Sum

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 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, 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, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, Engineering Director George Small, Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper, Principal Planner Gordon Sutherland, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1 - Public Hearing on Proposed Land Use Management Ordinance

Text Amendments for Stream Definitions and Verification Criteria

Town Engineering Director George Small presented an overview, stating that Committee Member Dr. Larry Band and Town Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal were available to answer technical questions.

Planning Board Co-Chair Sally Greene reported that the Planning Board had recommended approval (8-1) of the text amendment as set forth by the Technical Advisory Committee. The Board also felt it would be useful to have a team of experts who could render an opinion on perennial and intermittent streams before those issues came before the Council, she said. Ms. Greene added that the Planning Board thought Recommendation #5 on page 33 of the Committee's report was a good addition. She stated that the Board would like to find a way to review and/or contest determinations before they come to the Council rather than as they come to the Council. Ms. Greene recommended that the Council review definitions in one year.

Council Member Strom asked Ms. Greene to explain the one dissenting vote. Ms. Greene replied that one Board member had expressed concerns about how to construct a review panel. Council Member Strom determined that the dissenting Board member had not consulted the Town Attorney regarding this.

Council Member Kleinschmidt described calling for an advisory board review of a staff decision as unusual, and said that he did not feel comfortable with the idea. He asked Ms. Greene to explain how it would work and why she thought it was necessary in this situation, given that the Council does not use such a mechanism in other areas. Ms. Greene referred to a previous conflict with the Creekside neighborhood and pointed out that Creekside had hired a consultant to contradict the staff's determination. Not all neighborhoods have the resources to do that, she pointed out, explaining that this was why the Planning Board thought it would be useful for an advisory committee. The committee could confirm that the staff's determination of an intermittent or perennial stream was correct, such as the Board of Adjustment does, she said. Ms. Greene added that the Planning Board felt that this would institutionalize a level of review in a contested case before the situation comes before the Council.

Sally Greene, speaking as a Creekside resident, argued in favor of constructing the system of review that the Planning Department had recommended. She noted that the Council had been in an uncomfortable position when it had to overrule a staff determination with regard to the Creekside neighborhood. Ms. Greene recommended that the Council find a way to institutionalize a system of review.

Council Member Bateman asked staff members to plainly define ephemeral stream and distinguish that from a ditch. Town Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal explained that an ephemeral stream is in a natural drainageway. A ditch is typically cut across, or at an angel from, a natural drainageway, he said. Council Member Bateman suggested adding "naturally occurring" to the definition, but Mr. Horton suggested not making changes to definitions on the floor.

Mayor Foy recommended referring Council Member Bateman's comment to the staff.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Royal if the text amendments would give him greater clarity and understanding so that he and the staff would likely come to the same conclusions as the Technical Advisory Committee. Mr. Royal replied that greater clarity, and the fact that the Town now uses a system that has been developed and tested by the State, had improved the Town's approach. Council Member Ward recommended observing how the revised text amendments work over the next couple of months and then adjusting as needed.

Mayor pro tem Evans noted that the Council had wanted the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) to be user-friendly. She expressed frustration that definitions of streams had become a political issue. Mayor pro tem Evans asked Mr. Royal for assurance that the new definitions would be clear enough that a similar situation would not occur again. Mr. Horton replied that the staff can never assure the Council that politics will not be involved. But the Town had established scientific standards that can be rigorously applied, he said. Mr. Horton added that people who are familiar with the discipline would be able to read these standards and reach agreement.

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that it was virtually impossible to remove the possibility that reasonable people can disagree, even with clear rules. This is often the essence of when a political decision is necessary, he said.

Mayor Foy noted that the Manager did not agree with the recommendation for a review committee made up of environmental professionals. But the Manager did anticipate using knowledgeable professionals, he said, and he asked Mr. Horton how that would work. Mr. Horton replied that there might be cases where a property owner, or another interested party, would contest a Town determination. In that case, the Town has a number of informed and public-spirited people who would serve on a panel for the purpose of reviewing the facts and rendering an advisory opinion, he said. Mr. Horton noted that someone could still contest a Town decision, at the Board of Adjustment, which is the final appeal body for a staff level decision.

