SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, MAY 19, 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, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Town Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Acting Town Clerk Sandy Cook.

Public Hearing

Item 1- Duplex Regulations:

Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment

Town Planning Director Roger Waldon gave a brief summary of what lead to an amendment to the Town's former development ordinance, now the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). He explained that the amendment had prohibited construction of new duplexes in R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. But the Council had viewed this prohibition as somewhat of a blunt instrument, he said, and had intended to fine tune it with further discussion. Mr. Waldon explained that the Council had set a duplex prohibition expiration date of June 30, 2003. Since they were approaching that date, he said, they were holding tonight's public hearing.

Mr. Waldon explained that the Town had not moved as far in its discussion of the duplex issue as it had intended. He explained that this was because of delays in enacting the LUMO and in beginning work for the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District. He stated that the staff's main recommendation tonight was to extend the sunset provision, and suggested tailoring recommendations for Northside first and for the wider community later. Mr. Waldon noted that another alternative would be for the Council to take no action at all, thus allowing the duplex provisions to expire on June 30th. Another choice would be to make some changes now, he said, and he outlined a number of options for doing so.

· Comments from Planning Board

Planning Board Chair Scott Radway addressed the three options that Mr. Waldon had outlined: taking no action, making changes, or extending the sunset date. Mr. Radway read the Planning Board's report recommending that the Council extend the sunset date to February 29, 2004, or earlier, to allow time for the Northside Steering Committee to prepare recommendations and the Town Council to act on those recommendations. He said that the Board had voted 8-2 for that motion. The strong concern of the two who had voted against it, as well as others who had voted for it, he said, was that the process does not extend beyond February 29^th. Mr. Radway pointed out that the Planning Board was on record as wanting to ensure that duplex housing remained an option in Chapel Hill and that it addresses some of the affordable housing issues.

Northside Neighborhood Conservation District Advisory Committee Chair Delores Bailey stated that the Board had held its first official meeting on May 15, 2003. The next meeting is scheduled for June 19, 2003, she said. Ms. Bailey explained that the June 30^th deadline would not give the Committee enough time to make recommendations about the duplex issue as it pertains to Northside. She asked the Council for more time to adequately address the issue, which she described as one of the first on the Committee's list of goals. Ms. Bailey said that the Committee had voted unanimously in support of the staff's recommendation to extend the deadline to February 2004.

Coolidge Street resident and former Council Member Joe Capowski explained that he lives in the Westwood Neighborhood, which includes old typical brick duplexes. He showed a slide of one such duplex, which is 575 square feet per side and rents for $650 per month, per side. This is truly affordable housing, he said, "and we love it." Mr. Capowski noted that when he was a Town Council member in 1999, the Council had voted to approve a subdivision at the end of Coolidge Street and Pine Bluff Trail, which they knew would generate duplexes. He had expected those duplexes to be like the one he had just shown, he said, but the proposal came in for seven 6,040 square-foot duplexes that would rent for a total of $57,600 per year, per duplex. He showed slides of that unpaved area and asked Council members to imagine what it would look like with 56 SUVs parked there.

Mr. Capowski argued that landlords should provide for the cars of their tenants and reduce the amount of housing if there is not enough parking space. Above all, he said, landlords should not allow parking to overflow onto nearby streets and lots. Mr. Capowski explained that the Westwood area is zoned R-2. He asked Council members not to change the intensity, but requested that they go through a rigorous process, if they do change it, rather than letting it happen de facto by allowing something such as higher intensity duplexes. Mr. Capowski explained that he was in "total sympathy" with the problems of Northside and other historic districts. But, he argued, this is an issue wider than just those neighborhoods. Mr. Capowski asked Council members not to use an historic district mechanism or a "Northside only" mechanism to solve the wider problem.

Mr. Capowski displayed slides showing the steep topography at the end of Coolidge Street. He argued that it was not possible to limit the size of duplexes by using floor area ratios alone. Mr. Capowski advised Council members to use absolute numericaps, and expressed support for the Town Manager's recommendation of 1,000 square feet per side. In summary, Mr. Capowski said that he supported Resolutions A, B or C, and he cautioned Council members that the situation would get worse as UNC continues to grow.

