a sidewalk going through the RCD was a trade-off that the Council should be aware of if it decides to approve the application. He recommended recessing the public hearing to March in order to allow the advisory boards time to review this revised application.
Mayor Foy pointed out that Planning Board Chair Scott Radway was representing the applicant and not the Planning Board on this application.
Consultant Scott Radway, representing Summit Hospitality Group, stated that the application was consistent with the fourth draft of the LUMO and that the applicant would fully comply with whatever ordinance the Town adopts. He said that the fourth finding could be made for this application and that a hotel is appropriate at this location. Mr. Radway reviewed the development considerations, the mixed-use plan, and the site plan with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). On a map, he showed the proposed entrance point, buffers, buildings, outdoor activities, and parking. Mr. Radway said that the applicant's payment of $82,000 in lieu of Erwin Road improvements would proceed regardless of what action the Council takes on this project. He displayed another map showing the relative size and location of the proposed hotel to the areas around it, and described it as a low-impact design.
Mr. Radway reviewed the preliminary exterior design and showed slides of the interior of a similar facility. He compared the tax revenue and school impact from this project to that of apartments and multi-family residential developments at that location. Mr. Radway pointed out that there would be fewer children with this project and that the property taxes and hotel occupancy tax revenue would help generate a more diverse tax base.
Mr. Radway outlined the existing zoning and land use patterns and argued that this piece of property differed from all others along the corridor. He suggested that the Comprehensive Plan had not looked as closely at this property as was warranted by the other activity in the corridor, and he argued that the property was in the wrong land use category. Mr. Radway described the application as a beneficial project that would have limited impact. Because it is an orphan piece of property that cannot connect to any neighborhood, he said, it is more appropriate for a low-impact, business, mixed-use application.
The applicant, Gene Singleton of Summit Hospitality Group, Ltd., stated that he had met with all the neighbors and had modified the application based on neighbors’ concerns. He explained that he had not asked for commercial zoning, had reduced the number of rooms and square footage, had increased buffers and parking ratios, and had reduced the height of parking lot lights. Mr. Singleton predicted that this project, if approved, would be one that the neighbors would be proud of.
Mr. Radway, speaking for the Planning Board, explained that the Planning Board had not yet received a copy of the revised application. Mr. Horton added that none of the other advisory boards had received copies either, which was why the staff had recommended recessing the public hearing to March 3rd.
Gregory Copenhauer urged Council members to reject the application, describing it as the wrong development in the wrong place. He described the area as a low-density population center and said that a hotel is a high-density project no matter how you look at it. Mr. Copenhauer pointed out that the parcel had been rezoned from R-2 to RC-3 for an assisted living facility. The application had then been changed, he said, but the rezoning had remained. Mr. Copenhauer said that Mr. Radway was arguing that the Comprehensive Plan was wrong, but the original proposal was for this to be even lower than the current zoning.
Mr. Copenhauer explained that the surrounding neighbors were concerned that traffic patterns would be disrupted and that the character of what is now a solidly residential area would be changed. He added that they were concerned about having a continuous transient population at a hotel that would compromise the safety and welfare of their children. Mr. Copenhauer also recommended that the Council consider a 1,000-1,500-foot contiguous boundary rather than the minimum of 500 feet.
Builder David McFarling said that this was one of the last pieces of his great-grandfather's dairy farm. He expressed concerns about traffic congestion and light pollution. Mr. McFarling stated that this was not the right project for this piece of property, which is located in a completely residential neighborhood. He argued that commercial buildings breed commercial buildings, because approving one sets a precedent. Mr. McFarling explained that he had been planning to develop low-density condominiums on land that he owns nearby, but he probably will develop it commercially if this project is approved. Approval of this would negate everything he has tried to do to maintain the nice residential neighborhood, he said.