Mayor Foy ascertained that this process would be documented in a way that would allow a reasonable person to review the file and understand what had happened. Mayor Foy recommended that there be language saying that the Manager may seek the advice of knowledgeable experts so that there is some long-term, institutionalized way of proceeding. Mr. Horton agreed to work with the Town Attorney to find a way to do that.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 2 - Public Hearing on Voluntary Annexation of Avalon Park

Planner Gordon Sutherland indicated on a map the 4.6 acres in the Urban Services Boundary near the intersection of High School and Homestead Roads. Property owners had asked to bring this property into the Town Limits, he said, adding that both tests for voluntary annexation had been met. Mr. Sutherland noted that the property was located in the Joint Planning Area of Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Earlier this year the Council had approved subdivision of this land into 10 single-family lots, he said. Mr. Sutherland noted that the Manager was recommending that annexation go forward as of December 31, 2003.

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 10. 2003. THE MOTI0N WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTI0N WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Mayor Foy explained the process for concept plan review, noting that this was the first step in a development application. The next step, he said, is that the applicant would apply for a Special Use Permit, which would be followed by conversations between the applicant and staff. Mayor Foy explained that the permit application would then be referred to the Planning Board, Transportation Board, and other interested advisory boards. There would be a public hearing, which might be recessed until another public hearing, if necessary, and then a decision would be made, he said. Mayor Foy pointed out that tonight was, therefore, the start of a long process for all four applications.

Item 3 - Concept Plan Review: Montessori School

Principal Planner Gene Poveromo noted a corrected to a notice to adjacent property owners, explaining that the existing floor area was 18,000 square feet rather than the 13,000 square feet written on the notification. He stated that the proposed addition would be 19,000 square feet, rather than the 22,000 square feet on the notification.

Mr. Poveromo outlined the proposal to expand the existing elementary school on its 9.4-acre site between Ephesus Church and Old Durham-Chapel Hill Roads. He outlined the proposal for middle school classrooms and a gymnasium expansion, and the plan for new ball fields and changes to stormwater management system. Mr. Poveromo pointed out that the plan differed slightly from the one that the Community Design Commission had reviewed in October 2002.

John Papanikolas, Board President at the Montessori Community School, reviewed the school's history, its planning committee's goals, and its plan based on green technologies. The school's chosen architects and builders were leaders in design based on sustainable technologies, he said. Mr. Papanikolas outlined various project elements, including day lighting, a rainwater catchment system, a solar thermal system, and constructed wetlands. School officials had met with their neighbors, he said, and the neighbors had provided valuable data regarding water runoff issues.

Mr. Papanikolas said that School had met with Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal in November 2002 and made detailed plans, which they had presented to the neighbors in April 2003 and to the Town in June 2003. He described the site's physical aspects and said that the Chapel Hill code had been insufficient for this site and had never worked to anyone's satisfaction. Mr. Papanikolas pointed out that the School had spent nearly $30,000 over the years but had achieved little effect because the water run-off problems stem from multiple factors. He outlined the School's proposal, which included seven state-of-the-art elements to preserve and enhance the environment. Mr. Papanikolas summarized the proposed stormwater management plan and assured the Town that the School would not contribute to downstream drainage problems up to and including the100-year storm.

Montessori Community School Principal Barbara Crockett stated that the School’s educational ideals were reflected in every aspect of its expansion plans. Students would obtain the solid foundation to become environmentally conscious and responsible citizens with a commitment to healthy outdoor and indoor living spaces created with sustainable building practices, she said. Ms. Crockett explained that the School hoped to serve as a model campus by offering a seamless education to children from 2-14 where all space, both indoor and outdoor, is classroom space. She described a campus that would foster love and respect for the natural world. They would use and teach renewable technologies and offer children a myriad of experiences, Ms. Crockett said.

Past Montessori Community School Board President Elizabeth Pungello, the current chair of the Construction Committee, acknowledged that the school’s stormwater management system needed to be improved. The School looks forward to working with its neighbors on finding a win-win situation that addresses the issue in a meaningful way, she said.

Montessori School parent Lisa Walter stated that environmentally friendly, green building practices and sustainable technologies were in accordance with community goals and school principles. She proposed that collecting and reusing rainwater would reduce the effect of stormwater runoff and the use of potable water from the Town's water system. It would also improve the environment and beautify the area, Ms. Walter said. She stated that the School would directly contribute to the goals of the Million Solar Roofs program with its centralized solar heating system. The School would serve as a model in renewable energy and would produce citizens who will continue the work throughout their lives, Ms. Walter said.