Mr. Horton explained that this item would come back for action on June 9, 2003.

Council Member Bateman asked if the February 29^th date had been proposed by the staff or by the Northside Committee. Mr. Waldon replied that the staff had expected it to take as much as six months for the Northside recommendations to get to the Council. That would be at the end of this calendar year, he said, and a public hearing would likely be held in January 2004. The Council would then be in a position to take action in February, he said. Mr. Waldon added, though, that if the issues come together easily and quickly before that date then the staff would bring the matter back to the Council earlier.

Council Member Bateman encouraged those involved to work diligently to make the February deadline. She expressed hope that Council members who had worked on it would still be in office when it is enacted.

Council Member Ward asked that everyone be expeditious about the next deadline. He also requested that this be one of the first issues the Committee takes up. Council Member Ward agreed with Mr. Capowski that a variety of duplex situations will not be addressed by Northside's solution alone. The Town needs to get feedback from Northside quickly, he said, so the Council and staff can actively pursue it.

Mr. Horton stated that he would stand by the recommendations that the staff was submitting to the Council for adoption tonight.

Council Member Kleinschmidt ascertained that those recommendations were identified as Ordinance B.

Mayor Foy clarified that at the end of the process Northside's conservation district designation could be different from these ordinances. But these ordinances could be adopted simultaneously, he said, so that the entire Town's duplex rules would be different than they are now.

Mayor pro tem Evans asked for clarification of which entity was being asked to work diligently. Mr. Horton explained that the staff had completed its work and that the Northside group that is developing the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District was leading the remaining work. Mayor pro tem Evans verified Northside's overlay district could be different from the rest of the Town. She noted that certain design and parking features can make a duplex compatible with neighborhoods that do not have them.

Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that one Council goal was to have a variety of housing styles in neighborhoods. But she suggested that neighborhood homes have a compatible design so that some do not feel as though they stand out as different. Mayor pro tem Evans wondered which entity might address this issue. She commented that it seemed as though there was a lack of interchange and communication regarding this.

Council Member Bateman noted that Robert Dowling, director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, had suggested that duplexes be a permitted use in any zoning district if they are placed in the Land Trust. She described this as a "very promising idea" and asked for some staff discussion of it. Council Member Bateman also asked for clarification of whether the Town must wait until February to enact provisions that the staff has already given for duplexes. Mayor Foy replied that the Council could do that in June. But then the difficulty would be that those rules would apply to Northside, he said, explaining that the Manager was recommending a moratorium so the two could coincide. Council Member Bateman replied that she would not push to go ahead then. Northside has had an onslaught of duplexes, she said, and that neighborhood needs to do a thorough job.

COUNCIL MEMBER EDITH WIGGINS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE HEARING. COUNCIL MEMBER BILL STROM SECONDED.

Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the Manager would bring back a response to how people could offer suggestions for the drafting of these regulations. Mr. Horton agreed to do so.

Council Member Wiggins expressed hope that all of the vulnerable neighborhoods in Town would know that the Council has a draft and would work with the staff before this project gets to the final stages.

Council Member Strom ascertained from Mr. Horton that June 9, 2003, was a realistic date for this to come back to the Council. Council Member Wiggins agreed to include that as a friendly amendment, and restated her motion.

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT THE JUNE 9, 2003 MEETING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Concept Plan Reviews

Item 2 - Concept Plan Review: UNC Campus and Print Services Facility

Principal Planner Gene Poveromo summarized the proposal for a 24,400 square-foot printing service facility for the University of North Carolina on a 7.5-acre site on the south side of Estes Drive Extension. The proposal was for 67 on-site parking spaces, he said, and the current zoning was Office/Institutional-2 (OI-2). Mr. Poveromo explained that the Community Design Commission (CDC) had reviewed a different proposal for this site in May 2002. The University had subsequently amended that proposal in response to feedback from neighbors and the CDC, he said. Mr. Poveromo explained that tonight's proposal was a modification of the May 2002 proposal and that the CDC's 2002 comments were attached. The staff's recommendation, he said, was that the Council review the concept plan, receive the CDC's comments, and adopt the resolution transmitting comments to the applicant.