Hugh McFarling reviewed the history and division of his grandfather's dairy farm. This was a true residential neighborhood, he said, adding that the 13-acre parcel in question was not an island unto itself. He questioned whether anyone would want to own a condo in a hotel parking lot and described that proposal as a devious method of getting a commercial office building on a residential lot in a residential community. If a property is taxed as a hotel, Mr. McFarling said, then it must be a commercial hotel. He then objected to the Town’s Planning Board Chair representing the applicant and asserted that this constitutes a conflict of interest.
Jeff Fendt said that he would support the construction of this Residence Inn if it were the last parcel of undeveloped land in this section of Chapel Hill. But there were two sections of undeveloped land across from and north of this site, he said. Mr. Fendt predicted that approving this application would lead to the surrounding areas being developed as commercial sites as well. He asked Council members to step back and look at an overall plan, such as affordable housing, that would best suit the needs of the citizens of Chapel Hill.
Dan Larue, representing the Kirkwood Homeowners' Association, reported that 62 Kirkwood residents had voted unanimously to oppose any commercial development on this site. He referred to Summit Hospitality's application process as "mission creep," adding that the applicant had attempted to sneak the project in under the radar. Mr. Larue said that the hotel would add to traffic congestion on Erwin Road and was not appropriate to the surrounding uses.
Dave Berglund showed slides of traffic congestion on a typical day. He pointed out that there were times when access to neighborhoods was blocked by stalled traffic, and noted that school buses must wait in traffic on a road where there are frequent accidents. Mr. Berglund said that these pictures were worth a thousand words.
Harvey Krasny tead his written request to the Council not to consider more mixed-use development in the area. Dr. Krasny expressed appreciation to the applicant for trying to adapt to neighborhood concerns but pointed out that Summit Hospitality executives would not have to deal with the traffic, pollution and noise that the neighbors would confront. He stated that this location is not the right place for the project because the price is too great. Dr. Krasny explained that the traffic situation threatens neighborhood safety and argued that there is no infrastructure to support a hotel in the area. Area residents would be the losers in the long run, he said. He stated that high-density development would negatively impact the right that citizens have to the quiet enjoyment of their living space in Chapel Hill. Dr. Krasny also asked Council members to direct the staff to determine whether the drainage feature on the northern part of the property was an intermittent stream.
Mac Clarke said that previous speakers had covered most of his remarks. He asked the Council to concentrate on the history of the lot and to determine why it had not reverted back to R-2 after the assisted living proposal lapsed. Mr. Clarke asserted that the applicant had tried to exploit the loophole by converting the project into a mixed-use development. He asked Council members to consider a substantial extension of the contiguous area to 1,000 feet or more because the traffic impact extends far beyond the actual site of the development.
Sally Greene, Vice Chair of the Planning Board, stated that Mr. Radway had been very careful about recusing himself every time this project had come up at Board meetings. She added that she would have made the Planning Board's presentation herself if there had been one prepared. Ms. Greene also stated that she had recused herself from Planning Board discussions of the Creekside projects, since she lives in that neighborhood.
Mayor Foy asked for a clearer explanation of the R-3C designation, and Mr. Waldon replied that it means conditional use zoning at R-3 levels of intensity. According to the ordinance at the time, Mr. Waldon said, zoning is locked in once an applicant gets a SUP under that zoning. There is no provision in the ordinance for reverting back to what it was before, he explained, but pointed out that the new LUMO does contain a reversion provision. So, R-3 intensity levels apply to the property in question and there can be no development on it without Council approval of a SUP, he said. Mr. Waldon noted that another provision in the ordinance allows for planned developments to occur on any parcel of land that is at least five acres in size. He added that the applicant's proposal was for a mixed-use, planned development, which can go in a residential district if the Council makes the four required findings.
Council Member Bateman said that she was very disturbed that the application was trying to come off as a mixed-use development. She asked the staff whether the Town had a specific ratio for mixed use that this application was violating. Mr. Waldon replied, yes and no. Those kinds of ratios are in the mixed use zoning districts, but this is a mixed-use planned development proposal, which is different, he said.