Future Montessori Community School middle school teacher Peter Piche explained that the proposed school would be "incredibly unique." It would be based around principles of neighborhood stewardship and on Dr. Montessori's vision for adolescents, he said.

Diane McArthur, a Cross-County Communities Association member who lives on Colony Wood Drive, stated that there had been a long history of problems with the School, including inadequate water detention, flooding of neighborhood properties, and inadequate buffers. These problems date back to 1983, she said, adding that they significantly worsened after the 1995-96 and 1999 expansions. Ms. McArthur stated that the detention ponds had not controlled runoff, and that this had lead to severe flooding and soil erosion for adjacent property owners. The ponds had not been well maintained, she said, noting that the Town had cited the School for a violation in August 2001 and that the northern pond was found to have a breach in 2002.

The ponds create a mosquito problem so bad that neighbors cannot be out in their yards from spring through summer, Ms. McArthur said. She complained that some of the buffers had always been inadequate and that some had no plantings at all. Ms. McArthur argued that tonight's plan was potentially devastating for homeowners. She stated that it was the School's responsibility to repair current drainage, flooding issues and erosion of adjacent properties before proceeding with further expansion.

Newton Drive resident Debbie Andrews remarked that the Montessori project was not the only non-residential development that might negatively impact her neighborhood. Ephesus Baptist Church had presented a concept plan which is moving through the Town's process, she said. Ms. Andrews said that the 162% increase in the Montessori School's square footage would bring a dramatic increase in impervious surface. She requested a watershed analysis of the entire area and careful consideration of the consequences of further development.

Colony Woods Drive resident Denny Cook stated that a large, uncontrolled volume of water from the School had been eroding the property adjacent to it and that a ditch in that area was not adequate to handle the volume of water now running through it. Mr. Cook explained that more than 20 acres of runoff was being directed to one 18-inch pipe, and that the School was responsible for nearly half of that runoff. He said that the Town had refused to increase the size of the pipe because doing so would be too expensive and would transfer the problem downstream.

Mr. Cook noted that neighbors had petitioned the Town four times to let the water out faster, but had been told that doing so was not an option. One option would be to hold the water back, he said, but noted that the School had not maintained its water-retention facilities. Mr. Cook proposed that the School was a candidate for a perpetual maintenance bond, as described in the "Stormwater Impact Statement" and the "Stormwater Management Planning Guidelines" on page four, section 2F of the Land Use Management Ordinance. He also stated that a sewer line runs through one of the detention ponds, and expressed concern about leaking sewage washing onto his property and ultimately downstream.

Roper Lane resident Mike Willock told Council members that all of the drainage from the School washes through his property. He expressed concern about water running into his house. Mr. Willock said that there had been no maintenance of the pond. He displayed slides of the wetland which, he said, breeds snakes and mosquitoes, and asked Council members to authorize a watershed study.

Colony Woods Drive resident Judy Caiola stated that her backyard had continued to deteriorate from bogginess and erosion due to stormwater runoff from the School. Water from the School’s detention pond was not adequately directed away, she said, adding that much of it runs around the pond, around a "once attempted" silt fence, and into a narrow and deteriorating buffer. From there it erodes a deep trench under the School's property line fence and continues about six to eight feet into her property, Ms. Caiola said. There, she said, it forms a dam to the natural runoff through her property and creates a mosquito pond. Ms. Caiola added that stormwater had created 15-inch sinkholes on her property, and that she and family members had fallen into them.

Ms. Caiola displayed slides of water damage and explained that two inches of rain sends a rushing flow intro her yard. Her air conditioning unit had been under water, she said, and water had risen up to about 1/3 of her crawl space. Ms. Caiola asserted that the problem had grown worse after construction of the School. She said that the School had assured her that remedies would be forthcoming, but that little had changed. Ms. Caiola argued against any further expansion until these persistent problems have been addressed.

Colony Woods East resident Judy Betterton said that neither she nor neighbors with whom she had spoken had received any notice of the proposed School expansion. The School's northern detention pond releases water directly into the small stream that travels through her neighborhood, she said, and she and her neighbors were experiencing flooding and drainage problems, which they attribute to the School's previous development. Ms. Betterton predicted that the neighborhood would be in serious trouble if the developer were allowed to expand and direct additional stormwater their way. She commented that the detention ponds on School property, which were supposed to release water within 30 hours, were always filled with stagnant water. The ponds were an unacceptable predevelopment condition that needed to be fixed before anymore expansion is allowed, Ms. Betterton said.