Council Member Harrison emphasized that the CDC comments were from before the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) had been adopted.

UNC representative Bruce Runberg explained that the University had changed this plan after meeting with great resistance from neighbors. UNC was going forward with the print shop, he said, adding that this was a permitted and appropriate use. Mr. Runberg noted that there were remaining concerns among neighbors regarding this development. He emphasized that the University wants to work with the neighbors in that regard. Mr. Runberg submitted a request for expedited review because of the delays and the project's time sensitive nature.

UNC's Director of Facilities Planning Anna Wu showed slides and described the topography of the land, which she said is zoned both OI-2 and OI-3. She explained that the OI-2 section of the parcel would contain the proposed development. Ms. Wu acknowledged that there were stormwater issues that UNC must address to be in compliance with the new LUMO. She outlined UNC's proposal for a one-story building with administrative offices and a printing facility. Ms. Wu pointed out that there would be one access from Estes Drive, as well as service parking to the north and staff parking to the west.

Council Member Strom asked if the LUMO required that the CDC see concept plans before an application is submitted. Mr. Horton replied that the CDC had already seen this concept plan and had offered feedback. That feedback has been taken into consideration as UNC worked with the neighbors and others to put forward an improved design, he said. Mr. Horton added that it would not be called for to go back to the CDC, noting that there were no substantial changes that would make this a different application. Council Member Strom determined that the Council could refer their own and citizens comments to the CDC if they chose.

Teresa Burke, a neighbor of the proposed project, pointed out that the neighborhood was diverse and that many who live in the area surrounding the proposed building were concerned even though they were not present at Council meetings. She asked that the process be opened up in the way that she had recommended to the Elkin Hills Organizing Committee. Ms. Burke mentioned traffic, pollution, runoff, and erosion problems on her property, as well as wildlife and noise problems in the area.

Fred Stang, representing the Elkin Hills community, thanked UNC Chancellor Moeser for deciding not to build a fuel and maintenance facility on the site. He described that as a wise decision that the neighborhood was very happy about, and thanked the Town staff for treating neighbors with respect. Mr. Stang expressed concern about stormwater runoff, explaining that much of the land was not permeable. He predicted that stormwater runoff would continue to be an issue as the University develops this property. Mr. Stang disagreed with a statement in the application that said there were no hydrological features. He proposed that intermediate and perennial channels, and associated wetlands, ran through the property, and suggested that the Army Corps of Engineers identify whether or not those features exist.

Mr. Stang pointed out that much of the land had been cleared for development on Airport Drive. He said that neighbors understand that the University has a right to build there. But their goal is to retain the neighborhood feel, he said, pointing out that adequate buffers will be critical to that. Mr. Stang noted that the University had said it would use permeable surfaces. But much of that water will seep down into the ground, he said, adding that limiting parking would alleviate some of that problem. The neighborhood assumes that the University will maintain the highest standards when dealing with chemical byproducts, said Mr. Stang. He expressed concern about how the plot was being developed piecemeal. An overall master plan might give the neighborhood a better idea of what will be there, he said.

Diane Vandenbroek commented on building construction, noting that there had been quite a bit of noise coming from the site at 6:50 a.m. on a Sunday morning. She said that she did not think a printing service was permitted in R-2 under the LUMO. But, changing the zoning could enable them to put in something else equally bad, Ms. Vandenbroek said.

Elkin Hill’s resident Carmen Elliott expressed concern about the two perennial streams and the fragility of this piece of property. She commented that the water and soil, and everything that lives on it, have had a difficult life there and that deep erosion ditches exist in the area. Ms. Elliott requested that the Town have the Army Corps of Engineers check the land before anyone begins building on it. She felt nervous not knowing what else UNC was planning to put there, she said, and how much space will be taken by it. With regard to the plan itself, Ms. Elliott expressed a preference for a two-story parking building so that parking would not be spread over so much land. She commented on the park and ride lot across the street and suggested that 50 spaces might be carved out for employees there. Ms. Elliott recommended preserving as much land as possible rather than paving it over and "using it" as some have suggested.