Council Member Bateman asked if the site would revert to R-2 if the Council denied the application. Mr. Karpinos explained that it would not revert but that the Council had discretion to consider rezoning it to another zoning district.
Council Member Bateman wondered how much traffic would be generated by a residential development on the site, adding that allowing more traffic before the superstreet was constructed would be dangerous. Mr. Karpinos said that even residential developments would require a SUP under the current conditional use zoning.
Mayor Foy commented that the Council usually sees a rezoning request along with an application for a SUP. But in this case, he said, it is already zoned for a SUP and whatever comes to the Council has to be built under a SUP unless the Council rezones it back to R-2. Therefore, said Mayor Foy, an applicant cannot know what he can build until he brings a proposal to the staff and Council. It is all theoretical, Mayor Foy pointed out, because you could build anything if you got the Council's approval.
Mr. Karpinos stated that the new LUMO would give the Council broader discretion to modify regulations in the context of a SUP.
Council Member Harrison said that he had previously seen this application at a Transportation Board meeting. He said that Mr. Radway had explained to the Transportation Board that the current ordinance forces the applicant to come in with a mix of uses because there is no provision that allows the Council to modify standards for a SUP. Council Member Harrison commented that this application could likely come back as a hotel under the new ordinance. It might be easier then for the Council to figure out how to apply standards, he said.
Council Member Ward asked the staff to evaluate a typical project on this property based on R-3 zoning. This might give Council members a means of weighing the impacts that another development would have, he said, and to compare it to the current application. Mr. Waldon replied that preparing this would be so difficult as to border on the impossible. He said that the staff could calculate trip generation, but that it would be almost impossible to do an impervious surface evaluation of a hypothetical development.
Council Member Ward replied that even a staff evaluation of the graph that Mr. Radway had presented would help. Mr. Horton clarified that Council Member Ward was trying to get some sense of what outcomes would occur with a development that would be allowed by the zoning as it was contemplated in the Land Use Plan. Council Member Ward suggested using one of the neighboring properties as an example, since neighbors had argued that this is what should be built there.
Council Member Ward asked if construction and occupancy of any development there would coordinate with completion of the superstreet. He also asked Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli to give an overview of the traffic impact study. Mr. Horton suggested that Mr. Neppalli comment on how this piece fits into the superstreet study and that the engineer who prepared the traffic study answer questions as well.
Mr. Neppalli said that the build-out date of the proposed site was 2004, the same date that the superstreet was scheduled for construction. The superstreet should be completed in early 2005, he said. Council Member Ward asked if the staff could coordinate those two projects so that the development would not come on line before the infrastructure to support it. Mr. Horton replied that Mr. Karpinos would work with the staff to see if that connection could be made. Mr. Karpinos thought the issue had come up before, regarding the Europa Hotel, and had been dealt with, and agreed to check on it.
Transportation engineer Jay Clapp, of Ramey Kemp & Associates, gave a brief overview of the traffic study. He said that the NCDOT had proposed building a superstreet to correct the problems at this intersection. With the new design, Mr. Clapp said, the area will operate at an overall service level C or better during peak hours. He said that the traffic analysis had projected out to 2005 and had included five adjacent developments. This development could generate 60-70 vehicles during peak hours, Mr. Clapp explained, which means that it would add about one vehicle per minute to Erwin Road. He stated that his analysis had shown that this project would have minimum impact, such as a maximum delay of one second at intersections.
Council Member Harrison stated that the NCDOT had determined where the driveway would be located before the traffic impact study had been done. He commented that all of the advisory boards had thought the entrance should be farther up Erwin Road. Mr. Neppalli explained that both the superstreet project and the proposed development would include adding a new lane on Erwin Road at Highway 15-501. This will increase the stacking distance for vehicles and it dictates the location for the entrance, he said.
Council Member Wiggins said that the bottom line was that the traffic was so bad there that this project would not make it noticeably worse. Mr. Clapp replied that the superstreet was expected to improve the traffic situation from a level D to a level C.