Newton Drive resident Patricia Carstensen expressed concern about the School expanding its facilities while decreasing parking by 10%. She stated that parking for special events already flowed out onto Pope Road. Ms. Carstensen told Council members that she had a 50-foot buffer of woods behind her house only because she carefully negotiated for that during the last School expansion. Nevertheless, she said, she is still bothered by noise and lights coming through that buffer. Ms. Carstensen said that she did not want her neighbors to go through what she has. They do not deserve anything less than 75-100 foot buffers around their properties, she said.

Colony Woods Drive resident Greg Owens explained that his property was adjacent to the concrete drain that carries the runoff from the Montessori School, Newton Drive, and the eastern side of Colony Woods Drive. He has lived there for a year and a half, he said, adding that he was devastated when he learned that his home had a history of flooding problems since School development began in the early 1980s. Mr. Owens noted that a February 2002 memo from the Town Manager had concluded that the Colony Woods drainage system was of obsolete design and that no expansion or improvements would be made to the current system. He then played a videotape, taken on August 11, 2001, which showed heavy flooding across front yards and into a street. Mr. Owens commented that rainfall on the day the video had been taken was only 2.1 inches. The School's plans do not provide sufficient buffers, he said, and they provide no solution to existing drainage problems.

George Cianciolo said that he had been a Community Design Commission member when the Commission reviewed the School's concept plan a year ago. The Commission had expressed concern about the project being too dense for the amount of land and the nature of the surrounding neighborhoods, he said. Yet, the current plan actually increases the density over what the Commission had seen a year ago, Mr. Cianciolo pointed out. He noted that the Commission had felt the proposed 20-foot buffers were inadequate, even though they were allowed by OI-4, because the property backs up to a residential area. Mr. Cianciolo pointed out that the applicant had acknowledged that stormwater management was a serious issue. The fact that the current ponds were not being maintained should be of concern moving forward, he said. Mr. Cianciolo cautioned against the doubling of impervious surface and traffic. Traffic at peak hours on Pope Road should be looked at carefully, he said.

Westminster Drive resident Scott Radway stated that he had been on the Planning Board when they approved the site plan for the current Montessori Community School. He is a Community Design Commission member, he said, so he too had reviewed the concept plan in October 2002. Mr. Radway agreed with Mr. Cianciolo's comments about the Commission's concerns. He said that he also shared many of the concerns of his friends who live near the development. Mr. Radway argued that the current proposal was too intense for the site and that the development would become a problematic neighbor. The existing development already had compromised the quality of life for those immediately south of the property, he said. Mr. Radway argued that the proposed plan would intrude into the quality of life of those living on the western, northern and eastern sides of the main body of the site. It would clear into the minimum 20-foot buffer in order to build the desired development, he said, and this would not protect neighbors from the noise and light of the proposed expansion.

Mr. Radway remarked that it was hard to see how a private school that had disturbed its site to the property line in many locations could satisfy the SUP requirement to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. The concept plan being presented outlined a significant expansion of site disruption from the plan that the Community Design Commission saw, he said. He noted that it would require Commission approval of buffers on virtually every property line. Mr. Radway asked Council members to encourage the applicant to return to the Commission with its revised concept plan, and with a third concept plan that would show how the program could be constructed while providing a responsible buffer in excess of the minimum 20 feet. The site might be too small, he said, adding that the solution would be to reduce the amount of proposed development or find a more suitable location.

Colony Woods resident Dale Coker, a Community Design Commission member who had participated in the October 2002 review of the School's concept plan, expressed concerns in two areas. His first concern was over "existing site dams at risk of failure," and he urged Council members to consider the possibility of current shoddy construction when weighing the merits of the proposed design. Mr. Coker also expressed concern over the "predevelopment runoff threshold." He suggested that the Town Council look at the predevelopment acceptable threshold to which the School must calibrate before coming forward with a serious plan for development.

Council Member Strom asked the Manager and Attorney if the Council could ask the Mayor to appoint a committee to study this concept plan further. Mr. Horton replied that the LUMO does permit that. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos pointed out that the Council would be obligated at some point to adopt a resolution transmitting its preliminary recommendation and comments to the applicant.