Paul Killough, noting that his house was located close to the site, urged Council members to have UNC clear as little of the buffers as possible. Universities make good neighbors, he said, because they tend to be open with free access. Mr. Killough requested that this development be open as well rather than separated off by chain-link fencing.

Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed appreciation for the University's openness to neighbors' comments and for redesigning their plan accordingly. But he wondered about the plan to have the truck bay on the back side of the building, given the amount of noise that trucks can make. Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested putting the parking in front so that the building itself would serve as a noise buffer.

Council Member Verkerk commented that this is not an "us versus them" situation, noting that faculty, students and staff live in the neighborhood. She praised the University for responding to neighbors' concerns.

Council Member Ward also thanked the University for addressing neighborhood concerns. He noted that the part of the design closest to the neighborhood probably is the most active part, since the loading dock is situated there. Council Member Ward agreed that pivoting or moving that building would improve the plant. He also wondered if the park and ride lot could serve employees thus reducing parking demands.

Council Member Ward inquired about fencing materials and recommended considering easy access to the park and ride by foot. He asked for clarification of what the last sentence on page 11 ("the University's current maintenance and operation plan will be imposed at this project site") meant. Ms. Wu explained that the statement was explicitly addressing stormwater maintenance. Mr. Horton added that it meant that the University's normal maintenance of stormwater management would apply to this area in the same manner as the rest of the UNC campus.

Council Member Harrison described this as a significant improvement over the concept plan proposed last year. It much more closely resembles what the Town considers OI-2 to be, he said. Council Member Harrison noted that a large solid structure is the best noise barrier and agreed with other Council members about the location of trucks. He commented that this is in the OI-2 part of the site, but it does not say that on the concept plan application. Council Member Harrison stated that he had not found the soils analysis in the report and that what is labeled on the map as a swale is a hydrologic feature. He asked for more information about steams and buffers on the site even though that information is not required of a concept plan. Council Member Harrison added that it would help to have a connection for pedestrians and cyclists up to Airport Drive or Estes Drive. That would get people by foot to the to the park and ride lot as well, he pointed out.

Council Member Strom thanked the University for being flexible and collaborative. He also thanked the neighbors for their thoughtful remarks and said that he agreed with other Council members' comments. Council Member Strom pointed out that this is a very highly developed concept plan, but he expressed concern about the "piecemeal development style." He encouraged UNC to give a clearer indication of its future plans’ footprints. The plan seems like a typical suburban design, said Council Member Strom, and he asked UNC to consider the LUMO goals in its overall approach.

Mayor Foy agreed with Council Member Strom's observation, adding that as density increases in the Carolina North area the Town wants to encourage public transportation. He noted that this is achieved by placing buildings closer to the road, and suggested that the University consider doing that. Mayor Foy also wondered if the 67 parking spaces fit into an overall master plan. He asked to know at some point what the rationale or justification is for that many parking spaces.

Council Member Ward proposed that the Town accept the University's offer on page 8 ("the site will be designed utilizing BMPs to enhance the existing stormwater conditions"), pointing out that the existing conditions were not working for downhill residents.

Council Member Verkerk remarked that the University had done a marvelous job of backing public transportation. She suggested that they limit parking on their satellite campuses in the same way that they have on their main campus.

Council Member Wiggins asked if the University was required to abide by the Town's new tree ordinance. Mr. Poveromo replied that the University had shown areas that it planned to preserve, including a 200 foot buffer on Airport Road, and areas that it would clear when its Airport Drive Office Building Special Use Permit (SUP) was before the Council. Council Member Wiggins clarified that she merely wanted to know if the University would have to abide by the Town's tree ordinance when it develops this part of the property. Mr. Poveromo explained that the University would identify significant trees and tree stands as part of the SUP process and would tell the Town which ones they plan to preserve. Council Member Wiggins suggested that the University plan to tuck the building in among that nice stand of trees.