Council Member Verkerk questioned whether the NCDOT could actually build a superstreet in two years. Mr. Neppalli explained that the construction starting date had been pushed to 2004. It would take nine to twelve months to complete the superstreet, he said, and the NCDOT had said that it would be completed in late 2005. Council Member Verkerk determined that the hotel and superstreet would be constructed simultaneously if they stayed on their proposed schedules.
Council Member Ward verified with Mr. Neppalli that the traffic analysis had assumed widening Weaver Dairy Road to four lanes and connecting it to Erwin Road.
Council Member Strom verified that the traffic analysis depended on the Sage Road connector being completed. Mr. Neppalli corrected what he had previously said, and explained that the traffic analysis did not include connecting Weaver Dairy Road to Sage Road. The analysis had projected, though, that the level of service on the superstreet in 2013-2014 would revert to E without that connection, he said.
Council Member Strom asked what the performance level of this intersection would be if the Sage Road connector were not available. Mr. Neppalli agreed to bring back that information.
David McFarling commented that this plan depends on federal approval of the Erwin Road and Weaver Dairy Road projects. So the current conversation was based on mere supposition, he said.
Dr. Krasny noted that most cars coming off Weaver Dairy Road turn right onto Erwin Road rather than left to Sage Road. He predicted that people would continue to take the Erwin Road route to Highway 15-501.
Mr. Radway explained that the baseline in the comparison chart that he had displayed was 79,000 square feet. He pointed out that the Dobbins Drive realignment and the Erwin Road improvements were on the NCDOT schedule to be constructed before the start of school in the fall of 2003. This means that there will be a continuous, safe service road running along the north side of Highway 15-501 while the superstreet is being constructed, and Mr. Radway emphasized that those two improvements would be done before the superstreet. He indicated on the map how vehicles would turn into the development, stressing that these traffic improvements and the superstreet would provide the neighborhood with significant relief.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY AT 1,500 FEET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE FOR THE MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN HOTEL (2003-01-22/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 Special Use Permit/Planned Development-Mixed Use application proposed by Summit Hospitality Group, Ltd., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 27, Block A, Lot 3 (PIN # 9799-48-0252), if developed according to the site plan dated January 13, 2003, and the conditions in the Memorandum from Radway and Weaver dated January 8, 2003, hereby determines, for purposes of Land Use Management 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 within 1,500 feet of the site.
This the 22nd day of January, 2003.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 3, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
Mayor Foy reminded the staff about Dr. Krasny's question regarding intermittent streams. Mr. Horton agreed to address that.
Item 3—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Phase 2 Permit Application
Council Member Wiggins, noting that the Council had a packet of information on this item, proposed that a staff presentation probably would not help the public understand the issue. Mr. Horton agreed that the item was not easily simplified.
The item was referred to the Manager and Attorney by consensus of the Council.
Item 4—Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance–
Memorandum of Understanding and Model Ordinance
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the Council had approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) last spring. After all of the parties have executed it, those with land use regulation authority can move to adopt an ordinance, he said. Mr. Waldon noted the staff's recommendation that the Council consider approving an addendum and readopting the MOU with that new language. He further recommended that the Council adopt language requiring applicants pursuing residential development to get a Certificate of Adequate Public Schools.
Planning Board Chair Scott Radway reported that the Board supported the amended language with the assumption that it will be inserted within the document and not left as an addendum. He pointed out that the Planning Board was on record in favor of adopting the model ordinance, but they would like clarification on whether it will be adopted concurrent with the LUMO or delayed. Mr. Waldon replied that the Council would not vote on this when it votes on the LUMO on January 27, 2003. The Council will incorporate it into the LUMO when it comes back to them on February 10, 2003, he said.
Council Member Bateman inquired about the effective date. Mr. Waldon replied that the staff would provide that when the item comes back on February 10th. He said that the date should be in March or April. Mayor Foy noted that it had to be effective simultaneously with the partners.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FEBRUARY 10, 2003. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:21 p.m.