Mayor Foy ascertained from Mr. Horton and Mr. Karpinos that such a committee would consist of Council members.

Council Member Bateman asked Council Member Strom to expand upon his proposal. Council Member Strom explained that he was suggesting a committee that might include representatives from the School and the neighborhood. But, if that's not possible, he said, the committee would talk with both parties as it had successfully done in similar circumstances.

Mayor Foy suggested thinking about the long term, noting that it would be to no one's advantage if the concept plan came back in its current condition. He recommended communicating an understanding of what could be done early on. Mayor Foy noted that the Council must formally transmit its recommendations to the applicant before a permit application is made.

Council Member Ward remarked that this application was tethered to several years of history that were not helping it. It needs to be addressed head on, he said, and he asked Mr. Karpinos what discretion the Council had to address existing conditions. Mr. Karpinos replied that the issue would come up when and if a development application were submitted. The general standard is that the applicant is obligated to address the issues with respect to its proposal and the impact of its proposal on existing conditions, Mr. Karpinos said. He pointed out that the applicant was not obligated to solve a general problem in the community.

Council Member Ward said that a Mayor's committee might be able to delve into traffic, buffers and noise problems more deeply. Mr. Horton stated that he would initiate a review to determine whether or not the property was in current compliance with its permit. Mr. Karpinos remarked that existing violations must be addressed by whoever was responsible for them.

Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that she had served on Mayor's committees for both Homestead Road and University Mall projects. But this would be very different, she said, because neighbors and citizens had clearly articulated the problems and the applicant had heard them.

Mayor Foy pointed out that Council members cannot participate in discussions after an applicant applies for a permit until the application formally comes before the Council. He noted that there were significant problems involved and that the Council would have serious reservations if they were seeing the application tonight.

Council Member Bateman expressed sympathy for the neighbors, but pointed out that the School had made a significant contribution to the community and a real difference for children who do not fit into a traditional school setting. Council Member Bateman commended the School for its plan to work with early adolescents, whom she described as the most difficult group of kids. She expressed hope that a compromise would be worked out and that the program would be accomplished in a way that does not impact the neighborhood any further than it has. But the School certainly needs to correct past sins, Council Member Bateman said.

Mayor pro tem Evans encouraged the applicant to look at ways in which the School could be connected to the Colony Woods neighborhood, and recommended that they pursue pedestrian connections to Colony Woods Drive.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, THAT THE COUNCIL ASK THE MAYOR TO APPOINT A COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL CONCEPT PLAN. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Mayor Foy commented that the Council would take time to address the serious problems now rather than waiting until the School comes for a permit. The Committee would try and reach a conclusion about what might be acceptable from the Council's point of view, he said, adding that this was in the interest of both the School and neighborhood.

Council Member Strom added that the committee would engage with neighbors, the applicant, members of the Community Design Commission, staff, and others to arrive at a positive resolution. Mr. Horton said that the staff would conduct a review at the property to determine whether or not it was in compliance with its existing permits.

Item 4 - Concept Plan Review: Chancellors View

Mr. Poveromo noted the location of the proposed 24-lot residential development on 27 acres in Orange County. He displayed a map of the plan that had been presented to the Community Design Commission (CDC) in August 2003 and explained how tonight's plan was slightly different. Mr. Poveromo recommended that Council members hear comments from the CDC, receive public comment, offer suggestions, and adopt the resolution forwarding comments to the applicant.

Phil Post, representing the applicant, Capkov Ventures, Inc., explained that the plan had been modified in response to comments from the CDC. The applicant had increased open space from 50% to 52%, making it a true cluster subdivision, he said. Mr. Post indicated a road stub-out that would likely eventually connect to Highway 15-501. He commented on a proposed connectivity program with public sidewalks and a trail system. Mr. Post showed where three affordable houses would be located along Old Lystra Road. He also indicted where the applicant had added open space along Zapata Lane so that the subdivision would blend in more with the Zapata neighborhood.

Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Post to restate the changes that the applicant had made in response to CDC comments. Mr. Post replied that they had responded to the concern about frontage on Zapata Lane by dedicating more open space. And they had reconfigured the lots, he said. Council Member Harrison verified that this was a schematic idea and that there would be flexibility with regard to the location of roads. Mr. Post noted the advantages of having the smallest number of curb cuts on Old Lystra Road.