Mr. Horton pointed out that his previous comments about the CDC review applied solely to concept plan process. He noted that this plan would go back to the CDC during the SUP process.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-1 TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS OT THE APPLICANT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE UNIVERISTY OF NORTH CAROLINA CAMPUS AND PRINT SERVICES FACILITIES (2003-05-19/R-1)

WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, proposing general development plans for a project on Estes Drive Extension, on property owned by the University of North Carolina, called Campus and Print Services Facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations from the applicant, the Community Design Commission, and citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussion on May 19, 2003, and reflected in the minutes of that meeting.

This the 19^th day of May, 2003.

Item 3 - Concept Plan Review: Montclair Estates

Mr. Poveromo described the proposed 16-lot development on 12 acres that are zoned R-2. He showed the surrounding neighborhoods on the map and stated that the CDC had reviewed the proposal on October 29, 2002. Mr. Poveromo explained that the concept plan before the Council was different from that which the CDC had reviewed and that those differences were noted on page three. He recommended that the Council review the proposal, receive the attached comments from the CDC, and adopt the resolution transmitting comments to the applicant.

Consultant Phil Post, representing Cazco, Inc., explained that the plan being presented was slightly different from that which had been seen by the CDC. The roads were in the same place, he said, and the lot configurations and connectivity were the same as before, noting that some of the most important aspects that the CDC had reviewed had been preserved. He explained that the proposed changes were the result of new LUMO requirements regarding floor area size restrictions for some of the units.

Mr. Post proposed a density of 1.65 units per acre, noting that the LUMO allows up to 3 units per acre. He pointed out that the plan was for 1.26 acres of open space even though the LUMO requirement is for .8 acres.

Mr. Post described this as a standard subdivision application with no request for rezoning and no exception to LUMO regulations. He stated that the applicant had met or exceeded all LUMO requirements.

Mr. Post described the property as notable for its wonderful hardwoods, which the applicant intends to preserve. He stated that the site would provide a pedestrian-oriented community that would be connected to other communities, schools, and buses to the downtown. Mr. Post noted that the property slopes down to Morgan Creek and that there is an Resource Conservation District (RCD) associated with that. But the closest RCD is 450 to 500 feet from the nearest point on this property, he said. Mr. Post indicated the location of a proposed stub-out to the conservation area.

Mr. Post said that the applicant was in conformance with the approved street plan for the area. He showed areas of proposed open space and an easement on sloping land between two lots. Mr. Post indicated areas of steep slopes at the rear of lots and explained that there should not be a need for disturbance in any of those areas. He commented on a LUMO provision that 25% of the dwelling units be less than 1,350 square feet. This meant that the applicant would be required to have five size-restricted units, he said. In R-1 zoning, Mr. Post pointed out, a lot is eligible for a single-family dwelling and an accessory apartment if the size gets close to 28,000 square feet. So, Mr. Post said, this development proposes to meet that requirement by having five accessory apartments, on lots 4, 5, 9, 11 and 12.

Council Member Strom praised the applicant for being concerned about meeting the LUMO requirements. But he expressed surprise over the option the applicant was bringing forward, given the 15% affordable residences option that the same applicant had chosen for its Larkspur development. Council Member Strom added that the applicant's accessory apartments proposal also surprised him, since the Council had discussed that and had decided that it was not an acceptable affordable housing approach. Mr. Post replied that the applicant had made no claim that these were affordable units. He noted that the LUMO gives the option of either offering affordable housing or restricting size. Montclair Estates is a much smaller development than Larkspur, he said, and the developer had chosen the size restrictions instead.