Mayor pro tem Evans ascertained that Zapata Lane had been publicly dedicated on the plat and built to public street standards. But, she pointed out, it is a NCDOT road, which means having to go through a process to get NCDOT to accept if for maintenance. Mr. Post replied that he had offered to help the neighbors obtain NCDOT maintenance. He had also assumed that the Town would annex the area, he said, noting that it would then become a Town-maintained road. Mayor pro tem Evan verified that the road had been built to Town standards.

Council Member Verkerk agreed with the CDC's stated concerns about the affordable housing units being isolated from the rest of the community. She suggested trying to incorporate affordable housing into the development, as the Larkspur developer had done. Mr. Post agreed to take the suggestion seriously. He pointed out, however, that the style and color of the affordable houses would fit well with the homes on Old Lystra Road.

Council Member Ward noted that trails were sometimes referred to as "private" in the written materials. He asked for assurances that they would be accessible to the public, and suggested that homeowners be made aware of that from the start. Council Member Ward expressed agreement with Council Member Verkerk's concerns about integrating affordable housing into the community. Also, he noted that fractions should be rounded up and proposed having four affordable units rather than three. Council Member Ward also asked for current information on the Zapata Lane residents' views, especially with regard to treatment of the road and sidewalks. Mr. Post replied that some neighbors had expressed concerns and the applicant had held conversations and scheduled meetings with them.

Mayor Foy congratulated the developer, Scott Kovens, for his excellent work integrating affordable units into the houses on Milton Road. Noting that the affordable units appear to be segregated in this project, he pointed out that this was not what the Council wanted. Mr. Kovens replied that he was attempting to build a continuum of affordable housing stocks so that, at some point, it would not be a penalty but something that he wanted to accomplish. One of the ingredients for that, he said, was to make it affordable to the builder. Mr. Kovens explained that locating the affordable units on Old Lystra Road would allow common use of materials, drainage and driveways. Different land presents different issues, he said, and it seemed like an organic solution to put the affordable houses on Old Lystra Road rather than with the larger ones where even the driveways would dwarf them.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Post for a response to the stormwater question that the CDC had raised. Mr. Post indicated three sites in the common area.

Council Member Ward suggested trying to put the houses closer to the street rather than on the steeper part of the property.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-2 FORWARDING COUNCIL COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE CHANCELLOR’S VIEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (2003-10-20/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 Old Lystra Road and Zapata Lane, called Chancellor’s View; 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 October 20, 2003, and reflected in minutes of that meeting.

This the 20^th day of October, 2003.

Items 5 & 6 - Concept Plan Review:

Chapel Hill North Master Land Use Plan

and Chapel Hill North

Mr. Horton explained that the staff would make a single presentation for Items 5 and 6.

Senior Development Coordinator J. B. Culpepper noted that the first concept plan involved the Master Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill North, the 40-acre site at the corner of Airport and Weaver Dairy Roads. The second concept plan involved a 12.47-acre residential component on the east side, she said. Ms. Culpepper added that the CDC had reviewed both plans in June 2003.

Jack Smyre, of The Design Response Inc., discussed a 12.74-acre parcel behind Chapel Hill North. He reviewed the history of the project, beginning with the 1970s when this area was the Town's rural edge and Interstate 40 did not yet exist. In response to construction of I-40, Chapel Hill had created a mixed use zoning district in which a site must be at least 20 acres in size with at least 60% of it being "office-type" uses and up to 40% being retail and/or residential, he said. Mr. Smyre noted that retail and residential were not required but may be up to 40%. So a retail-driven project has no incentive to have a residential component, he said.

Mr. Smyre explained that approximately 109,000 square feet of retail and 79,000 square feet of office space had been built as part of Chapel Hill North, Phase 1. Thus, Chapel Hill North was about 58% retail, 42% office, and 0% residential, he said. Mr. Smyre noted that this does not fully achieve the intended purpose of the Town's mixed use zoning district, or the Town's Comprehensive Plan. It does not reduce traffic by providing nearby housing, he said, and it does not provide an arrangement of uses that encourage walking, transit and bicycling as alternatives to automobile travel. Mr. Smyre concluded that adding a residential component would bring the three intended uses into harmony and improve the mixed-use development.

Mr. Smyre pointed out that the Timberlyne Shopping Center, Movies at Timberlyne, UNC Office Building at Timberlyne, and Campus at Vilcom were all within a 1/4-mile radius of the proposed residential development. He displayed slides of the area and described what the residential component would look like, given the topography there. Mr. Smyre reviewed issues of tree coverage, parking, trails, water features, clubhouse, possible access points from Perkins Drive and Old University Station Road, and a Duke Power easement at the southern portion of the site. He characterized the plan as an urban approach, with parking in garages or decks, impervious surface at 44%, and a density of 14.9 units an acre. This was a high-density residential approach, said Mr. Smyre, stating that such an approach was desirable in this setting. Buildings would be constructed in a way that would help shield interior courtyards from I-40 noise, he said.

Mr. Smyre pointed out that the Council would have to vary the approved Master Plan and relieve Chapel Hill North from the requirement that 60% of uses must be office-type. Specifically, 240,00 square feet would be dedicated to residential uses with the remainder being split between office and retail on a 60/40 basis, he said. If Council members were not comfortable with that, said Mr. Smyre, there was no sense worrying about the details of the concept plan. He asked if the Council would accept most of the significant trees being removed and two or three ephemeral channels being disturbed on the site.

Jim Baker, representing Harris Teeter Properties and DMI, owner of the retail shopping center, stated that both supported Town approval of the proposed development as long as Harris Teeter Properties' remaining land is not restricted to office use.

Council Member Harrison asked if the proposed connection to Old University Station Road was for pedestrians or if it would become a drive lane. Mr. Smyre replied that the CDC had recommended exploring a vehicular connection there. If they did so, then they would rethink the southern area to make sure there was a more street-like connection, he said. Council Member Harrison asked if the Council or Manager would make determinations regarding the natural ephemeral stream channel. Mr. Horton said that he would need to examine the LUMO language before answering that question. Council Member Harrison wondered if the Council would address it through a stipulation in the SUP or in a Zoning Compliance Permit. Mr. Horton replied that this would depend on the particulars of the application.

Council Member Strom spoke in support of the concept plan, and praised the idea of adding a residential component to the "almost mixed use" development.

Mayor pro tem Evans also expressed delight with the proposal. She remembered the Council's disappointment when no residential component had been built under the SUP, she said. Mayor pro tem Evans asked if the development would be similar to Meadowmont with regard to energy guidelines. Mr. Smyre replied that it would look different from Meadowmont, since there would be four stories and it would not be just an apartment community. He could not comment on energy standards at this concept stage, he said.

Mayor pro tem Evans asked what would buffer the units from I-40 noise. Mr. Smyre replied that wall construction and the number and placement of windows would help. Noise is usually not a problem inside buildings, he said, but only when people go out and walk around. Mr. Smyre explained the plan to shield outside areas from noise with buildings and to include white noise water features inside courtyards.

Mayor pro tem Evans asked if it would be possible to have one beautiful lake rather than several smaller ponds. Mr. Smyre replied that he would provide more information on that at the SUP phase. Mayor pro tem Evans stressed that a lake would be preferable. Mr. Smyre agreed, adding that creating a lake there might be possible because there is much cooperation among the parties. Mayor pro tem Evans inquired about access to the mixed-use property east of the site. Mr. Smyre said that pedestrian and bicycle traffic might go through there.

Council Member Ward expressed support for the project, adding that the lack of a residential component had always troubled him. He recommended having bike and pedestrian links to the north, south, and further to the east to the extent that it makes sense. Council Member Ward agreed with the idea of turning the Harris Teeter stormwater pond into something more aesthetically pleasing. He noted that shifting the proposed entranceway would help preserve one island of significant trees. Council Member Ward verified that the Town was anticipating a trail system running parallel to I-40 and ascertained that there would be links to that to the east and west.

Council Member Bateman described the current Harris Teeter retention pond as "abhorrent," and opposed the idea of ever expanding it as it is.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-3 AND R-4. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE CHAPEL HILL NORTH MASTER LAND USE PLAN (2003-10-20/R-3)

WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Chapel Hill North Master Land Use Plan; 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 20^th day of October, 2003.

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR CHAPEL HILL NORTH RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT (2003-10-20/R-4)

WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, proposing a residential component for the Chapel Hill North development; 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 20^th day of October, 2003.

The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.