Council Member Strom asked that the developer, Carol Ann Zinn, think about ownership as a possibility here. He also asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos for feedback at some point regarding the LUMO's intent versus the reading they were getting from this applicant regarding size restrictions. Ms. Zinn commented that she had been happy to build affordable housing at Larkspur, which has a total of 86 lots. She had provided 13 affordable lots at a cost of about $1 million, she said. Ms. Zinn noted that her contribution to the community had been quite large, and that she had been willing to do that because it was reasonable. But this 11-lot proposal falls under a new ordinance, said Ms. Zinn. She told Council members that Montclair Estates neighbor, Morgan Estates, had made a payment-in-lieu of was $55,000. But her payment-in-lieu under the new LUMO would be about $330,000. Ms. Zinn argued that this would not be a reasonable alternative for Montclair Estates even though it has the same amount of land as Morgan Estates. Ms. Zinn explained that they hope to satisfy the restricted size ordinance with the apartments, adding that such apartments would contribute to the diversity of housing in this community.

Mayor pro tem Evans commented that Montclair Estates would be ideally suited for accessory apartments, noting that there is a school nearby and that it would be a great rental space for a teacher. She pointed out that nice accessory apartments were few and far between in Chapel Hill.

Council Member Bateman determined that these were attached basement apartments with two bedrooms. She commented that it seemed as though this would make the large main unit larger. Ms. Zinn replied that that total amount of square footage was allowed on that amount of acreage. So they were not altering the Town's requirements, she said. Ms. Zinn said that being located on a slope made these five lots ideal for basement apartments.

Council Member Bateman stated that this did not meet the Small House Ordinance, but Mr. Post replied that it did. The ordinance requires that 20 dwelling units include five that are small, he said, so there would be an accessory apartment underneath five of the houses.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if the staff thought this proposal fits the LUMO, but Mr. Horton replied that the staff had not yet reviewed it. He said that he would be very interested in hearing Mr. Post's explanation of how it does meet the LUMO because his own impression is that doing so would be quite challenging.

Council Member Verkerk requested information on whether or not having an accessory apartment would make the larger house more affordable since the rental income could be applied to the mortgage.

Council Member Kleinschmidt quipped that it might make it more affordable for those in the 125^th percentile. Ms. Zinn replied that there is the potential for any home to be more affordable if it has a rental apartment. But these would primarily be custom houses, she said. Ms. Zinn asked her son, Adam Zinn, to explain why this is a reasonable approach. Mr. Zinn remarked that the R-1 guidelines state that a lot of a certain size can accommodate another dwelling unit.

Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that Council Member Verkerk had been creating an argument for how the Town could create affordable housing for extremely wealthy people, since these houses probably would cost more than $450,000. These are not the people he thinks about when he thinks about the need for affordable housing, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt added that he had seen a number of “mother-in-law” apartments become integrated into the house. There is no way to assure continued separation between the "now more affordable very large house" and the smaller housing unit, he said.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if it would be possible to separate the smaller units. Ms. Zinn replied that this terrain lends itself to basement apartments. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how the 15% affordable units might work. Ms. Zinn replied that they would not do that in this situation because the loss could not be absorbed by the development. She added that she understood the Council's concerns and had known when she brought the proposal in that this idea was untested. Ms. Zinn asked Council members to consider that they cannot just go around Town rubber-stamping and trying to make all affordable housing alike.

Mayor Foy noted that Ms. Zinn had expressed frustration over not being able to make the same payment-in-lieu as her neighbor, Morgan Estates, had. He asked her what her desire would be for this development in a perfect world. Ms. Zinn replied that having the same payment-in-lieu as Morgan Estates probably would suffice, since the numbers had worked for them. She described the payment-in-lieu figure under the new LUMO as "undoable," and said that it was a discouragement rather than an encouragement. Mayor Foy verified that as far as Ms. Zinn was concerned nothing could be built there that would be affordable. "It would make the numbers outrageous," she replied.

Council Member Ward suggested that the open green space connect to the road stub-out. That way, there would be a public way for people to get from the stub-out to the existing open space at that property line to the north, he said. Council Member Ward pointed out that the proposed density seemed similar to Creekside. He said that some of the dimensions that had worked for Creekside might be applicable to this development as well. Ms. Zinn agreed to look into both of those issues.

Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked that the Small House Ordinance and the 15% provision are two different tools. They are both in the LUMO because he and other Council members believe that affordable units should be part of every neighborhood in Town, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt added that affordable units should be included in ways that are accommodating to neighborhoods, but he emphasized that they should be a primary goal of every development. He described this concept plan as offensive to the intent of the LUMO even if it does comply with the letter of LUMO.

Council Member Wiggins stated that she understood that Ms. Zinn did not have a problem with the Town's desire to create affordable units. What the applicant was having difficulty with, she said, was the fact that the development next door was able to pay $55,000 in lieu and that she must pay more than $350,000. Council Member Wiggins suggested that the Council discuss how the Town could make this more equitable.

Council Member Harrison commented that, given the topography of this land, this proposal was a rational way to add affordable living space. But he wished the applicant would volunteer to do ten units rather than five, he said.

Council Member Strom praised Mr. Post's clear presentation and asked Mr. Horton if any offsite road improvements would be required at Culbreth. Mr. Horton replied that the staff had not looked at this concept plan because that would be premature in the process.

Council Member Harrison expressed interest in seeing how this would comply with the LUMO, noting that the LUMO does not contain much in terms of guidelines.

Dave Hibbard described the attempt to get higher density as an admirable effort. He noted, however, that doing so would result in lower cost housing that is wedged between developments with $400,000 to $500,000 homes. Mr. Hibbard proposed that separating those affordable units from the houses would increase density on this sliver of land. He asked Council members to consider the market value of the entire area. This is what attracts people to Chapel Hill, and it's why people pay high taxes, he said.

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ADOPT R-2 TRANSMITTING COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE MONTCLAIR ESTATES PROPOSAL (2003-05-19/R-2)

WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, proposing general development plans for a project on Culbreth Road, called Montclair Estates; and

WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations from the applicant, the Community Design Commission, and citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;

This the 19^th day of May, 2003.

Mayor Foy mentioned a worksheet included in the Council's packet, describing it as very helpful.

Council Member Ward asked how the Council could get staff feedback on how to address the difference between pre-LUMO and LUMO payment-in-lieu requirements for affordable housing. Mayor Foy suggested refining Council Member Wiggins's suggestion and finding out if there is flexibility on an unusual situation such as this, where a pre-LUMO development and a LUMO development are located next to each other.

Council Member Strom remarked that he was not ready to start changing the 15% or the 25% requirements. Council Member Ward interjected that he had not suggested changing those. Council Member Strom said that the LUMO had worked on much smaller projects than this, and he cautioned Council members against changing policies.

Council Member Wiggins remarked that she had not recommended a change in policy. It is just that the payments-in-lieu of these two developments, side by side, seemed very unbalanced, she said.

Council Member Ward commented that there probably will be many side by side situations that will have this inequity concern. He suggested coming up with a figure that generates funds to deal with affordable housing in a meaningful way but is not so high that the option is never taken. Council Member Ward agreed that the Town should not overreact to one case. He noted, however, that the plan was to refine the LUMO and make it better for the community. Mr. Horton stated that the staff would consider this and provide a comparison. He said that the comparison would also show what the payment-of-lieu would have been for Morgan Estates if had it been built under the LUMO.

Council Member Harrison petitioned the Council to ask the CDC and the consultants for the Town Operations Center (TOC) for an overall site design that does not exclude the ability to install a pipeline from the Orange County Landfill to convey methane gases into the TOC. He said that he was submitting this with the verbal concurrence of the Sustainable Energy Environment Committee, which includes Council Members Strom, Verkerk and Ward. Council Member Harrison read from an attached memo from Blair Pollock, Orange County's manager for solid waste programs, entitled "Use of Methane Gas from Orange County Landfill in the Town Operations Center." The memo pointed out that the Solid Waste Department was currently venting methane gas into the atmosphere and that no industrial markets had become available for it. Council Member Harrison said that Mr. Pollock argues that methane gas could be used as a fuel source for vehicles, heat, hot water, or as the basis for production of electricity.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN, TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE STAFF AND TO THE TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.